Subject says it all. I've already polished my Palm V's casing to a shiny, chrome-like bare aluminum finish, but what I *really* would like is a source for clear buttons, specifically a clear power button, so I could put an LED under it and wire it to the appropriate hotsync pins to have it function as a TaleLight.
The problem is, while such replacement buttons are all over Japan, they're just not available in the states as far as I can tell. Worse, nobody will ship such a low-cost item overseas - not worth the hassle for a single order.
So,/. readers, I'm asking you - anyone have a line on these in the states?
Opening AOL's IM servers to all clients and comers will ensure that all competitors (duh) use the AIM protocol over AOL's servers.
Think about this - every ephemeral instant message transits Northern Virginia.
Law enforcement and intel concerns are driving this one, folks. The last thing the feds want is another decentralized communication protocol - it forces them to lean on too many people to get easy access (*cough*carnivore*cough). "Competition" is a decoy, as should be obvious - opening AOL's servers is only going to guarantee an AOL monopoly on the server/protocol side.
And you missed one - it's young, racist, sexist, white males.
Don't think I won't fight to support the rights of those who created that execrable Ackbar comic or the banal "look, pretty girl - isn't it funny that she's dumber than us!" Spears page; I don't call for the banning of such trifles.
Neither will I let them slide on this forum without comment, however. I think it's stupid, unfunny shit, and feel that such pages should reflect poorly on their authors, however smart they might be (or believe themselves to be).
Typically such works are trolls (of the traditional, desiring-to-provoke-response sort), but in these two examples, I strongly suspect the authors simply gave voice to their own preconceptions without thinking, proving themselves fools, or at least socially immature.
It's amazing what a hard ideological people can take when they don't have to give anything up (boycotting Amazon doesn't hurt when you're not starved for choice in book-merchants).
Look, if you buy a Tivo, expect your viewing habits to be sold. Expect your personal data to be tied to them. The kind of highly-granular, personally-identifiable viewing data (down to what commercials are fast-forwarded) Tivo can collect is worth a hell of a lot more than the $10/month.
Of course, they'll generously guard your privacy now while building their installed-base (especially among tech-savvy, privacy-conscious early adopters), but once its popularity blooms beyond that market into the millions, expect an about face.
You may wail and moan and cancel your service at that point, but you'll never get the data you already gave them out of their systems, where it will be bought and sold and subpoenaed.
Luckily the companies that make VCR's are mostly the same companies that make the content these days, so they can absorb the cost of such changes. We (as in the "we" that does not read Slashdot) will never notice any difference.
If this were true, there would be no deadlock. Fortunately, it's not true. The only company this vertically integrated is Sony, and they're not the only or even the dominant supplier of VCRs and televisions. Matsushita (Panasonic, etc.), Mitsubishi, Philips (Magnavox, etc.), Samsung, Goldstar, etc. etc. all have economic interests in this regard. Not being content companies, they're copy-protection agnostic or hostile. They just want to move hardware. (I'm personally waiting for Philips' portable MP3 CD player; the ones currently on the market have fit-and-finish issues. We'd never see such a device out of Sony.)
Remember kids, the HRRC, despite its warm-fuzzy name, is about the interests of electronics manufacturers. Don't think for a minute that your best interests are represented by either side here.
The HRRC is only concerned about the MPAA's proposals inasmuch as they might
Make existing sets obsolete, burning their most profitable sector of early-adopters or (probably) forcing recalls.
Drive down demand for VCRs (anyone who believes that even marginally-desirable programming won't be copy protected is fooling themselves. No more taping "The Simpsons"... but for only $29.95 you can buy three episodes on DVD!)
Given that the MPAA/networks won't budge on the copy-protection point, I'm not surprised the issue has gone to the FCC to decide.
And as a licensed amateur radio operator (KC4TQP), I can tell you the FCC is the fox guarding the consumer henhouse. If a consumer-friendly ruling comes down from the FCC, it will be purely coincidental.
If I remember right, you could do this via network controls on DOOM in c. 1994? (the center screen one 486, and the two 45 degree displays powered by 2 more 486s).
I can verify that this did indeed work with earlier versions of DOOM; the other machines were basically slave clients. Precluded multiplayer action, though.
For some reason, this feature was removed from later versions of the DOOM software (1.666?, 1.8? I can't remember).
so for me, yes i am spending more on CD music (yes i am above the age of 24) but i am spending it on stuff most mainstream labels shun.
This is a big part of the RIAA members' fear of Napster and digital music in general - changing, unpredictable tastes. People who can go online and play around, sharing music with friends and strangers are more likely to be exposed to a wider range of music than people who listen to their meticulously programmed Top-40 (more like Top-15 these days) station.
Someone exposed to a wider range of music is less likely to direct all of their dollars and attention to the pap promoted and spoonfed to listeners. This mean fewer economies of scale from the marketing and A&R perspective, and the decline (not demise) of the superstar, with a return to more niche acts. A good thing from my perspective, but from a record company viewpoint, it's more efficient to keep people buying Brittney, Garth, and Jay-Z (or their handful of superstar peers) to the exclusion of most smaller acts.
I say, bring on the subscription model, and let the record companies recoup the loss in marketing efficiency in lower distribution costs (shipping bits instead of atoms). All You Can Eat is the model we need now, and as long as unsigned and signed but non-RIAA affiliated artists get access and listening habits have the same legal privacy protections as video rental habits, I'll be delighted.
Something tells me that day is a long way and 2^10 lawsuits away, alas, and may never happen w/ respect to privacy and outsider access.
Hrm. That's understandable. But what about if there's a likeness of the work already existing (a photograph, say), with no such restrictions? Do I still need to get your permission to distribute copies of that?
Good question! I have no idea.
I suspect that if a previous owner has allowed unfettered distribution of reproductions that any future owner wouldn't have the right to restrict them, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
The law is a fuzzy thing, especially civil law. Terms like "legal" and "illegal" don't really apply to situations like this. If the owner advised you to cease distributing reproductions, AND he chose to sue you AND you lost in court AND no further appeals were granted AND a judge ordered you cease such distributions AND you didn't comply, then you could fairly call your continued actions "illegal", but that's only one way the process might unfold.
I can understand charging a fee to, say, photograph the painting, but the rest of the ownership right seems way off-base to me. Can someone confirm or deny this?
Think of it like a contract. I own a piece of art. It's displayed in my private gallery (i.e. not on a street corner or other public place). You want to photograph it. I can decide whether or not to allow this, as you have to come onto my turf to do so, even if it's a work on which the copyright has expired. I can even tell you that you may photograph it for your own use, but that you may not reproduce your photographs of the work for commercial (or any other) purpose. You don't have to agree to those terms, but you don't have to see the work, either.
Well... although the copyright may expire someday, a movie or any other material does not become public domain, when it does. I fact, The Matrix
will always belong to the people who made it. You will not have to pay for licenses then (that is why older movies can be sold on cheap video tapes), but you will still have to ask, before you distribute it.
I guess it's been so long since a work has entered the public domain that people have forgotten what public domain means. You'd have to work hard to be more wrong. Public domain means anyone can use/modify/publish the work in any way and for any reason. You don't have to ask Thomas Nast or James Montgomery Flagg's permission (or rather the permission of their estates, since they're both long dead) to use the image of "Uncle Sam" in your art, or even to republish them unmodified.
I do have one concern about this new video connector. Knowing how touchy the MPAA etc. are about digital outputs from DVD, what kind of "copy protection" provisions are built into this new connector?
The connector apparently carries both analog and digital signals, according to their lit, but did you notice what the cube does lack? Audio input. No analog or SPDIF in. Gotta use a USB box or rip from CD. To be fair, this was probably an economic decision, but it still sets off my mental "trusted client alarm".
Doesn't bother me too much, though, as long as I could run linux on the thing.
Yes, but what if they need your information to develop said treatments in the first place? The process is likely to take a long time to calculate the correct compunds/amounts so they'd need your information in advance to make this work. What then?
Well, what if you can't afford the drugs anyway, because your insurance company refuses to cover you based on your DNA profile? What then, smarty-pants?
So many of you are saying "I'm just a normal guy, I have nothing to hide. Privacy is for criminals."
To them I say, your privacy will only be important to you when it's gone. When you become a criminal by governmental fiat or your own carelessness. Or, more likely, you commit countless, pointless crimes on a daily basis (speeding? jaywalking? installing a high-flush toilet in your bathroom? violating ordinance X or Y? copyright infringement?), and you just haven't been called out on it.
By the time your insurance company is raising your rates (or refusing to cover you) because they bought your DNA records or your grocery-buying habits, it will be too late for you. By the time you find yourself suddenly called out on the various infractions you commit on a daily basis for speaking out against something in the interest of those in power, it will be too late for most of us.
The transparent society will be a society based on blackmail. Transparency will never be equal for everyone or every organization.
-Isaac
The proper order is read, then write!
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 5
The interesting thing about MacOS X was that it was the power of Unix "under the hood" with the (supposed) power of the MacOS GUI on top. If you remove the Mac GUI and replace it with X, don't you end up with just plain BSD (with non-standard config files)
I'd normally write this off as a troll, but I'm feeling noisy today.
The whole point of *TENON* (not Apple, a 3rd party developer) writing this X server/wm/widget set is that it allows an easy way to display X apps and even have them integrate as smoothly as possible into the OS X look-and-feel. This means rootless display where the X clients coexist with the Quartz (display PDF) desktop and windows.
A similar product was popular under NEXTSTEP (and it was actually called Co-Xist), which allowed rootless display of X clients atop the NeXT display-postscript system.
-Isaac
Tenon, not Apple, is giving a way to run X on OSX
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 4
OS X, in case you've been asleep or dead, is a BSD/Mach based OS with a PDF-based windowing system (Quartz).
Since it's a BSD-based system, it makes sense that someone out there would provide a way to display X apps, to give more choice to those wanting or needing to run/port them.
Anyhow, it's not going to be a cheap product if Tenon's traditional pricing scheme is followed; I'd expect $500-$600 for a single user. This isn't a consumer product.
I posted this earlier, but am still seeing a lot of "What Happens now?!?!@#?" comments - Kaplan is the one who got to decide whether or not to recuse (remove) himself from the case. He decided not to, first thing this morning. The trial began as scheduled. He is presiding over this trial, period.
Appeals are likely. Don't look for resolution anytime soon.
And the protest in front of the courthouse is permitted to run until 5pm, so if yer reading this and are still nearby, get out there!
That whole line is dead. Kaput. CSS does not prevent any sort of access.
It's been concluded several times on the list that CSS is a market control measure. That's all.
I agree that this case isn't about "piracy"; it's about blocking unlicensed DVD players which might not include such "features" as Macrovision and region coding.
However, I don't think your assertion that CSS is not an access control measure is correct. It is, at heart, an access control measure that has nothing to do with "piracy". But the statue doesn't say anything about "piracy" - it defines an access control measure as anything that controls access to a copyrighted work. If CSS wasn't an access control measure, you wouldn't need to break it to view a DVD.
I used to drive a New Beetle TDI before moving to Manhattan, and it should fit your bill. I averaged 42mpg city/51mpg hwy (yes, I did keep track) with mine; never averaged less than 40 mpg in the 18 months I had it, and I have a lead foot. Excellent performance, none of the traditional diesel problems w/ noise/smoke/smell/cold-starts. Really an excellent engine.
Also, the interior is cavernous, at least for the front two seats. I've had 6'6"+ friends in the car, and they fit just fine, w/ headroom to spare. May be worth a look if you're in the market.
I was out at the protest in front of the court earlier (500 Pearl Street in Manhattan, if yer in NYC, it's still going on). Garbus requested that Judge Kaplan recuse himself based on a conflict of interest. Kaplan denied this request at the very beginning of the day. Declan McCullagh already noted this in his Wired article of several hours ago.
The sad truth is that 2600 is gonna lose this round. Kaplan's not interested in considering the constitutional merits of the DMCA, just whether Eric Corley violated the statute as written. (Which he did. It's a bad law, but DeCSS pretty clearly circumvents an access control device, and the law doesn't care for what purpose - all such circumvention is proscribed.) This is one for the appellate courts, IMHO.
I was just at the demonstration, pretty decent turnout (enough to fill the area allowed), and the people walking by have generally been receptive to our message. Handouts with the css_unscramble.c on one side and a short background on the matter at hand on the other are being given out, along w/ DeCSS t-shirts, etc.
If yer in NYC, you should come down, even if only for your lunch break.
-Isaac
In NYC? Feeling guilty about seeing this? Well...
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 2
You can't take back the $9.50 you fed into the MPAA lawsuit machine, but you can show up at the federal court at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan to protest the DMCA at the opening of the DeCSS trial.
So what's the FBI to do? If 'net taps are legal, how on earth can they be carried out without breaking the chain of custody of the evidence?
Any genius here wanna answer that one?
How about making the FBI do a little legwork and tap at the customer's end, not the entire ISP network. Sniff that broadband connection or listen to the phone lines (contrary to popular belief, modems *ARE* tappable - there are special-purpose boxes to listen to and reconstruct bidirectional traffic from a traditional analog phone tap). Don't tap the entire ISP with a black box. There are other ways to gather wiretap intel; what makes me suspicious is that the FBI chose the "tap everyone and sort later" model, to say nothing of the suspicious nature of a "black box" with full access to an ISP's network traffic.
Earthlink is not saying "We won't cooperate with the FBI", they're saying "The Carnivore system is incompatible with our architecture". Big difference.
Cringeley is right to be concerned about the CPOF implications of having FBI-controlled boxen sitting at the edges of American ISPs, though. Think about this in the context of the Internet Gambling Ban headed down the pike. Or the Drug information censorship act (aka, "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act", now buried in a bankruptcy-reform bill in conference). Sure the courts will probably strike down the prior-restraint provisions of the latter, but imagine a bill that doesn't address the publishing, but merely gives the FBI authority to "kill-file" a certain class of sites at the ISP level, without actually restricting the right to publish per se.
Having consulted on a computer crime case for the FDLE, I've seen the "us-against-them" mentality inside the investigative law enforcement community first hand. "Them" doesn't mean just "criminals" either - from the LE perspective, there are only 3 types of people in the world: cops, convicts, and suspects. That the FBI (with their sterling history since the days of J. Edgar) would be on the leading-edge of such surveillance/enforcement techniques is wholly unsurprising to me.
Translation: I don't think an individual can make a difference.
if even all of/. community stopped watching movies, the impact on the MPAA would be minimal.
Translation: Why try if you might not succeed immediately?
all I'm saying, is that my rights in such a matter *don't* matter as much to me as my enjoyment. Maybe I've sold out, maybe I'm under the finger of the "man", or maybe I realize that there are far more important things in life to worry about.
Translation: Who needs rights when you can buy all this cool stuff?!
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, while such replacement buttons are all over Japan, they're just not available in the states as far as I can tell. Worse, nobody will ship such a low-cost item overseas - not worth the hassle for a single order.
So, /. readers, I'm asking you - anyone have a line on these in the states?
-Isaac
Think about this - every ephemeral instant message transits Northern Virginia.
Law enforcement and intel concerns are driving this one, folks. The last thing the feds want is another decentralized communication protocol - it forces them to lean on too many people to get easy access (*cough*carnivore*cough). "Competition" is a decoy, as should be obvious - opening AOL's servers is only going to guarantee an AOL monopoly on the server/protocol side.
-Isaac
Don't think I won't fight to support the rights of those who created that execrable Ackbar comic or the banal "look, pretty girl - isn't it funny that she's dumber than us!" Spears page; I don't call for the banning of such trifles.
Neither will I let them slide on this forum without comment, however. I think it's stupid, unfunny shit, and feel that such pages should reflect poorly on their authors, however smart they might be (or believe themselves to be).
Typically such works are trolls (of the traditional, desiring-to-provoke-response sort), but in these two examples, I strongly suspect the authors simply gave voice to their own preconceptions without thinking, proving themselves fools, or at least socially immature.
-Isaac
Look, if you buy a Tivo, expect your viewing habits to be sold. Expect your personal data to be tied to them. The kind of highly-granular, personally-identifiable viewing data (down to what commercials are fast-forwarded) Tivo can collect is worth a hell of a lot more than the $10/month.
Of course, they'll generously guard your privacy now while building their installed-base (especially among tech-savvy, privacy-conscious early adopters), but once its popularity blooms beyond that market into the millions, expect an about face.
You may wail and moan and cancel your service at that point, but you'll never get the data you already gave them out of their systems, where it will be bought and sold and subpoenaed.
You will have no recourse.
-Isaac
If this were true, there would be no deadlock. Fortunately, it's not true. The only company this vertically integrated is Sony, and they're not the only or even the dominant supplier of VCRs and televisions. Matsushita (Panasonic, etc.), Mitsubishi, Philips (Magnavox, etc.), Samsung, Goldstar, etc. etc. all have economic interests in this regard. Not being content companies, they're copy-protection agnostic or hostile. They just want to move hardware. (I'm personally waiting for Philips' portable MP3 CD player; the ones currently on the market have fit-and-finish issues. We'd never see such a device out of Sony.)
-Isaac
The HRRC is only concerned about the MPAA's proposals inasmuch as they might
Given that the MPAA/networks won't budge on the copy-protection point, I'm not surprised the issue has gone to the FCC to decide.
And as a licensed amateur radio operator (KC4TQP), I can tell you the FCC is the fox guarding the consumer henhouse. If a consumer-friendly ruling comes down from the FCC, it will be purely coincidental.
-Isaac
I can verify that this did indeed work with earlier versions of DOOM; the other machines were basically slave clients. Precluded multiplayer action, though.
For some reason, this feature was removed from later versions of the DOOM software (1.666?, 1.8? I can't remember).
-Isaac
This is a big part of the RIAA members' fear of Napster and digital music in general - changing, unpredictable tastes. People who can go online and play around, sharing music with friends and strangers are more likely to be exposed to a wider range of music than people who listen to their meticulously programmed Top-40 (more like Top-15 these days) station.
Someone exposed to a wider range of music is less likely to direct all of their dollars and attention to the pap promoted and spoonfed to listeners. This mean fewer economies of scale from the marketing and A&R perspective, and the decline (not demise) of the superstar, with a return to more niche acts. A good thing from my perspective, but from a record company viewpoint, it's more efficient to keep people buying Brittney, Garth, and Jay-Z (or their handful of superstar peers) to the exclusion of most smaller acts.
I say, bring on the subscription model, and let the record companies recoup the loss in marketing efficiency in lower distribution costs (shipping bits instead of atoms). All You Can Eat is the model we need now, and as long as unsigned and signed but non-RIAA affiliated artists get access and listening habits have the same legal privacy protections as video rental habits, I'll be delighted.
Something tells me that day is a long way and 2^10 lawsuits away, alas, and may never happen w/ respect to privacy and outsider access.
-Isaac
Good question! I have no idea.
I suspect that if a previous owner has allowed unfettered distribution of reproductions that any future owner wouldn't have the right to restrict them, but I'm not sure of the specifics.
The law is a fuzzy thing, especially civil law. Terms like "legal" and "illegal" don't really apply to situations like this. If the owner advised you to cease distributing reproductions, AND he chose to sue you AND you lost in court AND no further appeals were granted AND a judge ordered you cease such distributions AND you didn't comply, then you could fairly call your continued actions "illegal", but that's only one way the process might unfold.
-Isaac
Think of it like a contract. I own a piece of art. It's displayed in my private gallery (i.e. not on a street corner or other public place). You want to photograph it. I can decide whether or not to allow this, as you have to come onto my turf to do so, even if it's a work on which the copyright has expired. I can even tell you that you may photograph it for your own use, but that you may not reproduce your photographs of the work for commercial (or any other) purpose. You don't have to agree to those terms, but you don't have to see the work, either.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.
-Isaac
I guess it's been so long since a work has entered the public domain that people have forgotten what public domain means. You'd have to work hard to be more wrong. Public domain means anyone can use/modify/publish the work in any way and for any reason. You don't have to ask Thomas Nast or James Montgomery Flagg's permission (or rather the permission of their estates, since they're both long dead) to use the image of "Uncle Sam" in your art, or even to republish them unmodified.
-Isaac
The connector apparently carries both analog and digital signals, according to their lit, but did you notice what the cube does lack? Audio input. No analog or SPDIF in. Gotta use a USB box or rip from CD. To be fair, this was probably an economic decision, but it still sets off my mental "trusted client alarm".
Doesn't bother me too much, though, as long as I could run linux on the thing.
-Isaac
Well, what if you can't afford the drugs anyway, because your insurance company refuses to cover you based on your DNA profile? What then, smarty-pants?
-Isaac
To them I say, your privacy will only be important to you when it's gone. When you become a criminal by governmental fiat or your own carelessness. Or, more likely, you commit countless, pointless crimes on a daily basis (speeding? jaywalking? installing a high-flush toilet in your bathroom? violating ordinance X or Y? copyright infringement?), and you just haven't been called out on it.
By the time your insurance company is raising your rates (or refusing to cover you) because they bought your DNA records or your grocery-buying habits, it will be too late for you. By the time you find yourself suddenly called out on the various infractions you commit on a daily basis for speaking out against something in the interest of those in power, it will be too late for most of us.
The transparent society will be a society based on blackmail. Transparency will never be equal for everyone or every organization.
-Isaac
I'd normally write this off as a troll, but I'm feeling noisy today.
The whole point of *TENON* (not Apple, a 3rd party developer) writing this X server/wm/widget set is that it allows an easy way to display X apps and even have them integrate as smoothly as possible into the OS X look-and-feel. This means rootless display where the X clients coexist with the Quartz (display PDF) desktop and windows.
A similar product was popular under NEXTSTEP (and it was actually called Co-Xist), which allowed rootless display of X clients atop the NeXT display-postscript system.
-Isaac
Since it's a BSD-based system, it makes sense that someone out there would provide a way to display X apps, to give more choice to those wanting or needing to run/port them.
Anyhow, it's not going to be a cheap product if Tenon's traditional pricing scheme is followed; I'd expect $500-$600 for a single user. This isn't a consumer product.
-Isaac
Appeals are likely. Don't look for resolution anytime soon.
And the protest in front of the courthouse is permitted to run until 5pm, so if yer reading this and are still nearby, get out there!
-Isaac
I agree that this case isn't about "piracy"; it's about blocking unlicensed DVD players which might not include such "features" as Macrovision and region coding.
However, I don't think your assertion that CSS is not an access control measure is correct. It is, at heart, an access control measure that has nothing to do with "piracy". But the statue doesn't say anything about "piracy" - it defines an access control measure as anything that controls access to a copyrighted work. If CSS wasn't an access control measure, you wouldn't need to break it to view a DVD.
-Isaac
Also, the interior is cavernous, at least for the front two seats. I've had 6'6"+ friends in the car, and they fit just fine, w/ headroom to spare. May be worth a look if you're in the market.
-Isaac
The sad truth is that 2600 is gonna lose this round. Kaplan's not interested in considering the constitutional merits of the DMCA, just whether Eric Corley violated the statute as written. (Which he did. It's a bad law, but DeCSS pretty clearly circumvents an access control device, and the law doesn't care for what purpose - all such circumvention is proscribed.) This is one for the appellate courts, IMHO.
-Isaac
I was just at the demonstration, pretty decent turnout (enough to fill the area allowed), and the people walking by have generally been receptive to our message. Handouts with the css_unscramble.c on one side and a short background on the matter at hand on the other are being given out, along w/ DeCSS t-shirts, etc.
If yer in NYC, you should come down, even if only for your lunch break.
-Isaac
Come on down, you'll feel better!
-Isaac
How about making the FBI do a little legwork and tap at the customer's end, not the entire ISP network. Sniff that broadband connection or listen to the phone lines (contrary to popular belief, modems *ARE* tappable - there are special-purpose boxes to listen to and reconstruct bidirectional traffic from a traditional analog phone tap). Don't tap the entire ISP with a black box. There are other ways to gather wiretap intel; what makes me suspicious is that the FBI chose the "tap everyone and sort later" model, to say nothing of the suspicious nature of a "black box" with full access to an ISP's network traffic.
-Isaac
Cringeley is right to be concerned about the CPOF implications of having FBI-controlled boxen sitting at the edges of American ISPs, though. Think about this in the context of the Internet Gambling Ban headed down the pike. Or the Drug information censorship act (aka, "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act", now buried in a bankruptcy-reform bill in conference). Sure the courts will probably strike down the prior-restraint provisions of the latter, but imagine a bill that doesn't address the publishing, but merely gives the FBI authority to "kill-file" a certain class of sites at the ISP level, without actually restricting the right to publish per se.
Having consulted on a computer crime case for the FDLE, I've seen the "us-against-them" mentality inside the investigative law enforcement community first hand. "Them" doesn't mean just "criminals" either - from the LE perspective, there are only 3 types of people in the world: cops, convicts, and suspects. That the FBI (with their sterling history since the days of J. Edgar) would be on the leading-edge of such surveillance/enforcement techniques is wholly unsurprising to me.
-Isaac
Translation: I don't think an individual can make a difference.
Translation: Why try if you might not succeed immediately?
Translation: Who needs rights when you can buy all this cool stuff?!
-Isaac