It seems that he's sold and re-sold the script several times. Each time the project appears and gets cancelled for one reason or another, usually a total lack of comprehension.
He told a story about the time he sold it to one producer (if memory serves it was James Cameron of Aliens and Titanic fame). Anyway he worked on the script for a while in preparation for his first meeting with the producer.
When thay meeting came around the first thing that he discovered was that the producer (cameron) the man who had bought the screenplay, had never read the book. When he was talling it, Adams allowed as how the book was very long and the great man might not be able to spare the time.
However, he had read the executive treatment of the book (doubtless by the cliffs notes people), and he was very excited about the prospects for the film. But, before they could get going he wanted to discuss a few questions about the script.
He began by asserting that he loved the fact that the earth blew up in the beginning that big, powerful, awesome, domething that would grab them into their seats. However, he had a real problem with the fact that they didn't get it back. He felt that they should devote a little more time in the script to a quest to regain the lost earth (he didn't specify how). But, he said that they could deal with it.
The real issue was that whole question of life, the meaning of life was an important quest, a noble quest. It was big, and it would keep people emotionally in the movie. He also felt that it was good that they found it eventually... but... 42? Isn't that really...anticlimactic? Why isn't it an important message, meaningful, or something?
Apparently there were some other sticking points too about how little of a role Arthur Dent played. The producer really felt that he should be leading the charge more rather than hiding. In short he really felt that Arthur Dent should be more Arnold Schwartzenegger.
According to Douglas Adams it fell apart after that.
What kind of a case did the prosecutor build against you at your trial, and in the court of public opinion via the "news?" And, what do you think of its merits (or lack thereof?) Do you feel that they were unnecessarily harsh or overly light on you? Do you think that they were trying to make an example of you or not?
Did they call you a "threat to modern society" or just a "guy who'd erred from the straight and true?"
If you want to argue that an FBI agent looking for al Qaeda members should not be able to go to Google and type in `al Qaeda' (the situation before USA PATRIOT and the attendant executive orders), go ahead, but I can't see any grounds for considering allowing him to do so a diminishment of anyone's rights.
That's kind of a straw man argument. What is being said here is not that the FBI should be unable to do things in public, it is that the FBI should not be able to act with impunity in absence of a crime as they did in the COINTELPRO days.
In answer to your question look at the EFF's executive summary here.
"FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received." -- Sec 1.B
"First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211." -- Sec 1.C
You can also take a look at the case of Jose Padilla (here and here) an American Citizen who is being denied his constitutional right to due process.
If what he says is true then his server is not as secure as it could be but it is hardly completely open. What should he be doing that he is not? What standard of hackproofing should every Mom & Pop on the internet have to meet, and why?
A great deal of the debate over the RIAA/MPAA copyright crackdowns and new technology such as P2P focuses on the monolithic marketing models of the big labels/studios. You yourself have pointed out that their models are based upon a world where music (or movies) are expensive to produce and share.
What alternative model you look foreward to (or fear) arising? Do you want to see artist/promoters working with radio stations (like the old days) or do you beleive that there will always be a place for middle-man labels such as BMG?
WhileI agree with the idea of prevention there is a massive difference between this program and Midnight Basketball. Midnight Basketball, Head Start and other similar programs give people in disadvantaged areas something legal and safe to do, and help them to be healthy and law abiding. These programs give them an incentive to do better and aid in acheiving it.
Keeping a list of people "likely to commit crimes" does not help to prevent crimes it merely provides the police with a list of the "Usual Suspects" that they can attempt to match with any crime that they get. Anyone unfortunate enough to be on this list can look forward to being targeted for quesitoning or just systematic harrasment whenever a crime occurs probably making it more likely that they will commit crimes in the future. After all, if the police already think that you are a criminal even if you have never been convited of a crime, and treat you like one, where's the incentive to behave like a decent person?
Take a look at This American Life's episode entitled Perfect Evidence Act one has a story about what happened when the Chicago pilice force turned to a profile, and "The Usual Suspects" in order to solve a crime and the price that the innocent paid.
I don't think that it is a repeat. He mentions the relationship that they have had with Qwest somewhat but he does not talk about the future much. That was the real thrust of my question.
This Slashdot article on Starbucks and the local coop sort of brings up the point that I wanted to ask about; Competition.
Have you faced any stiff, or just plain mean, competition from groups like Quest or do you expect to do so in the future. Are you worried that someone (quest, AOL, etc.) will decide to come in and stomp you in some way or are they simply uninterested in your local area?
I'm not sure that there is one. So long as a bug exists malicious people can find it and exploit it. Keeping it a secret won't help because anyone who really wants to cause damage is also going to go looking for holes. The only people who wait for abug to be made public before exploiting it are the lazy kiddies, people who want to cause damage but don't have the inclination and the energy to find exploits themselves. While this latter group can cause damage, it is the former (the "real" crackers) that I am worried about.
IMHO bugs should be made public, even in a private company's software. Because, it isn't really "theirs" and theirs alone. I depend upon the OpenSSH and SSL systems as well as my Windows box to keep my data secure. So do many many other people. If there is a hole then it puts my credit card numbers, medical info, me in danger. At that point it is a public problem, and a private company should not be permitted to "just hide it" any more than Ford/Firestone should be able to just hide the dangers of their products.
IMHO you should give the developer a "sufficient time" (depending upon the size of the bug, number of developers, etc.) to fix it. If they don't make any reasonable attempts then yeah, make it public. If there is a danger to the rest of us from the truly malicious then we ough't to know about it. Yes it will unleash a torrent of script kiddies, but when you compare that against a sea of quiet thefts or, got knows what else perpetuated by the truly determinedly vicious.
I'd be suppeised if you couldn't argue this under existing whistleblower laws.
And then, by 2004 we'll have 1984 where we all sit in dark corners like Orwell's hero in order to avoid the TV. Granted in his version the TV contained a monitoring camera but ours won't.
Or will they? We do have all that bandwith free for transmission;)
Yah, the bastards will keep trying, and they will take away our freedoms as harshly as any third-world dictator to do so. As Bush likes to say; "The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" he just doesn't think to apply it to american companies.
The National association of broadcasters has developed this new product, HDTV. However, due to the massive restrictions that they have imposed upon our use of it, the continual changes that they keep making to the standard, and the high prices that they want for the hardware, noone buys it. So now, they go the federal government to make them mandate it. And to send manufactuers (who produce what the public wants) to prison (or more likely huge fines).
YOU WILL BUY THIS UNNECESSARY LUXURY ITEM!!
This is great, that means that any psudo-useless luxury item that I produce could be a success so long as I can convince the government to require it.
Oh, wait, I have to be rich first so I can bribe them... Oh well...
True, Intel does not make full PC's. However, they do make Motherboards in addition to their processors, and derive much of their business from the massive clone market, a market that they help to direct by setting "standards" and acting as point of refrence for rival chip makers and motherboard designers.
So, I am not asserting that they are clone makers per-se but that their business, and their leverage within the market, derives from their initial ability to access the PC spec and to build off of it. Imagine what position they would be in if IBM had simply demanded the chip but told them (along with everyone else) nothing about how it worked? They would be, basically, a subserviant chip maker building to IBM's Spec. At preset they are the bull in the HW market.
Dear Senator X, [it's going to both a version will go my Rep as well] I am writing to you today in regards to Senator Howard Berman's proposed Digital Rights Restriction provisions. These provisions have been included as amendments to bill number S2395. As a Software Developer and a citizen I oppose these provisions wholeheartedly as they will only serve to stifle competition and restrict legitimate research not prevent any unauthorized copying of copyrighted software, music or movies.
The stated goal of these provisions is to prevent the unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials. To that end, they make it a felony to produce a fake watermark or "digital signature" in order to fool watermarking technologies. They impose stiff criminal and civil sentences on the act and make distribution or intention to distribute these watermarks an offence in their own right. While this may seem reasonable on the surface I assure you that it is not.
Digital Rights Management is becoming a ubiquitous technology. It is already at work in DVD players, many music players such as handheld mp3 players. Microsoft and Intel have announced that it will be embedded at the lowest (Processor) level of their new systems, and the FCC is seriously considering mandating it in the Digital Television and Digital Radio standards. One pair of senators (Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens) are seeking to make it mandatory in all new technology via the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.
Because this technology will lie at the core of Microsoft's new operating system it will be necessary to obtain a watermark key in order to run any software on future versions of Windows. As a software developer I would be forced to obtain Microsoft's permission to develop and run software on my, or anyone else's machine. In short, I would need Microsoft's permission to do my job. I cannot imagine any legal tool more anticompetitive than that.
The same is true for Intel and AMD's proposed secure chips. These chips would embed watermarking at the processor level making it necessary to obtain a signature in order to develop any hardware or software for the AMD or Intel platforms. This would stifle the hardware vendor competition that has made computer hardware a 300 billion dollar a year industry, brought the prices of computers down, and fueled the recent economic boom.
Let me be clear that I do not oppose the principle of watermarking in any way. As a security technology it is useful and I feel that Intel and Microsoft should have the right to include it in their systems if they wish. However I feel that such technology should be open to examination and the general public should have a choice about which technologies they do and do not adopt.
It was Microsoft's ability to examine the CP/M operating system that allowed them to produce the first version of DOS, and Intel's ability to examine IBM's PC designs that allowed them to enter the PC market that they dominate today. Such open competition is beneficial to the economy.
This is also the case for movies, music and electronic books. By prohibiting other users from producing watermarks you are allowing groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, and others to control the DVD, and Digital Television distribution channels. In, effect, granting them monopoly control over who can and cannot produce movies and music in this country. Again this competition would stifle, not only innovation but the economic gains to be had from the 30 billion dollar a year music and movie industries.
Lastly, these provisions will also stifle useful research. Digital watermarking technologies and Digital signatures underlie many security systems in use today ranging from defense to private industry. Research on these systems involves attempts to break into them in order to test their strength. Scientific Peer-review of this research depends upon the ability of these researchers to share their findings and to test each other's results. This work allows those individuals to produce better, more secure systems to the benefit of our National Security and Economic infrastructures. These provisions would make that work illegal. This would seriously impair both our Economic and National Security.
These provisions are unnecessary because, as senators Berman, Hollings, and Stevens well knows making unauthorized copies of "Sinefield" or any other copyrighted work is illegal. These acts are already punishable by law. We also have a justice department capable of carrying out such investigations and prosecutions. Indeed, these provisions will not make the act of piracy any "more" illegal. They will only stifle economic competitions and industrial research.
In the end, even if these provisions are passed they will not prevent piracy. They will only permit a small subset of the business community to unfairly control the economic and cultural landscape of this country. This group will be in a position to decide who can develop software, who can distribute music, who can distribute movies, and who can conduct security research. In such an environment of inflated prices, the incentive to piracy will be far greater, and the likelihood of any real security weaknesses being identified will be far less.
Heres a first draft of what came to my mind as I read this (Copyright) "Business Vigilante law":
Permits larger corporations to take the law into their own hands in dealing with alleged piracy. Vigilatism was illegal the last time that I looked.
Permits a shoot-first and ask questions later approach to dealing with the issue as the actors are permitted to first invade or otherwise attach an individual's system and then inform the Justice department. (Do the inform the TIPS program of what else they find?)
Opens the door for wider vigilantism by promoting the idea that, where corporate interests are concerned, the Law cannot be trusted.
Opens the door to wider public vigilantism by making it apparent that anyone is entitled to break into their neighbors home and look around just on the off chance that said neighbor stole their missing saw.
Puts more power on large corporations in a time when we are constantly facing a torrent of scandals showing just how little these groups can be trusted.
Permits copyright holders a loophole to engage in acts that are federal offences under current law thus making it apparent that the law does not equally apply.
Permits individuals who have suffered damage at the hands of these cyber-vigilantes only civil courts as a remedy. Thus forcing individuals, and small businesses into an arena where they cannot compete with the well-staffed and well-funded legal teams of the Motion Picture Industry Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. Indeed by making civil suit the only option it virtually guaranteed immunity to these companies who can afford many expensive lawsuits versus the universities, ISPs and individuals who will be targeted, most likely randomly. This will kill any sort of public Internet as anyone who has the potential for making files available has the potential to be hacked.
This will crush the utility of the Internet as a social and economic medium. What is the incentive for a university, business, or individual to go online if they face the potential for legally sanctioned hacking. The whole point of the current "get-tought on cybercime laws" is to promote the Internet for people and businesses by reducing the likelihood of destructive and privacy invasive hacking. This bill not only promotes such hacking thus increasing its frequency but gives it a legal sanction thus reducing the ability of Individuals and Businesses to seek legal redress. Ironically it is the lack of such redress that has been driving many of the current cybercrime initiatives.
This will raise the amount of such suspicious activity as DoS attacks in this country at a time when the Defense department and Department of Justice are asserting that cyberwar is inevitable and that we need to be prepared for it. In effect this will raise the surrounding "noise" of hacking and make it more difficult for the Justice department and our Security agencies to sort out "legal" hacking from "illegal" hacking.
opens the door for rampant domestic spying. In the this law is the computer equivalent of granting the rights to anyone to invade my home, read my private documents, and scan my activities just on the off chance that this has anything illegal in them.
This will DESTROY privacy on the Internet, and make possible a wider degree of citizen reporting and domestic spying this time by vigilantes not the government. However, what's to stop these groups from using the information that they obtain on me in the course of "checking for contraband"? What is to stop them from sending anything they see to the proposed TiPS program? In short, nothing. This bill will crush personal privacy in the name of business interests and kill any hope of using the Internet reasonably in the process. Anytime I bring my computer online I might as well be opening my door for inspection.
Lastly, and most importantly, this bill WILL NOT WORK. Even if these groups are permitted to carry around this large legal stick and beat people randomly with it, it will not "solve" the problem of piracy nor will it make our nation any more secure. In the end truly determined pirates will take their trading to a different (more hack-proof) type of network, small businesses, and individuals who are subject to these raids will be crushed, and the internet will cease to be a viable economic medium.
I can just imagine millions of these things selling widely. Then every single one being hacked by one group with the same root exploit. Think of the headlines "Wal-Mart facilitates domestic terrorism" "Internet Weakened by Linux manchines" etc. In some ways it's kind of what the ADTI people want.
But the Dems are the ones who have been taking money from Di$ney and co. That means that they will likely jump at this chance. Imagine an internet controlled by media companies, no publishing or recording of your own thank you, your goal is to consume, consume, consume...
Granted it may not be this obvious but keep in mind that the Senate is Fritz's domain.
If the government steps aside, they say, robust competition will develop between different technology "platforms" such as cable, phone, satellite and local wireless, giving consumers plenty of choices and stimulating a build-out of broadband infrastructure at the same time.
"If you have competition between platforms, consumers will be better off," says Randolph May, a communications policy expert with the Progress and Freedom Foundation. "The problem is that [regulation] impedes investment and new entrants to the market."
Yet:
Separate platforms exist for separate purposes, and have separate capabilities. While I am as enamored of Bluetooth as anyone it is not the same as a fat cable pipe.
The FCC rulings do not (as I understand them) prohibit one company from owning multiple "platforms" If the local wireless net, and cable, and DSL all come from the same source then nothing has been gained.
In any location where one company has a monopoly on most services such as broadband, etc. Where is the incentive to develop a new "platform"? If a town has cable and DSL controlled by AOL then I have little or no incentive to develop a wireless alternative there. The startup costs will be (as they are for anything) huge. In order to break even (until I get a lot of subscribers) I will have to charge more than AOL can charge. So, while I am depleting my cash reserves trying to undersell them they are a) selling at a fraction lower than me, and b) blocking my ads from running and my web page from working on "their" lines and c)running news on their service saying that I torture kittens in my spare time. Then once I'm gone they can jack up the prices again.
Where is the incentive to invest in infrastructure going to come from? Once you have a service that "works" and are facing no competition, why upgrade? Why waste your cash reserves on making life better for your captive audience when you could be working on expanding your audience.
Monopolies are only good for themselves, and the economists that they pay.
Right now these groups command the attention of pooly informed but nevertheless powerful Senators and Representatives. Even if they do not agree on everything they do agree that the provisions of the CBDTA and the DMCA should be enacted/strengthened. They are serious about plugging the analog hole.
In some sense this may be worse news. If they could agree on provisions then they would draft a single, oppressive but consistent piece of legislation. If they cannot agree then we are likely to get some hideously general bill that is so vague and unspecified that only the rich can afford to do anything. Either way its not good.
See here for a nice asessment of the BPDG and the CPTWG. See here for more info.
Re:Typical Michael...Time for Him to Go
on
Surveillance Update
·
· Score: 2, Informative
How about some historical examples to bolster Michael's claim.
What many of the hard-core groups such as the ACLU and the EFF fear is a return to the days of COINTELPRO when the FBI (with the cooperation of the CIA) used it's vast powers to spy on Americans. And to discredit any political group outside of the mainstream. One noteable target was Dr. Martin Luther King. To quote from the Church Commission's report:
"The FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau's disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King's home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter's telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King's close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King's hotel and motel rooms in an "attempt" to obtain information about the
"private activities of King and his advisers" for use to "completely discredit" them. "
[My Emphasis]
And:
The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find "friendly" news sources that would print unfavorable articles.
The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King's hotel rooms.
The above quotes are from the final report of the Church Committee (see also Here), a congressional committee set up to investigate the FBI's abuses of power. Out of this investigation arose many of the restrictions that Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. are overturning. These changes and the arguments for them have received opposition from longtime FBI members:
"I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been
omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to
avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part
of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons..."
"Several prominent FBI alumni also blasted Ashcroft's
cast-a-wide-net approach to the terrorism investigation, which led
to the detention of some 1,200 people, only a dozen of them
suspected of having any links with Al Qaeda. The mass arrests
were part of a fundamental shift in the bureau's strategy. In the
past, the FBI would identify suspected terrorists, move to forestall
any immediate threat of violence, then watch the suspects in
hopes of cracking an entire cell. Ashcroft's approach, the critics
noted, might jeopardize the kinds of investigations that had
prevented previous attacks. "We used good investigative
techniques and lawful techniques," warned Reagan-era FBI
director William Webster, "and we did it without all the suggestion
that we are going to jump all over people's private lives."..."
The first is from a recent Memo by Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel for the FBI Coleen M. Rowley via Time Magazine. The Second is from a Mother Jones article on John Ashcroft here. Note that the Mother Jones article (which discusses these changes) is several months old.
This is what people (quite rightly) fear and what we should be striving against. This is what Prompted Emmanuel Goldstein (editor of 2600) to devote his editorial in the most recent issue to a call to arms against such governance. This is a serious issue and the note that Michael Struck was just right. The FBI stated that carnivore will never collect the wrong information Yet we have admissions of the opposite (see here). In the light of all of this, can you really say that he is wrong?
They realize that the revenue stream for movies is there. They also realize that those DVD's aren't just being bought for the TV-Connected DVD players. They're being bought for the Imacs and the laptop DVD's and for people like me who don't see the point in purchasing two DVD systems. They also know about the high number of people using KaZaa over broadband connections.
Hollywood knows about the revenue stream. They also know that digital data can be copied and stread (faster than tapes) and they are taking steps to assert their control.
History is repeating itself but Hollywood's one step ahead this time. They couldn't kill the VCR. Now they squeeze it for every cent that they can while installing copy protection. New VCR's made for the U.S. market all include copy protection built in that messes with the signal from other VCR's or DVD's that are connected to them. Thus necessitating that you patch the VCR through the DVD and into your TV.
Hollywood figures that they got lucky when it came to VCR's but whyt risk it? Jack really needs that 347th ferrari. And let's not forget the "implicit contract" that we all signed to do whatever the greedy bastards tell us to.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that he's sold and re-sold the script several times. Each time the project appears and gets cancelled for one reason or another, usually a total lack of comprehension.
He told a story about the time he sold it to one producer (if memory serves it was James Cameron of Aliens and Titanic fame). Anyway he worked on the script for a while in preparation for his first meeting with the producer.
When thay meeting came around the first thing that he discovered was that the producer (cameron) the man who had bought the screenplay, had never read the book. When he was talling it, Adams allowed as how the book was very long and the great man might not be able to spare the time.
However, he had read the executive treatment of the book (doubtless by the cliffs notes people), and he was very excited about the prospects for the film. But, before they could get going he wanted to discuss a few questions about the script.
He began by asserting that he loved the fact that the earth blew up in the beginning that big, powerful, awesome, domething that would grab them into their seats. However, he had a real problem with the fact that they didn't get it back. He felt that they should devote a little more time in the script to a quest to regain the lost earth (he didn't specify how). But, he said that they could deal with it.
The real issue was that whole question of life, the meaning of life was an important quest, a noble quest. It was big, and it would keep people emotionally in the movie. He also felt that it was good that they found it eventually... but... 42? Isn't that really...anticlimactic? Why isn't it an important message, meaningful, or something?
Apparently there were some other sticking points too about how little of a role Arthur Dent played. The producer really felt that he should be leading the charge more rather than hiding. In short he really felt that Arthur Dent should be more Arnold Schwartzenegger.
According to Douglas Adams it fell apart after that.
What kind of a case did the prosecutor build against you at your trial, and in the court of public opinion via the "news?" And, what do you think of its merits (or lack thereof?) Do you feel that they were unnecessarily harsh or overly light on you? Do you think that they were trying to make an example of you or not?
Did they call you a "threat to modern society" or just a "guy who'd erred from the straight and true?"
Absolutely.
That's kind of a straw man argument. What is being said here is not that the FBI should be unable to do things in public, it is that the FBI should not be able to act with impunity in absence of a crime as they did in the COINTELPRO days.
In answer to your question look at the EFF's executive summary here.
"First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211." -- Sec 1.C
You can also take a look at the case of Jose Padilla (here and here) an American Citizen who is being denied his constitutional right to due process.
If what he says is true then his server is not as secure as it could be but it is hardly completely open. What should he be doing that he is not? What standard of hackproofing should every Mom & Pop on the internet have to meet, and why?
A great deal of the debate over the RIAA/MPAA copyright crackdowns and new technology such as P2P focuses on the monolithic marketing models of the big labels/studios. You yourself have pointed out that their models are based upon a world where music (or movies) are expensive to produce and share.
What alternative model you look foreward to (or fear) arising? Do you want to see artist/promoters working with radio stations (like the old days) or do you beleive that there will always be a place for middle-man labels such as BMG?
WhileI agree with the idea of prevention there is a massive difference between this program and Midnight Basketball. Midnight Basketball, Head Start and other similar programs give people in disadvantaged areas something legal and safe to do, and help them to be healthy and law abiding. These programs give them an incentive to do better and aid in acheiving it.
Keeping a list of people "likely to commit crimes" does not help to prevent crimes it merely provides the police with a list of the "Usual Suspects" that they can attempt to match with any crime that they get. Anyone unfortunate enough to be on this list can look forward to being targeted for quesitoning or just systematic harrasment whenever a crime occurs probably making it more likely that they will commit crimes in the future. After all, if the police already think that you are a criminal even if you have never been convited of a crime, and treat you like one, where's the incentive to behave like a decent person?
Take a look at This American Life's episode entitled Perfect Evidence Act one has a story about what happened when the Chicago pilice force turned to a profile, and "The Usual Suspects" in order to solve a crime and the price that the innocent paid.
I don't think that it is a repeat. He mentions the relationship that they have had with Qwest somewhat but he does not talk about the future much. That was the real thrust of my question.
This Slashdot article on Starbucks and the local coop sort of brings up the point that I wanted to ask about; Competition.
Have you faced any stiff, or just plain mean, competition from groups like Quest or do you expect to do so in the future. Are you worried that someone (quest, AOL, etc.) will decide to come in and stomp you in some way or are they simply uninterested in your local area?
Irvu.
supprised not suppeised (whoops!)
I'm not sure that there is one. So long as a bug exists malicious people can find it and exploit it. Keeping it a secret won't help because anyone who really wants to cause damage is also going to go looking for holes. The only people who wait for abug to be made public before exploiting it are the lazy kiddies, people who want to cause damage but don't have the inclination and the energy to find exploits themselves. While this latter group can cause damage, it is the former (the "real" crackers) that I am worried about.
IMHO bugs should be made public, even in a private company's software. Because, it isn't really "theirs" and theirs alone. I depend upon the OpenSSH and SSL systems as well as my Windows box to keep my data secure. So do many many other people. If there is a hole then it puts my credit card numbers, medical info, me in danger. At that point it is a public problem, and a private company should not be permitted to "just hide it" any more than Ford/Firestone should be able to just hide the dangers of their products.
IMHO you should give the developer a "sufficient time" (depending upon the size of the bug, number of developers, etc.) to fix it. If they don't make any reasonable attempts then yeah, make it public. If there is a danger to the rest of us from the truly malicious then we ough't to know about it. Yes it will unleash a torrent of script kiddies, but when you compare that against a sea of quiet thefts or, got knows what else perpetuated by the truly determinedly vicious.
I'd be suppeised if you couldn't argue this under existing whistleblower laws.
And then, by 2004 we'll have 1984 where we all sit in dark corners like Orwell's hero in order to avoid the TV. Granted in his version the TV contained a monitoring camera but ours won't.
;)
Or will they? We do have all that bandwith free for transmission
Irvu.
Thanks.
Yah, the bastards will keep trying, and they will take away our freedoms as harshly as any third-world dictator to do so. As Bush likes to say; "The price of freedom is Eternal Vigilance" he just doesn't think to apply it to american companies.
Irvu.
The National association of broadcasters has developed this new product, HDTV. However, due to the massive restrictions that they have imposed upon our use of it, the continual changes that they keep making to the standard, and the high prices that they want for the hardware, noone buys it. So now, they go the federal government to make them mandate it. And to send manufactuers (who produce what the public wants) to prison (or more likely huge fines).
YOU WILL BUY THIS UNNECESSARY LUXURY ITEM!!
This is great, that means that any psudo-useless luxury item that I produce could be a success so long as I can convince the government to require it.
Oh, wait, I have to be rich first so I can bribe them... Oh well...
Irvu.
True, Intel does not make full PC's. However, they do make Motherboards in addition to their processors, and derive much of their business from the massive clone market, a market that they help to direct by setting "standards" and acting as point of refrence for rival chip makers and motherboard designers.
So, I am not asserting that they are clone makers per-se but that their business, and their leverage within the market, derives from their initial ability to access the PC spec and to build off of it. Imagine what position they would be in if IBM had simply demanded the chip but told them (along with everyone else) nothing about how it worked? They would be, basically, a subserviant chip maker building to IBM's Spec. At preset they are the bull in the HW market.
Point, thanks for pointing that out!
Irvu.
Dear Senator X,
[it's going to both a version will go my Rep as well]
I am writing to you today in regards to Senator Howard Berman's proposed Digital Rights Restriction provisions. These provisions have been included as amendments to bill number S2395. As a Software Developer and a citizen I oppose these provisions wholeheartedly as they will only serve to stifle competition and restrict legitimate research not prevent any unauthorized copying of copyrighted software, music or movies.
The stated goal of these provisions is to prevent the unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials. To that end, they make it a felony to produce a fake watermark or "digital signature" in order to fool watermarking technologies. They impose stiff criminal and civil sentences on the act and make distribution or intention to distribute these watermarks an offence in their own right. While this may seem reasonable on the surface I assure you that it is not.
Digital Rights Management is becoming a ubiquitous technology. It is already at work in DVD players, many music players such as handheld mp3 players. Microsoft and Intel have announced that it will be embedded at the lowest (Processor) level of their new systems, and the FCC is seriously considering mandating it in the Digital Television and Digital Radio standards. One pair of senators (Fritz Hollings and Ted Stevens) are seeking to make it mandatory in all new technology via the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.
Because this technology will lie at the core of Microsoft's new operating system it will be necessary to obtain a watermark key in order to run any software on future versions of Windows. As a software developer I would be forced to obtain Microsoft's permission to develop and run software on my, or anyone else's machine. In short, I would need Microsoft's permission to do my job. I cannot imagine any legal tool more anticompetitive than that.
The same is true for Intel and AMD's proposed secure chips. These chips would embed watermarking at the processor level making it necessary to obtain a signature in order to develop any hardware or software for the AMD or Intel platforms. This would stifle the hardware vendor competition that has made computer hardware a 300 billion dollar a year industry, brought the prices of computers down, and fueled the recent economic boom.
Let me be clear that I do not oppose the principle of watermarking in any way. As a security technology it is useful and I feel that Intel and Microsoft should have the right to include it in their systems if they wish. However I feel that such technology should be open to examination and the general public should have a choice about which technologies they do and do not adopt.
It was Microsoft's ability to examine the CP/M operating system that allowed them to produce the first version of DOS, and Intel's ability to examine IBM's PC designs that allowed them to enter the PC market that they dominate today. Such open competition is beneficial to the economy.
This is also the case for movies, music and electronic books. By prohibiting other users from producing watermarks you are allowing groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, and others to control the DVD, and Digital Television distribution channels. In, effect, granting them monopoly control over who can and cannot produce movies and music in this country. Again this competition would stifle, not only innovation but the economic gains to be had from the 30 billion dollar a year music and movie industries.
Lastly, these provisions will also stifle useful research. Digital watermarking technologies and Digital signatures underlie many security systems in use today ranging from defense to private industry. Research on these systems involves attempts to break into them in order to test their strength. Scientific Peer-review of this research depends upon the ability of these researchers to share their findings and to test each other's results. This work allows those individuals to produce better, more secure systems to the benefit of our National Security and Economic infrastructures. These provisions would make that work illegal. This would seriously impair both our Economic and National Security.
These provisions are unnecessary because, as senators Berman, Hollings, and Stevens well knows making unauthorized copies of "Sinefield" or any other copyrighted work is illegal. These acts are already punishable by law. We also have a justice department capable of carrying out such investigations and prosecutions. Indeed, these provisions will not make the act of piracy any "more" illegal. They will only stifle economic competitions and industrial research.
In the end, even if these provisions are passed they will not prevent piracy. They will only permit a small subset of the business community to unfairly control the economic and cultural landscape of this country. This group will be in a position to decide who can develop software, who can distribute music, who can distribute movies, and who can conduct security research. In such an environment of inflated prices, the incentive to piracy will be far greater, and the likelihood of any real security weaknesses being identified will be far less.
Thank you for your time.
Irvu.
Irvu.
I can just imagine millions of these things selling widely. Then every single one being hacked by one group with the same root exploit. Think of the headlines "Wal-Mart facilitates domestic terrorism" "Internet Weakened by Linux manchines" etc. In some ways it's kind of what the ADTI people want.
The sum of all Lindows fears.
But the Dems are the ones who have been taking money from Di$ney and co. That means that they will likely jump at this chance. Imagine an internet controlled by media companies, no publishing or recording of your own thank you, your goal is to consume, consume, consume...
Granted it may not be this obvious but keep in mind that the Senate is Fritz's domain.
Exactly. Thanks for the great example.
Separate platforms exist for separate purposes, and have separate capabilities. While I am as enamored of Bluetooth as anyone it is not the same as a fat cable pipe.
The FCC rulings do not (as I understand them) prohibit one company from owning multiple "platforms" If the local wireless net, and cable, and DSL all come from the same source then nothing has been gained.
In any location where one company has a monopoly on most services such as broadband, etc. Where is the incentive to develop a new "platform"? If a town has cable and DSL controlled by AOL then I have little or no incentive to develop a wireless alternative there. The startup costs will be (as they are for anything) huge. In order to break even (until I get a lot of subscribers) I will have to charge more than AOL can charge. So, while I am depleting my cash reserves trying to undersell them they are a) selling at a fraction lower than me, and b) blocking my ads from running and my web page from working on "their" lines and c)running news on their service saying that I torture kittens in my spare time. Then once I'm gone they can jack up the prices again.
Where is the incentive to invest in infrastructure going to come from? Once you have a service that "works" and are facing no competition, why upgrade? Why waste your cash reserves on making life better for your captive audience when you could be working on expanding your audience.
Monopolies are only good for themselves, and the economists that they pay.
Right now these groups command the attention of pooly informed but nevertheless powerful Senators and Representatives. Even if they do not agree on everything they do agree that the provisions of the CBDTA and the DMCA should be enacted/strengthened. They are serious about plugging the analog hole.
In some sense this may be worse news. If they could agree on provisions then they would draft a single, oppressive but consistent piece of legislation. If they cannot agree then we are likely to get some hideously general bill that is so vague and unspecified that only the rich can afford to do anything. Either way its not good.
See here for a nice asessment of the BPDG and the CPTWG. See here for more info.
How about some historical examples to bolster Michael's claim.
What many of the hard-core groups such as the ACLU and the EFF fear is a return to the days of COINTELPRO when the FBI (with the cooperation of the CIA) used it's vast powers to spy on Americans. And to discredit any political group outside of the mainstream. One noteable target was Dr. Martin Luther King. To quote from the Church Commission's report:
And:The above quotes are from the final report of the Church Committee (see also Here), a congressional committee set up to investigate the FBI's abuses of power. Out of this investigation arose many of the restrictions that Bush, Ashcroft, and Co. are overturning. These changes and the arguments for them have received opposition from longtime FBI members:
The first is from a recent Memo by Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel for the FBI Coleen M. Rowley via Time Magazine. The Second is from a Mother Jones article on John Ashcroft here. Note that the Mother Jones article (which discusses these changes) is several months old.This is what people (quite rightly) fear and what we should be striving against. This is what Prompted Emmanuel Goldstein (editor of 2600) to devote his editorial in the most recent issue to a call to arms against such governance. This is a serious issue and the note that Michael Struck was just right. The FBI stated that carnivore will never collect the wrong information Yet we have admissions of the opposite (see here). In the light of all of this, can you really say that he is wrong?
As always you can contact the ACLU for more.
For some fun side-reading see:
- Amnesty International's 2002 report on the U.S.A.
- NYC Indymedia
- The San Francisco Chronicle
- And, The Register
Irvu.They realize that the revenue stream for movies is there. They also realize that those DVD's aren't just being bought for the TV-Connected DVD players. They're being bought for the Imacs and the laptop DVD's and for people like me who don't see the point in purchasing two DVD systems. They also know about the high number of people using KaZaa over broadband connections.
Hollywood knows about the revenue stream. They also know that digital data can be copied and stread (faster than tapes) and they are taking steps to assert their control.
History is repeating itself but Hollywood's one step ahead this time. They couldn't kill the VCR. Now they squeeze it for every cent that they can while installing copy protection. New VCR's made for the U.S. market all include copy protection built in that messes with the signal from other VCR's or DVD's that are connected to them. Thus necessitating that you patch the VCR through the DVD and into your TV.
Hollywood figures that they got lucky when it came to VCR's but whyt risk it? Jack really needs that 347th ferrari. And let's not forget the "implicit contract" that we all signed to do whatever the greedy bastards tell us to.