Fucking cool! They take PayPall. Although I'm already a member, I'm tired of scoping out political organizations on the net and finding they don't take PayPal. Damn hippies. PayPal makes it so easy for money to flow through the system, and that means power can shift and flow quicker too.. I don't see why other orgs. haven't jumped on the bandwagaon. It could be the birth of a new age.. shopping online for your social groups.. nifty.
But a real liberal is not necessarily a libertarian. Liberal and conservative have more to do with social views on people's behavior. Conservatives generally feeling that there people should be controlled because they would act in a selfish manner, liberals believing that people are generally good, the social contract and all that. Hobbes vs. Locke and all that.
I tend to think of libertarians as anarchists in suits. Whereas a liberal may build social institutions to help the needy, libertarians would feel it wasn't the governments domain.
It's all damn confusing. I'm still trying to figure out what left and right mean.. My personal opinion is it's worker (domocratic), vs. business(republican).
Ironically, I wrote an essay the other night about some of these same dangers:(. The dangers of social institutions for control, and how more often then not they're out of control. I had just visited operation clambake on Tuesday. Anyways, I got kind of carried away writing it, so it's a bit rambling. But the studies and references in it are good if you've never seen them before. It's over here.
Seriously, certain government agencies want increased funding. They see computer terrorism as a great way to get increased funding. So they're going to turn cases like this into media circuses.
I'm not saying that if he is guilty of these crimes that what he did is right. I'm just stating that there are some bigger issues here. Having a lawyer may not help you. Pulling a Chicago 7 will at least be entertaining.
A lot of the mistrust of govt. in the US can be traced right back to Tricky Dick. It's a shame.
Here's a great quote from William S. Burroughs (I believe):
"I think that Richard Nixon will go down in history as a true folk hero, who struck a vital blow to the whole diseased concept of the revered image and gave the American virtue of irreverence and skepticism back to the people."
-- William S. Burroughs, explaining how a man like George W. Bush might possibly be considered serious presidential material, in, "A Word to the Wise Guy," from The Adding Machine (1985)
I've done tech support, along with friends. And the confusing thing is that users will call Microsoft products anything. So you have to sit there trying to decipher what they're saying.
Based on that same regulation (The Telecommunications Act of 1996), I would think that what the Cable broadband providers actually provide is closer to a Telecommunications Service then an Information Service. Here's the def. of a telecom. service:
(51) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE- The term `telecommunications service' means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.'.
and "Telecommunications"
(48) TELECOMMUNICATIONS- The term `telecommunications' means the
transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or
content of the information as sent and received.
And also, we can blame them both.. the FCC and congress. Because congress created the monster that is the FCC (don't get me started on low-power transmitting or auctioning of the spectrum.), and also because the executive does have the power to check the legislative. In fact, it's their responsibility.
For evidence to back up the claim that a socialized (I know, it's a *naughty* word here in the US) broadband would work, look no further than Canada, where they have roughly double the percent of households with broadband.
As for your second issue, a nationwide wireless network might be stretching it, and there are a lot of issues still in need of work (naming, service location, etc.). But do a search on ad-hoc wireless networking, and you'll find protocol info. Look up info on Charles E. Perkins too, he's done a lot of work on that shit.. very cool tech, lots if potentials:)
We also need to get the word out that these new copyright control mechanisms also increase the costs of every digital media device they buy. From camcorders to computers to VCRS.
Essentially, they're taxing the creative technology companies who have brought all these great innovations to us. And we'll have to pay these taxes, even if all we want to do is record our kids graduation with our camcorder, and edit it on our computer at home.
People would be more concerned, if we could distill what the effects of these laws are, and we also know how it harms us all. Like any speech, we must recognize our audience, and what motivates them.
Sure, it's dealing with a more pragmatic side of the issue, but any additional argument against control of ideas is good.
A. Knowing Steve Mann, and his previous exploits in pointing out the hypocrisy of surveillance, he was probably recording this event. That they destroyed the recordings is disturbing in and of itself.
B. With all the precautions in place at airports, if somebody was to attempt to recreate 9/11, they could. Metal detectors don't detect plastic box cutters, bomb sniffers don't either. We've given up freedom for security, and the pitiful thing is, the security we've gotten is pitiful.
I have no problem with increased security because of the horrible events that happened. But I also expect to be able to critique and argue about that security, because we are giving up rights for it.
Amen, two totally different people. While both may be pushing society and it's concepts of implants and wearable computers, Prof. Mann is at least building shit too. Not just feeding off the media.
Damn, The need to do a celebrity deathmatch between Mann and Warwick.
Well, I'm sure a big reason for what he's doing is protest more than anything. But with the current environment, (for instance, Adobe is still helping the government pursue their case against Skylyarov), he has a very valid point, and valid fears. Below is my analysis of the situation. It's long, and makes numerous references to Chapter 12 of Title 17 of US code (now w/ New! and Improved DMCA support.)
By posting source code or a patch to fix security holes he is effectively describing a way to circumvent a security measure. That is to say, while his intent may be to promote the security of the system, by doing so it is also describing a way to exploit the system. And according to the DMCA, it's how it's used that determines whether the developer goes to jail.
In the language of the DMCA, he is offering to the public, providing, or trafficking a technology that circumvents a technological measure that controls access to a work protected under copyright. This is described in Section 1201(a)(2) and it's subsections.
Now wait a second, you're saying, the DMCA covers copyright control mechanisms, not computer security systems. But due to the broad nature of the DMCA, it can also be construed to cover technological measures that protect the integrity and security of computers, computer systems, or computer networks. In fact, some of the authors state this in their committee report in the joint explanatory statement section.
So they adopted section 1201(j) (the so called "good faith" clause) in an attempt to resolve this issue. This section creates an exception for "security testing." But 1201(j) is overly restrictive in it's allowances of exceptions. Section 1201(j)(4) allows an individual to produce the technological means for the sole purpose of security testing. But there are several big problems. For one, they define security testing so that the authorization of the owner or operator of the computer system must be obtained first. It's not clear whether this is the copyright owner of the software, or the person who is operating the system (the "user"). Either way, consent must be granted. A second issue is in section 1201(j)(3), factors determining whether a person qualifies for exemption. One factor is that the information derived from testing was used solely to improve security of the system. A distributor of security solutions cannot guarantee this, it's impossible. I rarely use words like impossible, but when I'm faced with a word like solely, I think it's justified.
Sigh, I think I need to wrap it all up. Ironically Sklyarov is offered more protections in the DMCA than Alan Cox. Under the encryption research section 1201(g), one of the factors for exception is whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropiately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology. Sklyarov is a PhD student researching cryptanalysis at Moscow University and he's employed in the field of encryption technology. In addition, the information he derived from his research he was disseminating to the broader crypto community, satisfying 1201(g)(3)(A). The fact that the FBI arrested him right after this act is no doubt another example of the sense of humor the universe has.
The analogy given in the committee report in regards to security testing is that of testing of a simple door lock. Well, it's permissible to publish documents on lock picking, yet they just made it illegal to do the same for electronic systems. Source code muddles the line between expression or idea, and product.
And I didn't even get to the good shit. The parts requiring analog device manufacturers to contain copy control technology (1201(k)(1)(A)). Or the part exempting broadcasters or cable systems (or their feeds) from the laws regarding removal or alteration of copyright management information, if it would cause them "undue financial hardship." (1202(e)(1)(A))
It's a complex issue, perhaps what is needed is a simple law.
You pay taxes on Milk? I'm guessing from your homepage you live in either SF or New Jersey, neither of which pay sales tax on food.
But back to the real issue, paying a "media" tax for a general purpose storage device, which may or may not store copyrighted media, doesn't sound like a very good idea.
And the reverse engineering/copyright issues are even more dangerous. A lot of people learn by reverse engineering whatever it is they're interested in. I seriously believe we're going to reduce innovation because of laws such as this.
Yup yup.. looking for WindowMaker dock apps. "Back in my day" we didn't have any of this fancy-schmancy comment stuff. One of my old Pentium 60 linux boxes still has a bookmark titled "Chips n' Dips"
"Questions have been asked about why we invest so much money in the intelligence community," said Lloyd Salvetti, director of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. "We thought we should team with the president's library to get out our message about why we exist."
"The answer is quite simple, we exist to buy cool toys. Yes, like our brothers in the Defense Department, we invest billions of dollars each year, in really super cool gadgets like this remote control airplane. Except we call it a drone, because drone sounds much cooler than remote control airplane."
Sounds good.. very good. But eventually there will still be only one company.. except it will masquerade as two... The wire company and it's wacky sidekick The Provider. The only real answer is giving the wires back to the public. Making it a community owned/run system.
Because natural monopolies do arise. They're a fact of capitalism. And when it's something as important as net access (this point could be argued I agree), then it should be socialized.
And everyone wins.. The companies that pioneered in this arena, still have billions of dollars of profits they made. And we could imortalize their names as they should be, as innovaters and builders. Not as they may eventually become, hoarders.
Yeah! It's just like the electropsychometer or E-meter some of the auditors of Scientology use around here! I've seen it on the street. It helps "isolate areas of spiritual travail or upset".
You can't measure the results of federal regulations by having lobbyists punch a few buttons. They're too complex, and their are too many variables.
I swear, next you're going to tell me there are "weathermen" who can measure the effects of weather.
Thanks for the info on Miguel's argument against CORBA, and it sounds like a valid one. I've found some of the talks he gave on Mono, and I'm reading up now on everything. Fuck, it's hard keeping up with distributed objects/web services shit nowadays.
A quick question. Is a virtual machine based system going to be faster than the CORBA model? He can say a CORBA component is inefficient compared w/ a C API (running in native machine code I assume), but that doesn't necessarily make it faster than a virtual machine running that C API.
Very good point. Following a Microsoft standard is a good way to kill yourself, especially if you're in competition with Microsoft. Look at the history of standards that Linux uses, and look at how many have come from Microsoft.
If you point out SMB or CIFS, ask Mr. Tridgell or the rest of the Samba team what it's like playing with Microsoft. Remember CIFS and what not were supposedly open standards. It's a bumpy relationship with Microsoft.
Honestly, I'd rather see the energy put elsewhere, what's the current problem with the CORBA based object model?
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking cool! They take PayPall. Although I'm already a member, I'm tired of scoping out political organizations on the net and finding they don't take PayPal. Damn hippies. PayPal makes it so easy for money to flow through the system, and that means power can shift and flow quicker too.. I don't see why other orgs. haven't jumped on the bandwagaon. It could be the birth of a new age.. shopping online for your social groups.. nifty.
Josh
But a real liberal is not necessarily a libertarian. Liberal and conservative have more to do with social views on people's behavior. Conservatives generally feeling that there people should be controlled because they would act in a selfish manner, liberals believing that people are generally good, the social contract and all that. Hobbes vs. Locke and all that.
I tend to think of libertarians as anarchists in suits. Whereas a liberal may build social institutions to help the needy, libertarians would feel it wasn't the governments domain.
It's all damn confusing. I'm still trying to figure out what left and right mean.. My personal opinion is it's worker (domocratic), vs. business(republican).
Josh
Have it say something like:
"If you ever want to see The Mouse again, you had better vote against that bill."
Josh
Josh
Probably because there are so damn many :).
They need to hurry up on releasing the rest on DVD.
Josh
Tell that to Kevin Mitnick...
Seriously, certain government agencies want increased funding. They see computer terrorism as a great way to get increased funding. So they're going to turn cases like this into media circuses.
I'm not saying that if he is guilty of these crimes that what he did is right. I'm just stating that there are some bigger issues here. Having a lawyer may not help you. Pulling a Chicago 7 will at least be entertaining.
Josh
Here's a great quote from William S. Burroughs (I believe):
Josh
I've done tech support, along with friends. And the confusing thing is that users will call Microsoft products anything. So you have to sit there trying to decipher what they're saying.
Here's a classic example:
"Install the Microsoft!"
referring to Microsoft Office...
Josh
Look at the funny grammar nazi!
Who're isn't a fucking contraction.
But you know what, I also don't give a damn if it becomes one.
Hahaha.. so true.
I still have no idea what Shadowman II is, nor do I really give a damn.
Slashdot is entertaining because of the comments, like yours.
Josh
and "Telecommunications"
And also, we can blame them both.. the FCC and congress. Because congress created the monster that is the FCC (don't get me started on low-power transmitting or auctioning of the spectrum.), and also because the executive does have the power to check the legislative. In fact, it's their responsibility.
Josh
As for your second issue, a nationwide wireless network might be stretching it, and there are a lot of issues still in need of work (naming, service location, etc.). But do a search on ad-hoc wireless networking, and you'll find protocol info. Look up info on Charles E. Perkins too, he's done a lot of work on that shit.. very cool tech, lots if potentials :)
Josh
We also need to get the word out that these new copyright control mechanisms also increase the costs of every digital media device they buy. From camcorders to computers to VCRS.
Essentially, they're taxing the creative technology companies who have brought all these great innovations to us. And we'll have to pay these taxes, even if all we want to do is record our kids graduation with our camcorder, and edit it on our computer at home.
People would be more concerned, if we could distill what the effects of these laws are, and we also know how it harms us all. Like any speech, we must recognize our audience, and what motivates them.
Sure, it's dealing with a more pragmatic side of the issue, but any additional argument against control of ideas is good.
Josh
Two major points:
A. Knowing Steve Mann, and his previous exploits in pointing out the hypocrisy of surveillance, he was probably recording this event. That they destroyed the recordings is disturbing in and of itself.
B. With all the precautions in place at airports, if somebody was to attempt to recreate 9/11, they could. Metal detectors don't detect plastic box cutters, bomb sniffers don't either. We've given up freedom for security, and the pitiful thing is, the security we've gotten is pitiful.
I have no problem with increased security because of the horrible events that happened. But I also expect to be able to critique and argue about that security, because we are giving up rights for it.
Josh
Amen, two totally different people. While both may be pushing society and it's concepts of implants and wearable computers, Prof. Mann is at least building shit too. Not just feeding off the media.
Damn, The need to do a celebrity deathmatch between Mann and Warwick.
Josh
By posting source code or a patch to fix security holes he is effectively describing a way to circumvent a security measure. That is to say, while his intent may be to promote the security of the system, by doing so it is also describing a way to exploit the system. And according to the DMCA, it's how it's used that determines whether the developer goes to jail.
In the language of the DMCA, he is offering to the public, providing, or trafficking a technology that circumvents a technological measure that controls access to a work protected under copyright. This is described in Section 1201(a)(2) and it's subsections.
Now wait a second, you're saying, the DMCA covers copyright control mechanisms, not computer security systems. But due to the broad nature of the DMCA, it can also be construed to cover technological measures that protect the integrity and security of computers, computer systems, or computer networks. In fact, some of the authors state this in their committee report in the joint explanatory statement section.
So they adopted section 1201(j) (the so called "good faith" clause) in an attempt to resolve this issue. This section creates an exception for "security testing." But 1201(j) is overly restrictive in it's allowances of exceptions. Section 1201(j)(4) allows an individual to produce the technological means for the sole purpose of security testing. But there are several big problems. For one, they define security testing so that the authorization of the owner or operator of the computer system must be obtained first. It's not clear whether this is the copyright owner of the software, or the person who is operating the system (the "user"). Either way, consent must be granted. A second issue is in section 1201(j)(3), factors determining whether a person qualifies for exemption. One factor is that the information derived from testing was used solely to improve security of the system. A distributor of security solutions cannot guarantee this, it's impossible. I rarely use words like impossible, but when I'm faced with a word like solely, I think it's justified.
Sigh, I think I need to wrap it all up. Ironically Sklyarov is offered more protections in the DMCA than Alan Cox. Under the encryption research section 1201(g), one of the factors for exception is whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropiately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology. Sklyarov is a PhD student researching cryptanalysis at Moscow University and he's employed in the field of encryption technology. In addition, the information he derived from his research he was disseminating to the broader crypto community, satisfying 1201(g)(3)(A). The fact that the FBI arrested him right after this act is no doubt another example of the sense of humor the universe has.
The analogy given in the committee report in regards to security testing is that of testing of a simple door lock. Well, it's permissible to publish documents on lock picking, yet they just made it illegal to do the same for electronic systems. Source code muddles the line between expression or idea, and product.
And I didn't even get to the good shit. The parts requiring analog device manufacturers to contain copy control technology (1201(k)(1)(A)). Or the part exempting broadcasters or cable systems (or their feeds) from the laws regarding removal or alteration of copyright management information, if it would cause them "undue financial hardship." (1202(e)(1)(A))
It's a complex issue, perhaps what is needed is a simple law.
Josh
You pay taxes on Milk? I'm guessing from your homepage you live in either SF or New Jersey, neither of which pay sales tax on food.
But back to the real issue, paying a "media" tax for a general purpose storage device, which may or may not store copyrighted media, doesn't sound like a very good idea.
And the reverse engineering/copyright issues are even more dangerous. A lot of people learn by reverse engineering whatever it is they're interested in. I seriously believe we're going to reduce innovation because of laws such as this.
Josh
But it was a book first! So therefore it's true! I mean.. a book. Books aren't wrong, are they? Are they?
Yup yup.. looking for WindowMaker dock apps. "Back in my day" we didn't have any of this fancy-schmancy comment stuff. One of my old Pentium 60 linux boxes still has a bookmark titled "Chips n' Dips"
Josh
"Questions have been asked about why we invest so much money in the intelligence community," said Lloyd Salvetti, director of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence. "We thought we should team with the president's library to get out our message about why we exist."
"The answer is quite simple, we exist to buy cool toys. Yes, like our brothers in the Defense Department, we invest billions of dollars each year, in really super cool gadgets like this remote control airplane. Except we call it a drone, because drone sounds much cooler than remote control airplane."
Josh
Sounds good.. very good. But eventually there will still be only one company.. except it will masquerade as two... The wire company and it's wacky sidekick The Provider. The only real answer is giving the wires back to the public. Making it a community owned/run system.
Because natural monopolies do arise. They're a fact of capitalism. And when it's something as important as net access (this point could be argued I agree), then it should be socialized.
And everyone wins.. The companies that pioneered in this arena, still have billions of dollars of profits they made. And we could imortalize their names as they should be, as innovaters and builders. Not as they may eventually become, hoarders.
Josh
Warning: Status drunk, ignore post.
Yeah! It's just like the electropsychometer or E-meter some of the auditors of Scientology use around here! I've seen it on the street. It helps "isolate areas of spiritual travail or upset".
You can't measure the results of federal regulations by having lobbyists punch a few buttons. They're too complex, and their are too many variables.
I swear, next you're going to tell me there are "weathermen" who can measure the effects of weather.
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Sometimes a little agitation is needed. On the other hand, the 'lil punk probably needs a good dose of reality himself.
Josh
Thanks for the info on Miguel's argument against CORBA, and it sounds like a valid one. I've found some of the talks he gave on Mono, and I'm reading up now on everything. Fuck, it's hard keeping up with distributed objects/web services shit nowadays.
A quick question. Is a virtual machine based system going to be faster than the CORBA model? He can say a CORBA component is inefficient compared w/ a C API (running in native machine code I assume), but that doesn't necessarily make it faster than a virtual machine running that C API.
Anyways, again, thanks for the intelligent reply.
Josh
Very good point. Following a Microsoft standard is a good way to kill yourself, especially if you're in competition with Microsoft. Look at the history of standards that Linux uses, and look at how many have come from Microsoft.
If you point out SMB or CIFS, ask Mr. Tridgell or the rest of the Samba team what it's like playing with Microsoft. Remember CIFS and what not were supposedly open standards. It's a bumpy relationship with Microsoft.
Honestly, I'd rather see the energy put elsewhere, what's the current problem with the CORBA based object model?
Josh