I read a book about a runaway jury who refused to convict or some such thing based on the jury's feeling/belief that a law (DMCA in this case) did not apply or was unjust... Naah never happen in this country.
In the US property rights (DMCA=IP Rights) are sacrosanct and where normal individuals don't own even the right to read/view purchased or licensed 'content' in the living room, bathroom, bedroom, workplace with the device of their choice.
At some point I would hope folks (including corporations) will get fed up with being told what is good for them, how much it will cost and just paying the bill.... again and again...
But again I suppose that idea is more than a little utopian. We've been following MS (and by tactics RIAA, MPAA, and others) around like sheeple for 20+ years now. MS Office with DRM sounds more than a little like the judas goat bell ringing. Dinner bell for the rich kid in Redmond I suppose. All to feed the mavens of tech stocks with no long term intrinsic value. MS has yet to deliver ANYTHING innovative or of lasting value. Sheeple will continue to buy this trash though.;-(
I'm voting with my feet... straight to the likes of staroffice, openoffice, thinkfree, etc. If my company goes, they will get my communique's in simple text, or RTF.
Well not really a big difference, considering your point does not apply...
traffic is not civil law... IP is.... Also in the case of IP, not enforcing (especially over time) is... in the eyes of the law dminishing the value of the IP... kind of hard to make that kind of case about the safety of jaywalking...;-)
I agree that the supremes over the period of a generally liberal court (since 1939 and in fact since near the turn of the century) have made specific reference (which has been used quite often) to their "interpretation" that the meaning does not extend to individuals.
I maintain that the Constitutional intent is in violent conflict with the courts position since 1886 (Presser), and the current administration and justice deparment have taken a position in line with this view. Despite their meddling in the Emerson case, they do intend to challenge the precedent of a historically constructionist court.
Try this link: http://www.armed-citizens.com/news/armdcitz _news.p hp?doit=yes&newsid=843 You will find many more like it on less radical sites, but this makes the case.
Some questions I did not pose in my original post relating to the orginal/. article... What is the point of any weapon which can be disabled by someone else? What is the point of smart weapons? Are they supposed to be more accurate, more deadly, less obnixious to someone who doesn't like weapons, less dangerous?!?!?!? Weapons==less dangerous.... there's an oxymoron. Accepting the fact that one child killed by an improperly stored/used firearm is too many... how many lives will this actually save? If your feeling is one is enough to make it worthwhile let's take that logic to the next level. The whole premise of a weapon which can be disabled by some brew of technology makes the mind reel. I guess we need IC's to make sure our hammers don't smash our fingers (or acording to this NJ law...someone elses). We need felony laws to protect us from drunk drivers (yeah like they work?!) or maybe an IC inside the bottle. I suppose we need laws to protect us from criminals who use guns... how bout a chip in the cirminals brain?! We surely need fraud laws to protect us from CEO's who cheat... how bout a chip for the CEO? I could go on obviously. The point is that anyone would really believe a law like this is worth the $Millions spent on even discussing it let alone executing the law (just training the NJ cops will cost $Millions, let alone prosecuting something idiotic like this).
I'm not sure from your post that you disagree with me, or were just trying to flamebait, but my whole point was not to argue current precedent, or landmark caselaw... it was to engage a discussion about slippery slopes, and about where laws like this lead.
Flamebaits and Trolls might argue with a historical precedent like the WWII collection of weapons by the Nazis first from jews and other "questionables", and then from the rest of society. Same thing with Communist and Socialist regimes. That somehow this truth is just an excuse, that somehow Peace, Love and Pot will solve the worlds problems. Yeah, and Pot will make psychotics like Saddam Hussein with 600 thousand TONS of anthrax GO AWAY (you bad nightmare). Not to mention VX, smallpox, tularia, Botulism,... Hey of course all the psychotics overseas are no excuse for individuals to have weapons huh??? Of course (toungue in cheek) our military will handle those threats, and they of course are ALLOWED to handle weapons. BULLCRAP... most of us in the military are not allowed to even properly train on our weapons unless we are going to a hot zone, and then only right before we leave. And Heaven forbid a military person be armed in the presence of a duly constituted law enforcement official inside the borders of the US. Law Enforcement has their act too much together to EVER need help. Our US police agencies are far too sophisticated, and our forensics far too advanced to ever allow any individual assholes to run around with.... can you say anthrax... Or let's throw up another scenario that our wonderful agencies deal with oh so well... a quite effective nutcase(s) with an older pre-smart gun.... and they way they catch them... chance?! And they are so advanced, and so on the ball that all the laws, and new legislation have prevented me from carrying fingernail clippers into the airport.. While time and time and again (once a month or so) another MAJOR US airport has incidences of explosives, weapons (firearms & bladed), ammunition slip through using the same tricks from 5+ years ago. While at the same time trains loaded with Chlorine, PCB's, Sulphuric Acid, HCL, and enough High Explosives to take out a medium sized city go completely uninspected right through most major US cities. Yeah real effective law enforcement and prevention. Nope I don't have any responsibilities on my own. Big Daddy/Uncle Sam is going to "take care" of me. I don't need to know how to protect myself. I just need Peace, Love and some Pot to make me happy. (Go back to the 60's any flame bait who believes this crap)
I hope no one is really naieve enough to believe that this kind of stuff has ANY positive effect. It just increases your false sense of security ANOTHER notch, until some psycho finds another hole in the screen door. And it contributes to the effect that somehow you don't ever have to take responsibility for your actions.
They graduate HS so that they can get a job at a gas station outside NJ... At least the pollution kills them more slowly than the toxic waste they drink as water... Sheesh... even an antisocial person knows NJ is the place where the entire Eastern seaboard dumps its waste....
I guess the constitution of the US means nothing to NJ... some of you might remember the part that says... the right to keep and bear arms... shall not be abridged...
I suppose some HCI proponent might say militia meant the National Guards of the States... but it would be pretty hard to prove that to the framers (who had/expressed pretty compelling ideas about what a militia meant in the Federalist Papers) especially since the National Guards did not exist, and Militias of the States were ragtag farmers, and regular citizens like most of us, and not so far different from the Militias which scare many folks to death. Nope... in the Federalist Papers they pretty clearly meant every able bodied citizen, without respect to the vagaries of HOW "restraining orders" (read up on the Edmonds[sp?] case)or even felonies might affect those rights. The framers may not have concluded that felons may not get "straightened out" by "paying their debt to society", but they sure did conclude that firearms were the guarantors of the peace.
What's new?? The NAZI's and Communists of the world have been trying to prevent private ownership of firearms for almost 100 years now. Kind of like the British tried to do during the period leading up to the Revolutionary war. This policy helped each of them (in their respective times) quell revolutionaries who didn't believe in the same kind of revolution.... Anyone have any doubts... read up on the NAZI gun control laws, policy and rhetoric leading up to WWII... it sounds and appears identical to HCI, CDC, and other radical propaganda, proposed policies, and even legislation like NJ's promoting gun control.
All of this sounds like excellent fodder for a Supreme Court which has become a pawn of whatever current Administration sits in office (even the Bush administration... yes a supposed pawn of the NRA.. asked the Supreme Court [and the Supremes obliged] not to hear the Edmonds case on the 2nd ammendment). But maybe... just maybe... the increasingly Constitutionalist (and hence generally conservative) justices will figure out that they need to plant their feet collectively in both the states, and the FEDS (read: BATF) faces.
I knew the guy when he was a civil servant... He was never satisfied with the money, prestige, or clout he had at the NLM (National Library of Medicine)... He has taken much of the data he used tax dollars to produce, and somehow found a way to profit from it massively... Good for him, and bad on us for tolerating this huge abuse of something which should be patently impossible to patent or own.... especially something as private, and unique as genetic material.... DNA=Intellectual property=NOT!
No degree is required for a decent living, but to broaden your horizon, provide resiliency to economic downturns and stuff, and finally to ensure a long term path which will get you to a retirement check which you can actually live on.... get a degree.
Hey I don't blame you for blowing off this advice, what high school guy/girl wouldn't... I'm not talking about tomorrow or next week... I personally waited 16 years to get my BS after HS. What I have to show for it is being behind most of my peers who chose the harder path.... even those who are substantially less talented. Sure I left the numb nuts, wasteoids, & 90% jocks and even some teachers behind, but I'm still chasing the otherwise dim wits who graduated from college the same year I should've, and kind of wondering why 4 years was so important.
Go to college, get a job in the computer lab ASAP. Learn all you can from the TA's and graduate students in the lab. Dedicate yourself to learning everything there is to know in your domain. Learn they why's of DNS, WINS, DHCP, FTP, HTTPD, etc. but on several o/s instead of just Microsloth and Solaris or VMS (most colleges). Cut some device driver code, or some system level stuff (a couple semesters worth) so you can really understand how it all fits. Get a degree in basket weaving or whatever but get a BS then go kick some tail.
I'd love for you to impress upon our woefully ignorant, arrogant, and moneygrubbing legislators with the simple fact that folks have been doing what ever they durn well please with copyrighted, and even patented information and devices for some number of years.
That being said, I believe Hollings and all his PAL's need to know is that if I want to read a book on the toilet, throw it in the toilet, cram it where the sun does not shine, read it on moonshine, read it with a Linux box, read it with a fox, put it in my socks, etc... I have a Fair Use right to do so. I paid for it, and as long as I do not use it to make money or plagiarize someone elses IP, IT IS MINE!
Before they legislate the rights, and technology for protecting the copyright holder, they need to state, and protect the rights or the purchaser. There are plenty of current laws to protect the holder, and none to protect the purchaser.
One final point in this regard. As the dishonorable creep (Hollings) thinks about this, remind him of the rights he and his collegues tried to legislate... UCITA which gives all rights, protections and privileges to the MNC's while allocating ZERO rights to the consumer.
I'm sorry that I did not read 300+ replies, but I thought I'd make a suggestion. Having worked in this field for awhile...
CSC = Computer Sciences Corporation SAIC = Science Applications Internationsl Corp. BBN = Bolt Baranek and Newman Booz Allen Hamilton MITRE = FFRDC
I chose these because I work in a largely federal govt. marketplace and most specificslly within the DoD. To keep this on the ethical level I work for CSC, but all of these during my career have been considered leadership players in the Security Test and Evaluation (ST&E) space.... which most closely describes what you seem to be wanting.
There are certainly others, and they may be better or worse (commercial and others), but these are folks generally trusted with National Defense type ST&E work.
One final caution, you are not talking about an inexpensive effort here, nor one which will be lightly undertaken. Much of what these companies do is possible using publically available tools and technology. Finally, in most cases anyone who does these evaluations is looking for further work in correcting deficiencies, selling infrastructure, building so called security architectures for systems, etc... Just know what you are getting into.
You cite a couple of problems which I don't think anyone has truly grappled with at this point. But... in general it seems that Open Source is a MUCH better model for the DoD than any which has come before. Finally the DoD (or for that matter any other govt. entity) has never consistently dealt with code (IP law and how the code must be delivered as source, etc...) and maybe Open Source is finally a way for it to crawl out of the dark ages. The new stuff you have brought up...
How to deal with code that becomes classified because of embedded data, or algorithms
To what degree can an 'integrator' maintain the rights they have in 'derivative' works they truly did make on their own dime but which might make use of the Open Source 'base'. Or would the Open Source Model change the dynamics completely.
... really screw up the current business model and I don't know that the clowns in govt. or in your 'industry' know how to deal with it AT ALL.
I truly believe that Open Source is the right model for the government to get the best 'bang for the buck'. I also believe it (Open Source) would staunch the bleeding hemorhage caused by 'integrators' which resell the same solutions over and over again and then claim that their rights to the code are 'proprietary' and hold the govt's fee to the fire indefinitely. I think the whole Open Source phenomenon is too new for them to really come to grips with. I think if you can make even a portion of your project (Seawolf or whatever) Open Source it would be Great!!! It would be even more interesting to see how the Lockheeds, GD's, Northrup/Grummans, etc... figure out how to make Open Source a part of their business model and their customer relationship mgt process. I think with some thought it might represent a serious competitive edge for the company(s) who figure it out first and best.
Good Luck!
Criminals == Violators of my rights to pers. prop.
on
Chained Melodies
·
· Score: 1
The clowns who would violate to control EXCLUSIVELY my access and rights to property I have PAID for are the criminals here.
The stupid bastards in congress, and in RIAA and at the MPAA have concluded that somehow I don't have any rights to something that I have bought and paid for beyond the rights they want me to have at some instant in time and space. This intellectual issue has never been fought that I know of. If I buy a book (same as a CD, DVD, or IMHO software) I maintain that I have more or less exclusive rights to do whatever I want with it including backups, resell (transfer the exclusive license), play with it, or putz with it in whatever way I want AS LONG AS:
1) I dont make money on it in any way except to resell those very same exclusive rights completely and totally and all copies or facsimiles thereof.
2) I never copy the medium for anyone elses use.
3) I never try to reverse engineer the content for the purposes of violating the copyright/patent although from my perspective the linux crowd is absolutely on the money as far as reverse engineering the pseudo encryption put out by the MPAA so that they can play/use their personal property in concert with the Fair Use Doctrine.
4) I never violate other Copyright and/or Patent Laws by plagiarizing or deriving some indirect benefit which might at some point result in monetary gain without proper permission of the holder.
5) If I was STUPID enough to buy software AND sign or somehow agree to the byzantine licensing schemes of most commercial vendors, to NOT violate the terms and conditions of the document I knowingly signed or agreed to. I intend that this would imply that if I gave up any rights I had to possess or use the software then I am stuck with those terms and conditions... OR NOT. Correspondingly if I chose to use software under the GPL, I would act lawfully in the same proportion that I advocate under any commercial license I am (as I indicate) STUPID enough to sign. If I do not sign or agree to it, I am not bound by it.
Why do folks like you assume that everyone who is an advocate of the Fair Use Doctrine, or Open Software, or is an opponent of UCITA is somehow a crook with nefarious purposes. I am a conservative guy who owns a software and hardware business, works for another company in the computer industry, and who believes that just because someone can make money off the ideas and backs of others, does not necessarily make it right. If two people agree to something which is more of benefit to one than the other, and both are nominally aware of the facts, they deserve each other. Some baseline protection should be and is in place to protect intellectual property and to preserve the ability to be compensated for it, however the current trend is to somehow transform the law into some twisted excuse to make me pay each time I use the same medium, kind of like asking me to pay each time I read the same magazine articles in the toilet.... gimme a break!!! There is however thanks to paranoid folks like you no protection in law currently for MY RIGHTS to my own personal property, probably because it is easier to form a PAC or lobbying organization to make sure the lawyers, and congressmen get their cut, than it is to ensure my rights are not infringed. I hope you'd agree that once I pay for something I do have some rights to it.... yes??? if not visit North Korea with a one way ticket.
Kind of strange what lengths this afadavit went to in describing how entering PGP passphrases are somehow mutually exclusive with sending email according to the "technical description". In my use of PGP, GPG, Blowfish, twofish, and several others, the ones which are best are those which are integrated with email functionality. It's funny what lengths they go to obfuscate the simple fact that people primarily encrypt stuff to send out as email.
My point: It is pretty clear that in the design and implementation of the KSL, they are trying very meticulously to avoid laws which protect public forms of communication (email). In honesty based on my read, the FBI contrived (or conspired) this to avoid the technicality that you correctly cited. They realized that because their evidence collection (the KSL) would not meet apellate muster that they had to find someway to cover themselves. If I was contracted to build something like this guy describes, especially if it were specified in the protracted manner that they described it, I would throw my hands up in disgust.
I think this smells pretty rotten. Kind of like when they had the major fire/explosion in the Herbert Hoover building due to improperly storing high explosives by the pound, artillery fuses, etc... and then covered it up... Cowboys all over again.
Probably true that we have the means, but are the means within the FBI's purview, and assuming that they are in some circumstances, would using these methods of breaking the encryption violate other laws or legal precedents for evidence.
mdw;-)
Ya know, it is kind of significant how one prooves guilt or innocence. In addition it seems to be a well established fact that the FBI feels that they are largely above the law.
Biggest Dangers??? now let's see.... if I can draw some inferences about these wild assumptions....if I assume that 1 in 8 in the population is an active hunter... 1 in 20 of those is an jerk who could care less about how he leaves the environment that he will probably hunt in again... now lets exclude those who actually have some common sense that the kind of stories which Animal Planet broadcasted tend to leave forensic evidence of crimes committed (like SHOOTING AT THE NATIONAL BIRD, IN SPITE OF IT'S ENDAGERED STATUS, AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A $10000 FINE and HARD JAIL TIME... lead shot found in a Bird DOES NOT indicate he is eating lead directly... it indicates he was shot at, or ate something else which was shot and did not die - [much less likely given a eagles largely/desireably fish diet])
So.... let's assume we are talking about 1 species (an eagle), in one natural preserve [the primary domain of endangered species], which does have limited (limited because you have to win a lottery, or buy an expensive tag to hunt) hunting in the off season, and finally let's assume that we can determine the size of this mythical "tract of land" so we can prove your claim of "biggest danger".... even if I calculate the number of shots, the number of hunters per acre, your position is ludicrous.
Bottom line.... hunting (I am not a hunter, I do not believe in killing animals for food/fun unless I am starving) and shooting do not present an appreciable danger to endangered species in almost any setting you name. I have worked on the few US ranges left to the US military for training/testing on a number of occasions, yes they have endangered species on them, but given that BLM who has oversight on the land can and does regularly stop exercises costing millions of dollars after sighting a endangered turtle in the same several million acre range as the largely airborne exercise for fear that the noise would interfere with their breeding behavior.... gimme a break.... yes there are stupid people.... try and stop that with laws... but I don't think that your premise will go very far....
Finally, having associated with the military for 23 years now I can say that although there is sometimes no substitute for something deadly (as an example depleted uranium for tank busting) if there is a substitute within the bounds of reason we would rather use it. We don't like poisoning our folks either, and we are very well aware of having to work in the environments which we clear with those weapons.
Ransom is still a creature of the failed history of the Novell valley. (Wordperfects' failure to focus, and Novell's failure to capitalize) He was a product manager for Unixware, the Windows NT killer that Novell sold off when they could not figure out how to execute. Ray Noorda funded Caldera's (although originally Ransom was not the CEO) efforts as an extension to what had been under the Unixware umbrella and found a way to give him the license for the NovellDOS stuff. He has used the OpenDOS/Novell DOS semi-successfully to distract the MS legal machine.
Others have it right... he is business ($$) focused as opposed to being an OSS (or any other sort of) visionary. His vision is focused on how to make short term money from Linux, and it always has been. Folks like Ransom will probably DESTROY what OSS/GPL and other aspects of the movement are trying to accomplish. Their whole point is to create a cash cow which 'just happens' to hurt MS. He is not interested in forwarding the movement or even using the movement to forward capitalistic opportunity elsewhere in the industry. To folks like him the movement is a totally opportunistic tool for short term profit.
It's not really a railgun, but for a neophyte the principle is sufficiently similar. Hopefully not too many people will rail on folks who tend to confuse the two.
Anon. Cow. : At it again are we? Get a clue, and try to make some useful comment, esp. if you are going to spend 8+ hours in here/day (probably can't get a real job.... so let's insult every other person on the planet).... So he's ultranationalist/facist to think of the applications of a system in the context of the defense of the nation which gives assholes like you the freedom to go around and slam every thoughtful person in the place??? Whats that make you? a slimebag draft dodger?, a creeping socialist? a very large oedipal complex waiting to happen? or just an asshole?
On the original post:
Interestingly satellites are a great application of the technology as a weapon, but you would have to lead the target... quite a bit;-)
Terrorists best use of satellites are to buy through shell corps. imagery from the new 1M class of commercial birds. So... if you shoot the terrorists bird, you also shot your own commercial bird, and despite Anon. Cow.s posts it is MNC's who have enough money and clout (against the advice of the DoD, but with the support of congress) to launch 1M recon sats (not the DoD) which are the real threat to us. Yeah the 1M stuff is of vast commercial utility, but the potential for misuse is also HUGE!!! even moreso than it is for the black agencies who control the birds now.
Another use as you site is to launch small/micro satellites. Take a look at the AFRL site for MightySats and you will get the idea on the unclassified state of the practice for birds. You can make some extrapolations on the size of rail gun you might need to launch something large enough. Begins to be impractical for several reasons, but that is for another post. Suffice it to say you could launch a very small object into orbit, but at what size vs. mission is the satellite useful.
mdw;-)
Anon. Cow. - You are the rude asshole.
Ablative technology is one of the key historical reasons for our comparative success as a space power, at least he can discuss something highly technical at an intellectual level, without resorting to the kind of histrionics, and bullcrap pseudo intellectual nonsense you tend to put in these pages just praying to get 1 insightful per week. Cut the personal crap or get out yourself. And BTW if you can't get insightful, try a little harder for funny the... pitiful thought and understanding you put into posts is pretty ugly.
I used to be a DEC Ultrix (A BSD derivative) kind of person, and my thought by comparison to Linux is: A rather arcane system as far as sysmgt & configuration were concerned. I was sure glad when DEC shipped OSF/1 (now Tru64 I think), it was a much cleaner environment. Heck if I know if the current BSD is the same.
I would wonder if the number of applications are available (in nice easy RPM format) for BSD.
I would wonder how many commercial apps will run w/o a hitch (ala Oracle, Sybase, Star Office, Netscape servers).
But then I suppose the argument would be that glibc and binary compatibility is the great equalizer???
mdw;-)
I happen to agree with the coward, but I see your point. It seems youre focused totally on the bullcrap econonmic argument which a corporate lawyer might. The real deal here is the war that has started between Hughes (or whomever) and the brilliant (if somewhat anarchic) folks will ensure that "technology" which makes it possible to ensure Hughes private communications (assuming you consider sattellite stuff private) with it's "paying" customers will never be a secret. This is fundamentally the same issue that the law enforcement and national defense community have/had with PGPs' Phil Zimmerman, and with all other really strong encryption to whit: whether someone or an institution can have a monopoly on private communications... independent of non governmental creative minds to create new methods, and expose BOGUS protection schemes.
Now on the economic merit of the Hughes/DirectTV folks to get ROI on their investment; yeah they probably do have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to get ROI (and they do by the boatload of $$$...DSS hacking is an extremely tiny community). However, many (including myself) have long had the feeling that once the signal enters my home, it's mine, and doing things like telling me I can't record it or watch multiple channels in multiple rooms smacks of the kind of arrogance of the Motion Picture Industry against DeCSS or the RIAA against Napster... They (and by way of your tone) and you just don't get it.
IMHO there is no easy way to reconcile this, but there is no way folks who are willing to be on the margins of the law will EVER tolerate being told that they must pay in perpetuity for access (by your logic not even ownership) to information which is distributed openly. They just will not stand for it. Warez sites, Cracks, DSS hacks, DeCSS, and to a much less compelling degree DoS hacks and other damaging and disruptive stuff (and drastically more economically so than DSS hacks) are just profound evidence that no small population of people really have some problems with your "economic justification of law and property rights" theory. Yeah property rights were originally the basis for most of the laws in this country, but who in the hell owns space (try telling any country involved with space that they own a piece of it), let alone the electromagnetic spectrum, and that is the really compelling aspect to their argument.
I happen to think that if some of these folks choose to spend $1000 or more (not counting the costs of the original DSS boxes) for all the stuff they need to hack this stuff in the repetitive fashion as Hughes keeps ECMing them, let them do it in peace. At the same time they are doing it, they are also risking winding up in court defending themselves against a pretty stacked deck (because as weak as I think your argument is, I think the courts agree with you overall) but they know this too. But don't expect any of this to stop folks, it will not even slow them down. This trait of experimenting at the margins, is what got us where we are, and will get us where we are going.
Slashdot Mirror
I read a book about a runaway jury who refused to convict or some such thing based on the jury's feeling/belief that a law (DMCA in this case) did not apply or was unjust... Naah never happen in this country.
;-(
;-)
In the US property rights (DMCA=IP Rights) are sacrosanct and where normal individuals don't own even the right to read/view purchased or licensed 'content' in the living room, bathroom, bedroom, workplace with the device of their choice.
At some point I would hope folks (including corporations) will get fed up with being told what is good for them, how much it will cost and just paying the bill.... again and again...
But again I suppose that idea is more than a little utopian. We've been following MS (and by tactics RIAA, MPAA, and others) around like sheeple for 20+ years now. MS Office with DRM sounds more than a little like the judas goat bell ringing. Dinner bell for the rich kid in Redmond I suppose. All to feed the mavens of tech stocks with no long term intrinsic value. MS has yet to deliver ANYTHING innovative or of lasting value. Sheeple will continue to buy this trash though.
I'm voting with my feet... straight to the likes of staroffice, openoffice, thinkfree, etc. If my company goes, they will get my communique's in simple text, or RTF.
mdw
Well not really a big difference, considering your point does not apply...
;-)
traffic is not civil law... IP is.... Also in the case of IP, not enforcing (especially over time) is... in the eyes of the law dminishing the value of the IP... kind of hard to make that kind of case about the safety of jaywalking...
I agree that the supremes over the period of a generally liberal court (since 1939 and in fact since near the turn of the century) have made specific reference (which has been used quite often) to their "interpretation" that the meaning does not extend to individuals.
I maintain that the Constitutional intent is in violent conflict with the courts position since 1886 (Presser), and the current administration and justice deparment have taken a position in line with this view. Despite their meddling in the Emerson case, they do intend to challenge the precedent of a historically constructionist court.
Try this link:z _news.p hp?doit=yes&newsid=843
http://www.armed-citizens.com/news/armdcit
You will find many more like it on less radical sites, but this makes the case.
Some questions I did not pose in my original post relating to the orginal /. article... What is the point of any weapon which can be disabled by someone else? What is the point of smart weapons? Are they supposed to be more accurate, more deadly, less obnixious to someone who doesn't like weapons, less dangerous?!?!?!? Weapons==less dangerous.... there's an oxymoron. Accepting the fact that one child killed by an improperly stored/used firearm is too many... how many lives will this actually save? If your feeling is one is enough to make it worthwhile let's take that logic to the next level. The whole premise of a weapon which can be disabled by some brew of technology makes the mind reel. I guess we need IC's to make sure our hammers don't smash our fingers (or acording to this NJ law ...someone elses). We need felony laws to protect us from drunk drivers (yeah like they work?!) or maybe an IC inside the bottle. I suppose we need laws to protect us from criminals who use guns... how bout a chip in the cirminals brain?! We surely need fraud laws to protect us from CEO's who cheat... how bout a chip for the CEO? I could go on obviously. The point is that anyone would really believe a law like this is worth the $Millions spent on even discussing it let alone executing the law (just training the NJ cops will cost $Millions, let alone prosecuting something idiotic like this).
I'm not sure from your post that you disagree with me, or were just trying to flamebait, but my whole point was not to argue current precedent, or landmark caselaw... it was to engage a discussion about slippery slopes, and about where laws like this lead.
Flamebaits and Trolls might argue with a historical precedent like the WWII collection of weapons by the Nazis first from jews and other "questionables", and then from the rest of society. Same thing with Communist and Socialist regimes. That somehow this truth is just an excuse, that somehow Peace, Love and Pot will solve the worlds problems. Yeah, and Pot will make psychotics like Saddam Hussein with 600 thousand TONS of anthrax GO AWAY (you bad nightmare). Not to mention VX, smallpox, tularia, Botulism, ... Hey of course all the psychotics overseas are no excuse for individuals to have weapons huh??? Of course (toungue in cheek) our military will handle those threats, and they of course are ALLOWED to handle weapons. BULLCRAP... most of us in the military are not allowed to even properly train on our weapons unless we are going to a hot zone, and then only right before we leave. And Heaven forbid a military person be armed in the presence of a duly constituted law enforcement official inside the borders of the US. Law Enforcement has their act too much together to EVER need help. Our US police agencies are far too sophisticated, and our forensics far too advanced to ever allow any individual assholes to run around with.... can you say anthrax... Or let's throw up another scenario that our wonderful agencies deal with oh so well ... a quite effective nutcase(s) with an older pre-smart gun.... and they way they catch them... chance?! And they are so advanced, and so on the ball that all the laws, and new legislation have prevented me from carrying fingernail clippers into the airport.. While time and time and again (once a month or so) another MAJOR US airport has incidences of explosives, weapons (firearms & bladed), ammunition slip through using the same tricks from 5+ years ago. While at the same time trains loaded with Chlorine, PCB's, Sulphuric Acid, HCL, and enough High Explosives to take out a medium sized city go completely uninspected right through most major US cities. Yeah real effective law enforcement and prevention. Nope I don't have any responsibilities on my own. Big Daddy/Uncle Sam is going to "take care" of me. I don't need to know how to protect myself. I just need Peace, Love and some Pot to make me happy. (Go back to the 60's any flame bait who believes this crap)
I hope no one is really naieve enough to believe that this kind of stuff has ANY positive effect. It just increases your false sense of security ANOTHER notch, until some psycho finds another hole in the screen door. And it contributes to the effect that somehow you don't ever have to take responsibility for your actions.
They graduate HS so that they can get a job at a gas station outside NJ... At least the pollution kills them more slowly than the toxic waste they drink as water ... Sheesh... even an antisocial person knows NJ is the place where the entire Eastern seaboard dumps its waste....
I guess the constitution of the US means nothing to NJ... some of you might remember the part that says ... the right to keep and bear arms ... shall not be abridged...
I suppose some HCI proponent might say militia meant the National Guards of the States... but it would be pretty hard to prove that to the framers (who had/expressed pretty compelling ideas about what a militia meant in the Federalist Papers) especially since the National Guards did not exist, and Militias of the States were ragtag farmers, and regular citizens like most of us, and not so far different from the Militias which scare many folks to death. Nope... in the Federalist Papers they pretty clearly meant every able bodied citizen, without respect to the vagaries of HOW "restraining orders" (read up on the Edmonds[sp?] case)or even felonies might affect those rights. The framers may not have concluded that felons may not get "straightened out" by "paying their debt to society", but they sure did conclude that firearms were the guarantors of the peace.
What's new?? The NAZI's and Communists of the world have been trying to prevent private ownership of firearms for almost 100 years now. Kind of like the British tried to do during the period leading up to the Revolutionary war. This policy helped each of them (in their respective times) quell revolutionaries who didn't believe in the same kind of revolution.... Anyone have any doubts ... read up on the NAZI gun control laws, policy and rhetoric leading up to WWII... it sounds and appears identical to HCI, CDC, and other radical propaganda, proposed policies, and even legislation like NJ's promoting gun control.
All of this sounds like excellent fodder for a Supreme Court which has become a pawn of whatever current Administration sits in office (even the Bush administration ... yes a supposed pawn of the NRA.. asked the Supreme Court [and the Supremes obliged] not to hear the Edmonds case on the 2nd ammendment). But maybe... just maybe... the increasingly Constitutionalist (and hence generally conservative) justices will figure out that they need to plant their feet collectively in both the states, and the FEDS (read: BATF) faces.
Here's wishing ;-|
I knew the guy when he was a civil servant... He was never satisfied with the money, prestige, or clout he had at the NLM (National Library of Medicine)... He has taken much of the data he used tax dollars to produce, and somehow found a way to profit from it massively... Good for him, and bad on us for tolerating this huge abuse of something which should be patently impossible to patent or own.... especially something as private, and unique as genetic material.... DNA=Intellectual property=NOT!
No degree is required for a decent living, but to broaden your horizon, provide resiliency to economic downturns and stuff, and finally to ensure a long term path which will get you to a retirement check which you can actually live on.... get a degree.
Hey I don't blame you for blowing off this advice, what high school guy/girl wouldn't... I'm not talking about tomorrow or next week... I personally waited 16 years to get my BS after HS. What I have to show for it is being behind most of my peers who chose the harder path.... even those who are substantially less talented. Sure I left the numb nuts, wasteoids, & 90% jocks and even some teachers behind, but I'm still chasing the otherwise dim wits who graduated from college the same year I should've, and kind of wondering why 4 years was so important.
Go to college, get a job in the computer lab ASAP. Learn all you can from the TA's and graduate students in the lab. Dedicate yourself to learning everything there is to know in your domain. Learn they why's of DNS, WINS, DHCP, FTP, HTTPD, etc. but on several o/s instead of just Microsloth and Solaris or VMS (most colleges). Cut some device driver code, or some system level stuff (a couple semesters worth) so you can really understand how it all fits. Get a degree in basket weaving or whatever but get a BS then go kick some tail.
I'd love for you to impress upon our woefully ignorant, arrogant, and moneygrubbing legislators with the simple fact that folks have been doing what ever they durn well please with copyrighted, and even patented information and devices for some number of years.
That being said, I believe Hollings and all his PAL's need to know is that if I want to read a book on the toilet, throw it in the toilet, cram it where the sun does not shine, read it on moonshine, read it with a Linux box, read it with a fox, put it in my socks, etc... I have a Fair Use right to do so. I paid for it, and as long as I do not use it to make money or plagiarize someone elses IP, IT IS MINE!
Before they legislate the rights, and technology for protecting the copyright holder, they need to state, and protect the rights or the purchaser. There are plenty of current laws to protect the holder, and none to protect the purchaser.
One final point in this regard. As the dishonorable creep (Hollings) thinks about this, remind him of the rights he and his collegues tried to legislate... UCITA which gives all rights, protections and privileges to the MNC's while allocating ZERO rights to the consumer.
I'm sorry that I did not read 300+ replies, but I thought I'd make a suggestion. Having worked in this field for awhile...
CSC = Computer Sciences Corporation
SAIC = Science Applications Internationsl Corp.
BBN = Bolt Baranek and Newman
Booz Allen Hamilton
MITRE = FFRDC
I chose these because I work in a largely federal govt. marketplace and most specificslly within the DoD. To keep this on the ethical level I work for CSC, but all of these during my career have been considered leadership players in the Security Test and Evaluation (ST&E) space.... which most closely describes what you seem to be wanting.
There are certainly others, and they may be better or worse (commercial and others), but these are folks generally trusted with National Defense type ST&E work.
One final caution, you are not talking about an inexpensive effort here, nor one which will be lightly undertaken. Much of what these companies do is possible using publically available tools and technology. Finally, in most cases anyone who does these evaluations is looking for further work in correcting deficiencies, selling infrastructure, building so called security architectures for systems, etc... Just know what you are getting into.
;-)
mdw
You cite a couple of problems which I don't think anyone has truly grappled with at this point. But... in general it seems that Open Source is a MUCH better model for the DoD than any which has come before. Finally the DoD (or for that matter any other govt. entity) has never consistently dealt with code (IP law and how the code must be delivered as source, etc...) and maybe Open Source is finally a way for it to crawl out of the dark ages. The new stuff you have brought up...
How to deal with code that becomes classified because of embedded data, or algorithms
To what degree can an 'integrator' maintain the rights they have in 'derivative' works they truly did make on their own dime but which might make use of the Open Source 'base'. Or would the Open Source Model change the dynamics completely.
... really screw up the current business model and I don't know that the clowns in govt. or in your 'industry' know how to deal with it AT ALL.
I truly believe that Open Source is the right model for the government to get the best 'bang for the buck'. I also believe it (Open Source) would staunch the bleeding hemorhage caused by 'integrators' which resell the same solutions over and over again and then claim that their rights to the code are 'proprietary' and hold the govt's fee to the fire indefinitely. I think the whole Open Source phenomenon is too new for them to really come to grips with. I think if you can make even a portion of your project (Seawolf or whatever) Open Source it would be Great!!! It would be even more interesting to see how the Lockheeds, GD's, Northrup/Grummans, etc... figure out how to make Open Source a part of their business model and their customer relationship mgt process. I think with some thought it might represent a serious competitive edge for the company(s) who figure it out first and best.
Good Luck!
The clowns who would violate to control EXCLUSIVELY my access and rights to property I have PAID for are the criminals here.
The stupid bastards in congress, and in RIAA and at the MPAA have concluded that somehow I don't have any rights to something that I have bought and paid for beyond the rights they want me to have at some instant in time and space. This intellectual issue has never been fought that I know of. If I buy a book (same as a CD, DVD, or IMHO software) I maintain that I have more or less exclusive rights to do whatever I want with it including backups, resell (transfer the exclusive license), play with it, or putz with it in whatever way I want AS LONG AS:
1) I dont make money on it in any way except to resell those very same exclusive rights completely and totally and all copies or facsimiles thereof.
2) I never copy the medium for anyone elses use.
3) I never try to reverse engineer the content for the purposes of violating the copyright/patent although from my perspective the linux crowd is absolutely on the money as far as reverse engineering the pseudo encryption put out by the MPAA so that they can play/use their personal property in concert with the Fair Use Doctrine.
4) I never violate other Copyright and/or Patent Laws by plagiarizing or deriving some indirect benefit which might at some point result in monetary gain without proper permission of the holder.
5) If I was STUPID enough to buy software AND sign or somehow agree to the byzantine licensing schemes of most commercial vendors, to NOT violate the terms and conditions of the document I knowingly signed or agreed to. I intend that this would imply that if I gave up any rights I had to possess or use the software then I am stuck with those terms and conditions... OR NOT. Correspondingly if I chose to use software under the GPL, I would act lawfully in the same proportion that I advocate under any commercial license I am (as I indicate) STUPID enough to sign. If I do not sign or agree to it, I am not bound by it.
Why do folks like you assume that everyone who is an advocate of the Fair Use Doctrine, or Open Software, or is an opponent of UCITA is somehow a crook with nefarious purposes. I am a conservative guy who owns a software and hardware business, works for another company in the computer industry, and who believes that just because someone can make money off the ideas and backs of others, does not necessarily make it right. If two people agree to something which is more of benefit to one than the other, and both are nominally aware of the facts, they deserve each other. Some baseline protection should be and is in place to protect intellectual property and to preserve the ability to be compensated for it, however the current trend is to somehow transform the law into some twisted excuse to make me pay each time I use the same medium, kind of like asking me to pay each time I read the same magazine articles in the toilet.... gimme a break!!! There is however thanks to paranoid folks like you no protection in law currently for MY RIGHTS to my own personal property, probably because it is easier to form a PAC or lobbying organization to make sure the lawyers, and congressmen get their cut, than it is to ensure my rights are not infringed. I hope you'd agree that once I pay for something I do have some rights to it.... yes??? if not visit North Korea with a one way ticket.
Ciao,
mdw ;-)
Yeah they know the laws very well...
Kind of strange what lengths this afadavit went to in describing how entering PGP passphrases are somehow mutually exclusive with sending email according to the "technical description". In my use of PGP, GPG, Blowfish, twofish, and several others, the ones which are best are those which are integrated with email functionality. It's funny what lengths they go to obfuscate the simple fact that people primarily encrypt stuff to send out as email.
My point: It is pretty clear that in the design and implementation of the KSL, they are trying very meticulously to avoid laws which protect public forms of communication (email). In honesty based on my read, the FBI contrived (or conspired) this to avoid the technicality that you correctly cited. They realized that because their evidence collection (the KSL) would not meet apellate muster that they had to find someway to cover themselves. If I was contracted to build something like this guy describes, especially if it were specified in the protracted manner that they described it, I would throw my hands up in disgust.
I think this smells pretty rotten. Kind of like when they had the major fire/explosion in the Herbert Hoover building due to improperly storing high explosives by the pound, artillery fuses, etc... and then covered it up... Cowboys all over again.
Probably true that we have the means, but are the means within the FBI's purview, and assuming that they are in some circumstances, would using these methods of breaking the encryption violate other laws or legal precedents for evidence.
;-)
mdw
Ya know, it is kind of significant how one prooves guilt or innocence. In addition it seems to be a well established fact that the FBI feels that they are largely above the law.
This is one where I think it is critical!!! to write to your favorite congrsss clown and tell him the negative impact of this.
Please do it quickly!
Biggest Dangers??? now let's see.... if I can draw some inferences about these wild assumptions. ...if I assume that 1 in 8 in the population is an active hunter... 1 in 20 of those is an jerk who could care less about how he leaves the environment that he will probably hunt in again... now lets exclude those who actually have some common sense that the kind of stories which Animal Planet broadcasted tend to leave forensic evidence of crimes committed (like SHOOTING AT THE NATIONAL BIRD, IN SPITE OF IT'S ENDAGERED STATUS, AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A $10000 FINE and HARD JAIL TIME... lead shot found in a Bird DOES NOT indicate he is eating lead directly... it indicates he was shot at, or ate something else which was shot and did not die - [much less likely given a eagles largely/desireably fish diet])
So.... let's assume we are talking about 1 species (an eagle), in one natural preserve [the primary domain of endangered species], which does have limited (limited because you have to win a lottery, or buy an expensive tag to hunt) hunting in the off season, and finally let's assume that we can determine the size of this mythical "tract of land" so we can prove your claim of "biggest danger".... even if I calculate the number of shots, the number of hunters per acre, your position is ludicrous.
Bottom line.... hunting (I am not a hunter, I do not believe in killing animals for food/fun unless I am starving) and shooting do not present an appreciable danger to endangered species in almost any setting you name. I have worked on the few US ranges left to the US military for training/testing on a number of occasions, yes they have endangered species on them, but given that BLM who has oversight on the land can and does regularly stop exercises costing millions of dollars after sighting a endangered turtle in the same several million acre range as the largely airborne exercise for fear that the noise would interfere with their breeding behavior.... gimme a break.... yes there are stupid people.... try and stop that with laws... but I don't think that your premise will go very far....
Finally, having associated with the military for 23 years now I can say that although there is sometimes no substitute for something deadly (as an example depleted uranium for tank busting) if there is a substitute within the bounds of reason we would rather use it. We don't like poisoning our folks either, and we are very well aware of having to work in the environments which we clear with those weapons.
Ransom is still a creature of the failed history of the Novell valley. (Wordperfects' failure to focus, and Novell's failure to capitalize) He was a product manager for Unixware, the Windows NT killer that Novell sold off when they could not figure out how to execute. Ray Noorda funded Caldera's (although originally Ransom was not the CEO) efforts as an extension to what had been under the Unixware umbrella and found a way to give him the license for the NovellDOS stuff. He has used the OpenDOS/Novell DOS semi-successfully to distract the MS legal machine.
Others have it right... he is business ($$) focused as opposed to being an OSS (or any other sort of) visionary. His vision is focused on how to make short term money from Linux, and it always has been. Folks like Ransom will probably DESTROY what OSS/GPL and other aspects of the movement are trying to accomplish. Their whole point is to create a cash cow which 'just happens' to hurt MS. He is not interested in forwarding the movement or even using the movement to forward capitalistic opportunity elsewhere in the industry. To folks like him the movement is a totally opportunistic tool for short term profit.
It's not really a railgun, but for a neophyte the principle is sufficiently similar. Hopefully not too many people will rail on folks who tend to confuse the two.
Anon. Cow. : At it again are we? Get a clue, and try to make some useful comment, esp. if you are going to spend 8+ hours in here/day (probably can't get a real job.... so let's insult every other person on the planet) .... So he's ultranationalist/facist to think of the applications of a system in the context of the defense of the nation which gives assholes like you the freedom to go around and slam every thoughtful person in the place??? Whats that make you? a slimebag draft dodger?, a creeping socialist? a very large oedipal complex waiting to happen? or just an asshole?
On the original post:
Interestingly satellites are a great application of the technology as a weapon, but you would have to lead the target... quite a bit ;-)
Terrorists best use of satellites are to buy through shell corps. imagery from the new 1M class of commercial birds. So... if you shoot the terrorists bird, you also shot your own commercial bird, and despite Anon. Cow.s posts it is MNC's who have enough money and clout (against the advice of the DoD, but with the support of congress) to launch 1M recon sats (not the DoD) which are the real threat to us. Yeah the 1M stuff is of vast commercial utility, but the potential for misuse is also HUGE!!! even moreso than it is for the black agencies who control the birds now.
Another use as you site is to launch small/micro satellites. Take a look at the AFRL site for MightySats and you will get the idea on the unclassified state of the practice for birds. You can make some extrapolations on the size of rail gun you might need to launch something large enough. Begins to be impractical for several reasons, but that is for another post. Suffice it to say you could launch a very small object into orbit, but at what size vs. mission is the satellite useful.
mdw ;-)
Sarcasm will get you nowhere jerk.
Anon. Cow. - You are the rude asshole. Ablative technology is one of the key historical reasons for our comparative success as a space power, at least he can discuss something highly technical at an intellectual level, without resorting to the kind of histrionics, and bullcrap pseudo intellectual nonsense you tend to put in these pages just praying to get 1 insightful per week. Cut the personal crap or get out yourself. And BTW if you can't get insightful, try a little harder for funny the ... pitiful thought and understanding you put into posts is pretty ugly.
I used to be a DEC Ultrix (A BSD derivative) kind of person, and my thought by comparison to Linux is: A rather arcane system as far as sysmgt & configuration were concerned. I was sure glad when DEC shipped OSF/1 (now Tru64 I think), it was a much cleaner environment. Heck if I know if the current BSD is the same. I would wonder if the number of applications are available (in nice easy RPM format) for BSD. I would wonder how many commercial apps will run w/o a hitch (ala Oracle, Sybase, Star Office, Netscape servers). But then I suppose the argument would be that glibc and binary compatibility is the great equalizer??? mdw ;-)
I happen to agree with the coward, but I see your point. It seems youre focused totally on the bullcrap econonmic argument which a corporate lawyer might. The real deal here is the war that has started between Hughes (or whomever) and the brilliant (if somewhat anarchic) folks will ensure that "technology" which makes it possible to ensure Hughes private communications (assuming you consider sattellite stuff private) with it's "paying" customers will never be a secret. This is fundamentally the same issue that the law enforcement and national defense community have/had with PGPs' Phil Zimmerman, and with all other really strong encryption to whit: whether someone or an institution can have a monopoly on private communications... independent of non governmental creative minds to create new methods, and expose BOGUS protection schemes. Now on the economic merit of the Hughes/DirectTV folks to get ROI on their investment; yeah they probably do have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to get ROI (and they do by the boatload of $$$ ...DSS hacking is an extremely tiny community). However, many (including myself) have long had the feeling that once the signal enters my home, it's mine, and doing things like telling me I can't record it or watch multiple channels in multiple rooms smacks of the kind of arrogance of the Motion Picture Industry against DeCSS or the RIAA against Napster... They (and by way of your tone) and you just don't get it.
IMHO there is no easy way to reconcile this, but there is no way folks who are willing to be on the margins of the law will EVER tolerate being told that they must pay in perpetuity for access (by your logic not even ownership) to information which is distributed openly. They just will not stand for it. Warez sites, Cracks, DSS hacks, DeCSS, and to a much less compelling degree DoS hacks and other damaging and disruptive stuff (and drastically more economically so than DSS hacks) are just profound evidence that no small population of people really have some problems with your "economic justification of law and property rights" theory. Yeah property rights were originally the basis for most of the laws in this country, but who in the hell owns space (try telling any country involved with space that they own a piece of it), let alone the electromagnetic spectrum, and that is the really compelling aspect to their argument.
I happen to think that if some of these folks choose to spend $1000 or more (not counting the costs of the original DSS boxes) for all the stuff they need to hack this stuff in the repetitive fashion as Hughes keeps ECMing them, let them do it in peace. At the same time they are doing it, they are also risking winding up in court defending themselves against a pretty stacked deck (because as weak as I think your argument is, I think the courts agree with you overall) but they know this too. But don't expect any of this to stop folks, it will not even slow them down. This trait of experimenting at the margins, is what got us where we are, and will get us where we are going.