"This is what happend in the OJ Simpson case. The LAPD got caught trying to frame a guilty man. The Juice walked because the police acted dirty. Note that he promptly lost the civil case."
This happened largely because the rules of evidence in a civil case (where imprisonment is not a possible penalty) and a criminal case are completely different. And, the burden of proof is less than "reasonable doubt", but is "perponderance of evidence".
Which, incidentally, I disagree with. I think that civil double-jeopardy following an acquital of the same charge in criminal court should be outlawed, as is actually implied in the Constitution. And that rules of evidence and standard of conviction should be altered to the same tough standards in criminal cases. This would go a long way to reducing abuse of civil court by the powerful as their personal persecution squad.
"I always thought it might be a better idea to go ahead and use the evidence, but then go ahead and throw the book at all of the people who were responsible for collecting it illegally (at the very least blacklisting them from law enforcement, and with the possibility of jail time)."
You can't do that and still maintain the integrity of the Bill of Rights. To allow someone's rights to be violated by the government, and then to allow that to be used as evidence makes them meaningless.
You will NEVER discourage government agents violating the Constitutional rights of citizens unless you then DENY them the rewards of the violation, ie, the illegal evidence that leads to a conviction. To the courts, there is no difference at ALL between illegally obtained evidence and false planted evidence, and that's the way it should be.
The best way to discourage this practice is to BOTH disallow that evidence, AND to prosecute those responsible.
I'd rather see guilty go free (like OJ did) than have innocent people imprisoned. Though I agree that he was guilty, I agree that the jury reached the propler verdict, given all the evidence of mishandled (and even planted) evidence and rampant police corruption. As an upside, it's no coincidence that the pursuit of corruption in the LAPD that is going on today is a DIRECT result of that verdict.
"Well, if the case had already reached a verdict, that verdict is thrown out. But the government can refile the case without the offending evidence. Unless of course that conflicts with double jeopardy?"
It would only violate double jeopardy if the defendant was found not guilty. The Constitution does not allow for someone to be tried again for the same charge if once found not guilty.
However, it's less likely, of course, that the prosecutors would re-try a case if the primary evidence is tossed. They'd have to have enough evidence left to even bring the charges again, much less make it to trial.
This brings up an excellent point... It seems to me that law enforcement is getting TOO dependant on high tech means of evidence gathering, to the point where they neglect conventional means. Take the OJ case for example, the prosecution made the defense's case easier given the fact that they staked their WHOLE case on DNA evidence. DNA evidence, that, it turned out, was processed at a lab with a less than stellar record.
It's likely that in this case, the FBI's case against this mobster relies almost EXCLUSIVELY on this illegally gained evidence. If so, tough shit. Convienience is no excuse to allow government operatives to violate civil rights.
"Actually I wonder why terrorist organizations couldn't at least theoretically use this for their advantage. It shouldn't be too hard to get a corrupted, underpaid policeman to intentionally make a "mistake" (for some nice amount of cold cash), should it?"
This is why there needs to be balance in the law. If you are going to punish those who commit acts against law enforcement more harshly than against joe citizen, you should also punish lawbreaking law enforcement agencies more harshly.
Of course, that never happens. The point is, if things are the way you want them to be, and evidence is allowed, even if obtained illegally, then you've just made the Bill of Rights irrelevant and given any rogue agent of the government carte blanche to conduct witchunts.
"But in the US it seems the means justify ends - letting someone known to be a serial killer free just because some inspector or police made a mistake."
That, of course is not a good thing. But everyone makes mistakes, even the most skilled.
The reason why the law HAS to be what it is so that police who WILLFULLY violate the law do not get to use that illegal evidence to prosecute someone.
It's unfortunate, but the only way to prevent jailing INNOCENT people because of the actions of rogue law enforcement is to increase the chance of freeing the guilty. And the kicker is, the more power you give the jackboots, the more likely you are going to jail more innocents than guilty.
This comes because under the US Constitution, there is a PRESUMPTION of innocence. It's the burden of the state to prove guilt, and they should not be allowed to use evidence obatined illegally.
"This particular event needs to be punished, and unfortunately in this case it means a guilty person goes free."
Don't hold your breath. The FBI has a long and distinguished history of breaking the law, and I've yet to see a FBI agent be punished for what they've done, unless it's spying.
FBI agent Lou Horouchi participated in a cold blooded murder, that of Vicki Weaver and her baby, yet wasn't even prosecuted. In fact, he and his fellow jackboots got awards and promotions. Hell, the FBI jackboot who is persecuting Sklyarov is up to become HEAD of the FBI!
Which is why we need the courts to defend the Constitution. While I'm all for putting mobsters away, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. To advocate that is to advocate lawlessness and anarchy.
The only way the FBI will stop violating the Constitution is to lose cases against people they violate.
This is why under US law, evidence obtained illegally is NOT evidence in the eye of the courts, this is ultimately the ONLY check and balance that will provide incentive for law enforcement to obey the law.
"> Now, if I was the FBI and wanted to make sure this case stuck, I would have sent an undercover agent to offer to buy/borrow/copy the illegal contraband before making an arrest.
Wouldn't that be entrapment? Or does this concept not apply when dealing with foreign nationals?"
It is entrapment, but it's done all the time. For instance, police women dress up like prostitutes and hang around enticing men to solicit them.
It's one way the law enforcement establishment manufactures crime so as to inflate their "successes" in a relatively safe manner rather than going out and doing something about ACTUAL non-government solicited crime. Why, that might get someone shot.
It boggles the mind HOW it makes sense for people to tolerate law enforcement being allowed to break the law to entice people to become criminals.
"With all due respect, I simply disagree with you about the primacy of this issue related to first amendment rights. Do you believe that the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees you the right to run whatever algorithm you want on your PC?"
Yes it does give you that right. What business is it of the government or a corporation WHAT I run or author on my PC, or what I do to stuff that I BUY? It only should become an issue of law when it affects something off my PC and on someone else's (with respect to viruses, etc).
"VIOLATE IT IN PUBLIC. Get arrested. Hundreds of you....No, Thousands of you across the US, and then use the publicity generated by the spate of arrests to get the 'unjust' law overturned."
Unfortunately, it's looking like this is going to happen whether deliberate or not. The DMCA as it's being applied right now is SO absurdely broad that almost anything can violate it.
"With 2600 magazine, the press had no way to describe these folks but as hackers, which put them on the defensive from the start against the well-polished MPAA, run by Valenti and his cronies"
I don't know if it was a hard choice for the press... After all, most of the major TV news media are owned by or own companies that are members of the RIAA or MPAA. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to state that because 2600 is what it is, that it was EASIER for the media to demonize them as "eevil hackers".
Sklyarov is similarly easy to demonize because he's Russian, and Russia is where the media keeps telling us where many of those "eevil hackers" are from. Which is one reson why the silence is deafening on this case. Plus, unfortunately, there still exists a lot of cold war resentment towards Russia among common Americans.
Professor Felten, however, is a different case. He's VERY hard to demonize, as a Princeton professor. Most of the news media elite like to think of themselves as coming from the Ivy League elite, and will have problems siding with their corporate bosses.
This is one reason why the RIAA/SDMI cartel is running scared from that suit. They know they are going to lose, but they know that they got caught.
Sad isn't it, that it's WHO you are, not the MERITS of your case that decides how much justice you get.
"All he did in the US is give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software."
And despite Adobe and the FBI's protestations to the contrary, I believe that this IS the reason he was arrested.
His demonstration was actually the ONLY thing he has done on US soil that COULD be a DMCA violation, and if the FBI wants to prosecute, I'm willing to bet that this WILL have to be the main charge. Which is what they dont' want to do, as that right there makes it a statutory law vs. 1st Amendment case, and those usually don't hold water.
He wrote the program as a work for hire for his company, in a place where it was perfectly legal to do so. His COMPANY publishes and sells the program, not Sklyarov. His COMPANY, not Skylarov contracted a US firm to do distribution.
Adobe's charges against him make about as much sense as charging a drug researcher with a felony for traveling to the USA to do a talk about that drug, which hasn't been approved by the FDA, but his company uses a US firm to do marketing and sales for that drug. In that context, Sklyarov's arrest would have the media screaming BLOODY murder 24/7 until he was released.
And it's a shame that the media has no sense of justice. It's an even worse shame when those entrusted with law enforcement have even LESS a sense of justice, but are willing to be pawns.
""The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
"limited times"
Well, the IP cartels have more or less bamboozled Congress and the courts to accept 5 minutes less than eternity as "limited times".
This is clearly NOT the intent of the Constitution, and not even what the law was 10-15-50 years ago.
As I've said in previous postings, if the Feds want to fall over themselves to give the IP cartel unlimited copyright and patent (even with a death penalty), the mechanism is there to do it: AMEND the Constitution.
But the Constitution can't be amended under cover of darkess as easily as illegal law can be passed by unanimous voice vote.
And so, the government weakens the rule of law, and respect for law by their own subversion and lack of respect for it. It's a mark of tyranical countries (like China), that there IS no set body of law that applies evenly to everyone. Our own government is slipping further and further towards that day when it ceases to be at ALL accountable.
It starts with the powerful getting away with felonies that the "lesser" get punished for (ie, Clinton's perjury about an affair, a crime that his OWN justice department prosecuted AND imprisoned several for). It gets worse with blatantly Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, laws being passed under cover of darkness (DMCA).
But the disease of tyrrany surely does not stop there.
Re:civil action via hostage-taking?
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 5
" So let me get this straight--Adobe worked their connections to get a competing company's employee arrested, and now will pretend to back off now that the competitor has taken their product off the market? This is scary, and the EFF should be ashamed letting themselves be used as a figleaf this way. Sklyarov won't be released anytime soon, and this whole episode basically amounted to a hostage-taking."
This is hostage taking. The DMCA is an immoral, unethical, unjust law, that IS no law at all accoring to my Roman Catholic upbringing. And Adobe became Pilate by them being the DIRECT cause of Dimitry's unjust incarceration. They are FAR from exonerated by making a symbolic statement... The charges still stand, and he's still being held against his will.
"(Yes, Elcomsoft isn't really a competitor to Adobe, except that one use of their product could reduce ebook sales)"
That's my major moral objection to the DMCA... It's basically a law that makes threatening corporate profts a FELONY... It's fortunate there was no DMCA in the time of the "Emperor Has No Clothes" fable, else the shyster "tailor" who made the Emperor's splendid invisible clothes would sue the child for a DMCA violation.
"Does this mean that Alan Cox will come crawling back to USENIX? Maybe they'll beg for him... nah.
That's the trouble with grand, explosive gestures like that... "
Alan Cox, as the #2 man on the Linux kerne, which represents over 20% of all servers, is one of the MOST important men in the entire industry.
I'd think that if HE started his own group, there'd be bigwigs all over the indstry applying to Alan to join... not vice versa.
Besides, you have to admire someone who has principles and ideals in these degenerate days, and actually LIVES by them... As much as I may sometimes disagree with Cox and Stallman, they are people to admire.
"You're delusionally idealistic. I'd like to know when the last time writing your representatives actually accomplished anything against the corporations that are lining the politicians pockets.
"Oh look! Here on my desk I have a bag of money from Sony and Warner Brothers. I also have this letter from Joe Shmoe in my district back in Georgia. Look at all this money."
Like it or not, this is the reason why there is a 2nd Amendment...
Sooner or later, if the government continues to listen more to the corporate minority, rather than the working majority, SOMETHING unpleasant is going to happen. That is, if hte American People ever grow a spine.
We're nowhere near that point yet, but unjsut, UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws like the DMCA are a step towards absolute corporate government.
If we continue on the path the late `90's started, I shudder to think what kind of America my children might inherit... Sad. I'm of Gen X, the FIRST generation to leave the country less free than when we were born.
Nothing has changed, Adobe is still guilty
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 2
He's still in jail, and the charges still stand. I don't care IF they are goiing to participate in the prosecution or not, they are STILL the sole cause of Dimitry's imprisonment for a crime that shouldn't be a crime.
And they still deserve to be picketed and boycotted. At the VERY least, until he's released. Although, perhaps the protests should diversify... Start picketing outside the offices and homes of those of the DMCA 536 still in office.
"Well, I know the DMCA passed with a voice vote. I don't think that means it was necessarily unanimous, does it? Either way, we can't know since they didn't record votes, a practice which should not be allowed as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the fact that we can't hold them accountable for their vote. But you're right that if he doesn't actually do something about it, then he isn't really helping."
Any individual Congressman could have done something about that... protested, etc, got their opposition on record, etc. NOT ONE of the 536 responsible did so, so therefore, it was unanimous.
"Gore said the constitution should be a "living document."
Bullshit. "Living document" are code words for "it meas what we want it to mean, not what it says". The Constitution, and ALL laws have to be interpreted and enforced as WRITTEN.
If you want to change the Constitution, such as to add an amendment allowing the government to eliminate the restrictions on patent and copyright, the process is in there to do it. Government can go get ANY power it wants, but to do it LEGALLY, it has to amend the Constitution.
To do it any other way is to flout the law, and that ultimately leads to what we have now, after many years of Gore-type thinking, STATUTORY law and court rulings by rogue judges, wich grant the Federal Government powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution (the 10th Amendment states explicitly that the Feds are DENIED any power not given to it by the Constitution).
Take this so-called "campaign finance reform" bill being debated... It is tantamount to an ILLEGAL Constitutional Convention, as the law is clearly an infringement of political speech, the explicity kind protected by the 1st Amendment.
The DMCA's passage was also an illegal Constitutional Convention, in that it clearly conflicts with the copyright and patent law in the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment.
When the government itself starts breaking the law, and even worse, the people are letting them get away with it (trading freedom for security), you have the beginnings of tyranny.
"Boucher has been against the DMCA for quite a while now. I understand he's against UCITA as well. He's one of the few people in Congress willing to speak out against it."
Was he in office when it passed? If so, he either voted for it, or, through not voting against it, failed to understand it or oppose it.
Congressmen coming out against DMCA now, who were in office when it passed, are playing political "damage control". They know they cant' (and won't) do anything about it, but by posturing against it, they try to get on our good side.
Don't let them get away with it. ANY congressman can introduce legislation. Has Boucher written a bill to repeal, or at the very least, strike the offensive parts of the DMCA? No? Then he doesn't have my respect until then.
"Obviously, the severity of fascism cannot be compared to the injustice of the DMCA, but still: DMCA was enacted following the standard practices of the US; it is what the country wanted. The legislative process is how the country chooses to express its will. If the DMCA is wrong, then something must be wrong with the country."
The DMCA is != fascism, but it's certainly a "thin end of the wedge" that could lead to such a system. Certainly, tolerating such laws, and elected officials who would create such laws speaks poorly of my countrymen.
Which is the weakness of democracy... History has proven that when given the vote, the majority of the masses will vote themselves "security" over freedom every time, especially when the politicians exploit emotion ("it's for the children"), and crises (Columbine, the Depression) for their own gain.
It's indicative of the resiliency of the Constitutional system that we didn't go over completely after FDR had absolute power to violate the law for 12 years (including setting up concentration camps for AMERICAN citizens of certain nationalities), but every politician SINCE FDR has followed his example of subverting the Constitution for their own gain, which leads us to today, and laws like the DMCA...
This tendancy always leads to the masses voting themselves a dictatorship. This is why it's rare for a democratic form of government to survive more than a few generations.
The USA is actually, the longest lived such government, and it's obvious the cracks are beginning to show, at least to all of us who are paying attention.
"I mean, we used force of bribery to get Yugoslavia to hand over Milosevic, who hadn't broken any law in his country...
Offtopic, but are you suggesting that genocide, crimes against humanity etc are legal in Yugoslavia?"
Not at all. Only pointing out that there are others guilty of similar crimes (one of which is a former US President) whom the US does not deal with similarly.
I hate to say it, but crap Clinton's aspirin factory fiasco and the arrest of Sklyarov give plenty of people reason, with JUSTIFICATION to hate the US.
"Personally, the fact that it was unanimous (I thought it was only the Senate that passed unanimously, actually) shows me that the people who voted for it are traitors. This is why we have the second amendment."
And also why the Decaration of Independance is worded as deliberately as it is. And it WAS a resolution passed by our legally elected government of that time.
The 2nd amendment is important, not for personal protection only, but in that only an armed populace FORCES the government to respect the laws and the people. ALL government power flows from the barrel of a gun, and consequently, only the opposite makes government have to respect the law and the outcome of an election.
Please, anti-gun nuts, DON'T respond with "honorable people will obey the laws because they are honorable" BS that most of you spout. The whole REASON why we have a Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights (which, if you ever read it, includes ONLY restrictions on government, NOT on the people).
They were designed because the Founders KNEW VERY DAMN WELL that government in and of itself was an intrinsically corrupt and self-serving thing, and that over time, people IN government tended to be infected. After all, they'd just fought and won a costly war to gain independance from one. A war that was possible because the citizens were ARMED. And that is why that right is in the Constitution.
"When it gets bad enough that unjust and unconstitutional laws can be passed unanimously by a group of traitors, that group of traitors needs to be shot in order to prevent tyranny."
They do need to be shot, after a legal trial, in which they are found guilty of treason according to the law. Probably the WORST omission from the Bill of Rights is an amendment making the violation of the Constitution by government treason, or at least a felony.
"Much more of this type of shit, and I think Americans will be ready to take their government back from the corporations, by force if necessary."
I think the fact that the DMCA passed 536-0 is proof that we may well be already at that line.
Obviously NEITHER major political party is going to champion the people over any interest of the corporation. If the government keeps on this kind of path, without correction, obviously, some kind of consequence is inevitable. When the government refuses to obey the law, then there IS no way to get justice in the "system". Which is why there is a 2nd Amendment. I'm hoping it never comes to that. I belive this case, and Dr. Feltens are going to be very important to the future of our industry, AND to this country. I'm not willing to take up, or advocate taking up arms against the government, until and UNLESS the sytem completely fails us, and there is no longer any possibility of legal redress against such government abuse of the law.
"Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek--shooting is only necessary against the armed forces in order to take the government back. Keep track of who voted the DMCA in and make sure you vote against them come re-election time."
I agree, toungue in cheek. And I do intend to vote against EVERY congressman who was in office at the time of the DMCA's passage, regardless of party. Furthermore, when I do, I am going to write a letter to them explaining that this is WHY they do not have my vote, and that unless they introduce or co-sponsor a bill to repeal the DMCA, their opponents will continue to have my vote and my financial contribution.
"Can you think of a BETTER place for a facist bitch than the FBI? I mean, if someone has natural tendancies to stick to the rules and enforce them even when they anger people, she's *exactly* the kind of person I'd like to see going after criminals."
Well, *YOUR* kind of people are all over the FBI, apparently. Such as FBI agent Lou Horuchi, who ordered the operation that resulted in the murder of an innocent, unarmed woman and her infant she was holding, all in the name of enforcing a trumped-up gun charge against an admittedly un-nice person (Randy Weaver, who was a white seperatist).
The FBI was thouroughly corrupted during the 50 year "reign of terror" of J Edgar Hoover, and hasn't shown ANY signs of having been reformed since.
"I completely agree. This company is responible for holding a man hostage. Their executives should be meeting with the EFF now. Forcing Dmitri to spend a weekend in jail for this shows no good will by Adobe."
I agree. Jailing one of us, a computer specialist, is in itself EXTREMELY punishing. Espeically when it's done unjustly. I know there are some who will argue that the DMCA is a law, but an UNJUST law is NO LAW. Morality and the Judeo-Christian Bible backs this sentiment.
After all, those black civil rights protesters who rode in the front of the bus, or sat at the white's only lunch counters were breaking laws too, but NO ONE with any sense of morality would then or now call them criminals.
"I don't see how talking about ANYTHING can be illegal - I think that much is in the constitution. Now, I was not at the conference, but I don't believe he was passing free copies of this program or source code for it (the two actions if that had happen could possibly be construed as being illegal)."
Well, obviously, SOME forms of speech are and should be illegal, such as:
1. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc
2. Threats of illegal actions (I'll have your legs broken), etc.
3. Libelous and Slanderous speech (though in the USA, libel and slander are NOT covered under criminal law, but CIVIL law, meaning you cannot be arrested or go to jail for it)
What Sklyarov spoke about obviously is none of those three.
Obviously, one of the DMCA's BIGGEST Constitutional hurdles is that it more or less adds this to the First Amendment:
"you cannot engage in speech that will disseminate information about breaking any form of encryption or protection on a copyrighted work".
Which is why I'm so angry at the dispicable and dishonorable "judge" Kaplan for not only IGNORING this problem with the DMCA, but he even EXTENDED it's power by including web links...
""He" didn't sell the software anywhere. The company he works for did. Why was he arrested? Even if they had reason to arrest someone, why was he the only one arrested? Why not the company CEO who was also there?"
Because even a corporate CEO would be likely to engender more sympathy and outrage than an "evil Russian Hacker".
Even though officially he wasn't arrested for his speech, it's OBVIOUS that the speech is exactly WHY he was picked out to be arrested. Anyone with the talent and more importantly, the ability to communicate circumvention of pitiful corporate attempts at "commercialy sold security" is a threat to the corporate bottom line.
Sklyarov had the balls to PUBLICALLY state, with proof, that "The Emperor Has No Clothes", and that pissed off the Emperor very much.
The Emperor, in this case, being Adobe, who has VERY much to gain in selling their "e-books" scheme to publishing houses, who are undoutably frothing at the mouth over the prospect of eliminating the paper book as soon as they can to rid themselves of all that "lost revenue" because people have the AUDACITY to loan books and use libraries.
One of the methods of "protection" that Sklyarov is accused of illegally "circumventing" under the DMCA is.. ROT13!
Hell, next time someone discovers another security hole in IIS, they should "encrypt" the information with a simple scheme (say 1=A, 2=B, etc), attatch it to an e-mail to Microsoft with an "EULA" forbidding them to "decrypt" it without buying a "license" for your "ABC=123 Strong Encryption Technology".
Slashdot Mirror
"This is what happend in the OJ Simpson case. The LAPD got caught trying to frame a guilty man. The Juice walked because the police acted dirty. Note that he promptly lost the civil case."
This happened largely because the rules of evidence in a civil case (where imprisonment is not a possible penalty) and a criminal case are completely different. And, the burden of proof is less than "reasonable doubt", but is "perponderance of evidence".
Which, incidentally, I disagree with. I think that civil double-jeopardy following an acquital of the same charge in criminal court should be outlawed, as is actually implied in the Constitution. And that rules of evidence and standard of conviction should be altered to the same tough standards in criminal cases. This would go a long way to reducing abuse of civil court by the powerful as their personal persecution squad.
"I always thought it might be a better idea to go ahead and use the evidence, but then go ahead and throw the book at all of the people who were responsible for collecting it illegally (at the very least blacklisting them from law enforcement, and with the possibility of jail time)."
You can't do that and still maintain the integrity of the Bill of Rights. To allow someone's rights to be violated by the government, and then to allow that to be used as evidence makes them meaningless.
You will NEVER discourage government agents violating the Constitutional rights of citizens unless you then DENY them the rewards of the violation, ie, the illegal evidence that leads to a conviction. To the courts, there is no difference at ALL between illegally obtained evidence and false planted evidence, and that's the way it should be.
The best way to discourage this practice is to BOTH disallow that evidence, AND to prosecute those responsible.
I'd rather see guilty go free (like OJ did) than have innocent people imprisoned. Though I agree that he was guilty, I agree that the jury reached the propler verdict, given all the evidence of mishandled (and even planted) evidence and rampant police corruption. As an upside, it's no coincidence that the pursuit of corruption in the LAPD that is going on today is a DIRECT result of that verdict.
"Well, if the case had already reached a verdict, that verdict is thrown out. But the government can refile the case without the offending evidence. Unless of course that conflicts with double jeopardy?"
It would only violate double jeopardy if the defendant was found not guilty. The Constitution does not allow for someone to be tried again for the same charge if once found not guilty.
However, it's less likely, of course, that the prosecutors would re-try a case if the primary evidence is tossed. They'd have to have enough evidence left to even bring the charges again, much less make it to trial.
This brings up an excellent point... It seems to me that law enforcement is getting TOO dependant on high tech means of evidence gathering, to the point where they neglect conventional means. Take the OJ case for example, the prosecution made the defense's case easier given the fact that they staked their WHOLE case on DNA evidence. DNA evidence, that, it turned out, was processed at a lab with a less than stellar record.
It's likely that in this case, the FBI's case against this mobster relies almost EXCLUSIVELY on this illegally gained evidence. If so, tough shit. Convienience is no excuse to allow government operatives to violate civil rights.
"Actually I wonder why terrorist organizations couldn't at least theoretically use this for their advantage. It shouldn't be too hard to get a corrupted, underpaid policeman to intentionally make a "mistake" (for some nice amount of cold cash), should it?"
This is why there needs to be balance in the law. If you are going to punish those who commit acts against law enforcement more harshly than against joe citizen, you should also punish lawbreaking law enforcement agencies more harshly.
Of course, that never happens. The point is, if things are the way you want them to be, and evidence is allowed, even if obtained illegally, then you've just made the Bill of Rights irrelevant and given any rogue agent of the government carte blanche to conduct witchunts.
"But in the US it seems the means justify ends - letting someone known to be a serial killer free just because some inspector or police made a mistake."
That, of course is not a good thing. But everyone makes mistakes, even the most skilled.
The reason why the law HAS to be what it is so that police who WILLFULLY violate the law do not get to use that illegal evidence to prosecute someone.
It's unfortunate, but the only way to prevent jailing INNOCENT people because of the actions of rogue law enforcement is to increase the chance of freeing the guilty. And the kicker is, the more power you give the jackboots, the more likely you are going to jail more innocents than guilty.
This comes because under the US Constitution, there is a PRESUMPTION of innocence. It's the burden of the state to prove guilt, and they should not be allowed to use evidence obatined illegally.
"This particular event needs to be punished, and unfortunately in this case it means a guilty person goes free."
Don't hold your breath. The FBI has a long and distinguished history of breaking the law, and I've yet to see a FBI agent be punished for what they've done, unless it's spying.
FBI agent Lou Horouchi participated in a cold blooded murder, that of Vicki Weaver and her baby, yet wasn't even prosecuted. In fact, he and his fellow jackboots got awards and promotions. Hell, the FBI jackboot who is persecuting Sklyarov is up to become HEAD of the FBI!
Which is why we need the courts to defend the Constitution. While I'm all for putting mobsters away, the ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. To advocate that is to advocate lawlessness and anarchy.
The only way the FBI will stop violating the Constitution is to lose cases against people they violate.
This is why under US law, evidence obtained illegally is NOT evidence in the eye of the courts, this is ultimately the ONLY check and balance that will provide incentive for law enforcement to obey the law.
"> Now, if I was the FBI and wanted to make sure this case stuck, I would have sent an undercover agent to offer to buy/borrow/copy the illegal contraband before making an arrest.
Wouldn't that be entrapment? Or does this concept not apply when dealing with foreign nationals?"
It is entrapment, but it's done all the time. For instance, police women dress up like prostitutes and hang around enticing men to solicit them.
It's one way the law enforcement establishment manufactures crime so as to inflate their "successes" in a relatively safe manner rather than going out and doing something about ACTUAL non-government solicited crime. Why, that might get someone shot.
It boggles the mind HOW it makes sense for people to tolerate law enforcement being allowed to break the law to entice people to become criminals.
"With all due respect, I simply disagree with you about the primacy of this issue related to first amendment rights. Do you believe that the 1st amendment to the constitution guarantees you the right to run whatever algorithm you want on your PC?"
Yes it does give you that right. What business is it of the government or a corporation WHAT I run or author on my PC, or what I do to stuff that I BUY? It only should become an issue of law when it affects something off my PC and on someone else's (with respect to viruses, etc).
"VIOLATE IT IN PUBLIC. Get arrested. Hundreds of you....No, Thousands of you across the US, and then use the publicity generated by the spate of arrests to get the 'unjust' law overturned."
Unfortunately, it's looking like this is going to happen whether deliberate or not. The DMCA as it's being applied right now is SO absurdely broad that almost anything can violate it.
"With 2600 magazine, the press had no way to describe these folks but as hackers, which put them on the defensive from the start against the well-polished MPAA, run by Valenti and his cronies"
I don't know if it was a hard choice for the press... After all, most of the major TV news media are owned by or own companies that are members of the RIAA or MPAA. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to state that because 2600 is what it is, that it was EASIER for the media to demonize them as "eevil hackers".
Sklyarov is similarly easy to demonize because he's Russian, and Russia is where the media keeps telling us where many of those "eevil hackers" are from. Which is one reson why the silence is deafening on this case. Plus, unfortunately, there still exists a lot of cold war resentment towards Russia among common Americans.
Professor Felten, however, is a different case. He's VERY hard to demonize, as a Princeton professor. Most of the news media elite like to think of themselves as coming from the Ivy League elite, and will have problems siding with their corporate bosses.
This is one reason why the RIAA/SDMI cartel is running scared from that suit. They know they are going to lose, but they know that they got caught.
Sad isn't it, that it's WHO you are, not the MERITS of your case that decides how much justice you get.
"All he did in the US is give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software."
And despite Adobe and the FBI's protestations to the contrary, I believe that this IS the reason he was arrested.
His demonstration was actually the ONLY thing he has done on US soil that COULD be a DMCA violation, and if the FBI wants to prosecute, I'm willing to bet that this WILL have to be the main charge. Which is what they dont' want to do, as that right there makes it a statutory law vs. 1st Amendment case, and those usually don't hold water.
He wrote the program as a work for hire for his company, in a place where it was perfectly legal to do so. His COMPANY publishes and sells the program, not Sklyarov. His COMPANY, not Skylarov contracted a US firm to do distribution.
Adobe's charges against him make about as much sense as charging a drug researcher with a felony for traveling to the USA to do a talk about that drug, which hasn't been approved by the FDA, but his company uses a US firm to do marketing and sales for that drug. In that context, Sklyarov's arrest would have the media screaming BLOODY murder 24/7 until he was released.
And it's a shame that the media has no sense of justice. It's an even worse shame when those entrusted with law enforcement have even LESS a sense of justice, but are willing to be pawns.
""The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
"limited times"
Well, the IP cartels have more or less bamboozled Congress and the courts to accept 5 minutes less than eternity as "limited times".
This is clearly NOT the intent of the Constitution, and not even what the law was 10-15-50 years ago.
As I've said in previous postings, if the Feds want to fall over themselves to give the IP cartel unlimited copyright and patent (even with a death penalty), the mechanism is there to do it: AMEND the Constitution.
But the Constitution can't be amended under cover of darkess as easily as illegal law can be passed by unanimous voice vote.
And so, the government weakens the rule of law, and respect for law by their own subversion and lack of respect for it. It's a mark of tyranical countries (like China), that there IS no set body of law that applies evenly to everyone. Our own government is slipping further and further towards that day when it ceases to be at ALL accountable.
It starts with the powerful getting away with felonies that the "lesser" get punished for (ie, Clinton's perjury about an affair, a crime that his OWN justice department prosecuted AND imprisoned several for). It gets worse with blatantly Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, laws being passed under cover of darkness (DMCA).
But the disease of tyrrany surely does not stop there.
" So let me get this straight--Adobe worked their connections to get a competing company's employee arrested, and now will pretend to back off now that the competitor has taken their product off the market? This is scary, and the EFF should be ashamed letting themselves be used as a figleaf this way. Sklyarov won't be released anytime soon, and this whole episode basically amounted to a hostage-taking."
This is hostage taking. The DMCA is an immoral, unethical, unjust law, that IS no law at all accoring to my Roman Catholic upbringing. And Adobe became Pilate by them being the DIRECT cause of Dimitry's unjust incarceration. They are FAR from exonerated by making a symbolic statement... The charges still stand, and he's still being held against his will.
"(Yes, Elcomsoft isn't really a competitor to Adobe, except that one use of their product could reduce ebook sales)"
That's my major moral objection to the DMCA... It's basically a law that makes threatening corporate profts a FELONY... It's fortunate there was no DMCA in the time of the "Emperor Has No Clothes" fable, else the shyster "tailor" who made the Emperor's splendid invisible clothes would sue the child for a DMCA violation.
"Does this mean that Alan Cox will come crawling back to USENIX? Maybe they'll beg for him... nah.
That's the trouble with grand, explosive gestures like that... "
Alan Cox, as the #2 man on the Linux kerne, which represents over 20% of all servers, is one of the MOST important men in the entire industry.
I'd think that if HE started his own group, there'd be bigwigs all over the indstry applying to Alan to join... not vice versa.
Besides, you have to admire someone who has principles and ideals in these degenerate days, and actually LIVES by them... As much as I may sometimes disagree with Cox and Stallman, they are people to admire.
"You're delusionally idealistic. I'd like to know when the last time writing your representatives actually accomplished anything against the corporations that are lining the politicians pockets.
"Oh look! Here on my desk I have a bag of money from Sony and Warner Brothers. I also have this letter from Joe Shmoe in my district back in Georgia. Look at all this money."
Like it or not, this is the reason why there is a 2nd Amendment...
Sooner or later, if the government continues to listen more to the corporate minority, rather than the working majority, SOMETHING unpleasant is going to happen. That is, if hte American People ever grow a spine.
We're nowhere near that point yet, but unjsut, UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws like the DMCA are a step towards absolute corporate government.
If we continue on the path the late `90's started, I shudder to think what kind of America my children might inherit... Sad. I'm of Gen X, the FIRST generation to leave the country less free than when we were born.
He's still in jail, and the charges still stand. I don't care IF they are goiing to participate in the prosecution or not, they are STILL the sole cause of Dimitry's imprisonment for a crime that shouldn't be a crime.
And they still deserve to be picketed and boycotted. At the VERY least, until he's released. Although, perhaps the protests should diversify... Start picketing outside the offices and homes of those of the DMCA 536 still in office.
"Well, I know the DMCA passed with a voice vote. I don't think that means it was necessarily unanimous, does it? Either way, we can't know since they didn't record votes, a practice which should not be allowed as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the fact that we can't hold them accountable for their vote. But you're right that if he doesn't actually do something about it, then he isn't really helping."
Any individual Congressman could have done something about that... protested, etc, got their opposition on record, etc. NOT ONE of the 536 responsible did so, so therefore, it was unanimous.
"Gore said the constitution should be a "living document."
Bullshit. "Living document" are code words for "it meas what we want it to mean, not what it says". The Constitution, and ALL laws have to be interpreted and enforced as WRITTEN.
If you want to change the Constitution, such as to add an amendment allowing the government to eliminate the restrictions on patent and copyright, the process is in there to do it. Government can go get ANY power it wants, but to do it LEGALLY, it has to amend the Constitution.
To do it any other way is to flout the law, and that ultimately leads to what we have now, after many years of Gore-type thinking, STATUTORY law and court rulings by rogue judges, wich grant the Federal Government powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution (the 10th Amendment states explicitly that the Feds are DENIED any power not given to it by the Constitution).
Take this so-called "campaign finance reform" bill being debated... It is tantamount to an ILLEGAL Constitutional Convention, as the law is clearly an infringement of political speech, the explicity kind protected by the 1st Amendment.
The DMCA's passage was also an illegal Constitutional Convention, in that it clearly conflicts with the copyright and patent law in the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment.
When the government itself starts breaking the law, and even worse, the people are letting them get away with it (trading freedom for security), you have the beginnings of tyranny.
"Boucher has been against the DMCA for quite a while now. I understand he's against UCITA as well. He's one of the few people in Congress willing to speak out against it."
Was he in office when it passed? If so, he either voted for it, or, through not voting against it, failed to understand it or oppose it.
Congressmen coming out against DMCA now, who were in office when it passed, are playing political "damage control". They know they cant' (and won't) do anything about it, but by posturing against it, they try to get on our good side.
Don't let them get away with it. ANY congressman can introduce legislation. Has Boucher written a bill to repeal, or at the very least, strike the offensive parts of the DMCA? No? Then he doesn't have my respect until then.
"Obviously, the severity of fascism cannot be compared to the injustice of the DMCA, but still: DMCA was enacted following the standard practices of the US; it is what the country wanted. The legislative process is how the country chooses to express its will. If the DMCA is wrong, then something must be wrong with the country."
The DMCA is != fascism, but it's certainly a "thin end of the wedge" that could lead to such a system. Certainly, tolerating such laws, and elected officials who would create such laws speaks poorly of my countrymen.
Which is the weakness of democracy... History has proven that when given the vote, the majority of the masses will vote themselves "security" over freedom every time, especially when the politicians exploit emotion ("it's for the children"), and crises (Columbine, the Depression) for their own gain.
It's indicative of the resiliency of the Constitutional system that we didn't go over completely after FDR had absolute power to violate the law for 12 years (including setting up concentration camps for AMERICAN citizens of certain nationalities), but every politician SINCE FDR has followed his example of subverting the Constitution for their own gain, which leads us to today, and laws like the DMCA...
This tendancy always leads to the masses voting themselves a dictatorship. This is why it's rare for a democratic form of government to survive more than a few generations.
The USA is actually, the longest lived such government, and it's obvious the cracks are beginning to show, at least to all of us who are paying attention.
"I mean, we used force of bribery to get Yugoslavia to hand over Milosevic, who hadn't broken any law in his country...
Offtopic, but are you suggesting that genocide, crimes against humanity etc are legal in Yugoslavia?"
Not at all. Only pointing out that there are others guilty of similar crimes (one of which is a former US President) whom the US does not deal with similarly.
I hate to say it, but crap Clinton's aspirin factory fiasco and the arrest of Sklyarov give plenty of people reason, with JUSTIFICATION to hate the US.
"Personally, the fact that it was unanimous (I thought it was only the Senate that passed unanimously, actually) shows me that the people who voted for it are traitors. This is why we have the second amendment."
And also why the Decaration of Independance is worded as deliberately as it is. And it WAS a resolution passed by our legally elected government of that time.
The 2nd amendment is important, not for personal protection only, but in that only an armed populace FORCES the government to respect the laws and the people. ALL government power flows from the barrel of a gun, and consequently, only the opposite makes government have to respect the law and the outcome of an election.
Please, anti-gun nuts, DON'T respond with "honorable people will obey the laws because they are honorable" BS that most of you spout. The whole REASON why we have a Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights (which, if you ever read it, includes ONLY restrictions on government, NOT on the people).
They were designed because the Founders KNEW VERY DAMN WELL that government in and of itself was an intrinsically corrupt and self-serving thing, and that over time, people IN government tended to be infected. After all, they'd just fought and won a costly war to gain independance from one. A war that was possible because the citizens were ARMED. And that is why that right is in the Constitution.
"When it gets bad enough that unjust and unconstitutional laws can be passed unanimously by a group of traitors, that group of traitors needs to be shot in order to prevent tyranny."
They do need to be shot, after a legal trial, in which they are found guilty of treason according to the law. Probably the WORST omission from the Bill of Rights is an amendment making the violation of the Constitution by government treason, or at least a felony.
"Much more of this type of shit, and I think Americans will be ready to take their government back from the corporations, by force if necessary."
I think the fact that the DMCA passed 536-0 is proof that we may well be already at that line.
Obviously NEITHER major political party is going to champion the people over any interest of the corporation. If the government keeps on this kind of path, without correction, obviously, some kind of consequence is inevitable. When the government refuses to obey the law, then there IS no way to get justice in the "system". Which is why there is a 2nd Amendment. I'm hoping it never comes to that. I belive this case, and Dr. Feltens are going to be very important to the future of our industry, AND to this country. I'm not willing to take up, or advocate taking up arms against the government, until and UNLESS the sytem completely fails us, and there is no longer any possibility of legal redress against such government abuse of the law.
"Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek--shooting is only necessary against the armed forces in order to take the government back. Keep track of who voted the DMCA in and make sure you vote against them come re-election time."
I agree, toungue in cheek. And I do intend to vote against EVERY congressman who was in office at the time of the DMCA's passage, regardless of party. Furthermore, when I do, I am going to write a letter to them explaining that this is WHY they do not have my vote, and that unless they introduce or co-sponsor a bill to repeal the DMCA, their opponents will continue to have my vote and my financial contribution.
"Can you think of a BETTER place for a facist bitch than the FBI? I mean, if someone has natural tendancies to stick to the rules and enforce them even when they anger people, she's *exactly* the kind of person I'd like to see going after criminals."
Well, *YOUR* kind of people are all over the FBI, apparently. Such as FBI agent Lou Horuchi, who ordered the operation that resulted in the murder of an innocent, unarmed woman and her infant she was holding, all in the name of enforcing a trumped-up gun charge against an admittedly un-nice person (Randy Weaver, who was a white seperatist).
The FBI was thouroughly corrupted during the 50 year "reign of terror" of J Edgar Hoover, and hasn't shown ANY signs of having been reformed since.
"I completely agree. This company is responible for holding a man hostage. Their executives should be meeting with the EFF now. Forcing Dmitri to spend a weekend in jail for this shows no good will by Adobe."
I agree. Jailing one of us, a computer specialist, is in itself EXTREMELY punishing. Espeically when it's done unjustly. I know there are some who will argue that the DMCA is a law, but an UNJUST law is NO LAW. Morality and the Judeo-Christian Bible backs this sentiment.
After all, those black civil rights protesters who rode in the front of the bus, or sat at the white's only lunch counters were breaking laws too, but NO ONE with any sense of morality would then or now call them criminals.
"I don't see how talking about ANYTHING can be illegal - I think that much is in the constitution. Now, I was not at the conference, but I don't believe he was passing free copies of this program or source code for it (the two actions if that had happen could possibly be construed as being illegal)."
Well, obviously, SOME forms of speech are and should be illegal, such as:
1. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc
2. Threats of illegal actions (I'll have your legs broken), etc.
3. Libelous and Slanderous speech (though in the USA, libel and slander are NOT covered under criminal law, but CIVIL law, meaning you cannot be arrested or go to jail for it)
What Sklyarov spoke about obviously is none of those three.
Obviously, one of the DMCA's BIGGEST Constitutional hurdles is that it more or less adds this to the First Amendment:
"you cannot engage in speech that will disseminate information about breaking any form of encryption or protection on a copyrighted work".
Which is why I'm so angry at the dispicable and dishonorable "judge" Kaplan for not only IGNORING this problem with the DMCA, but he even EXTENDED it's power by including web links...
""He" didn't sell the software anywhere. The company he works for did. Why was he arrested? Even if they had reason to arrest someone, why was he the only one arrested? Why not the company CEO who was also there?"
Because even a corporate CEO would be likely to engender more sympathy and outrage than an "evil Russian Hacker".
Even though officially he wasn't arrested for his speech, it's OBVIOUS that the speech is exactly WHY he was picked out to be arrested. Anyone with the talent and more importantly, the ability to communicate circumvention of pitiful corporate attempts at "commercialy sold security" is a threat to the corporate bottom line.
Sklyarov had the balls to PUBLICALLY state, with proof, that "The Emperor Has No Clothes", and that pissed off the Emperor very much.
The Emperor, in this case, being Adobe, who has VERY much to gain in selling their "e-books" scheme to publishing houses, who are undoutably frothing at the mouth over the prospect of eliminating the paper book as soon as they can to rid themselves of all that "lost revenue" because people have the AUDACITY to loan books and use libraries.
One of the methods of "protection" that Sklyarov is accused of illegally "circumventing" under the DMCA is.. ROT13!
Hell, next time someone discovers another security hole in IIS, they should "encrypt" the information with a simple scheme (say 1=A, 2=B, etc), attatch it to an e-mail to Microsoft with an "EULA" forbidding them to "decrypt" it without buying a "license" for your "ABC=123 Strong Encryption Technology".