Is there anything Daimaou, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get the company to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Is there anything that content owners, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get illegal downloaders to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Surely if copyright is viewed as so abused as to be invalid invalid in the context of justifying illegal music downloads, it must be equally invalid in the context of the GPL?
Or does it not work both ways...?
Specifics aside, and negligible fallacies in the analogy aside, this is really a very simple question.
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
Each one is a crime, the severity of which varies in proportion to the severity of the theft.
It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.[1]
Some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"[2]
Theft is theft and stealing is stealing. If you want to make the tired old "no deprivation" arguments and do the mental gymnastics necessary to convince yourself it's not stealing - and I've absolutely no doubt that you really believe it - then by all means, go ahead.
[1,2] This paragraph is taken from a previous post of mine on this topic.
...Juberti's blog (the chief architect for the AIM service):
AIM Privacy and Slashdot
OK, I am getting tired of hearing about how "The new AIM TOS allows AOL to have all rights to anything you say on IM, AOL reads/stores all your IMs, etc."
I take this kind of personally, because that is not something I would want to be associated with.
First off, that blurb in the TOS only refers to AIM forum posts, not IMs. I agree that it is vague and should be reworded to be clear.
Second, the amount of IM traffic is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day. It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it.
Thirdly, if you still don't trust us, we have Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions of the AIM software. In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any.
I am saying this as a concerned invidual, and not as a corporate mouthpiece.
Not to quote the lion's share of the article here, but there are some things that need to be seen...
The tweaks to the terms of service will be made in the section titled "Content You Post" and will explicitly exclude user-to-user chat sessions from the privacy rights an AIM user gives up to AOL.
"We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.
The modifications will use similar language from the AIM privacy policy to "make it clear that AOL does not read private user-to-user communications," Weinstein said.
[...]
More importantly, Weinstein said a blunt and inelegant line that reads "You waive any right to privacy" will be deleted altogether.
"That's a phrase that should not have been in that section in the first place. It clearly caused confusion, with good reason," Weinstein conceded.
[...]
Justin Uberti, chief architect for AIM, also joined the discussion, admitting the controversial section of the terms of service was "vague" and needed to be reworded.
Uberti explained on his Weblog that the amount of IM traffic on the AIM network "is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day."
"It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it," Uberti wrote.
For AIM users who remain distrustful, Uberti pointed out that the application offers Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions.
"In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any," Uberti said.
It might, however, be just what movie studios and record labels need to market and distribute their own content efficiently on the Web.
Well, at least someone realizes this, instead of tacitly - or overtly - arguing that it's okay for them to be unabashedly ripped off, coupled with myriad ridiculous justifications and semantic acrobatics about how it's not really "stealing".
Frankly, the content industry convincing major ISPs to enable multicast on their networks may go a lot further toward efficiently distributing non-"on demand" content than something like BitTorrent.
But backing up a bit:
One reason for this change of heart may be that in BitTorrent, unlike many other file-sharing programs, legitimate use doesn't amount to a token minority. It's central to this program's existence.
Not that I don't recognize that BitTorrent is currently used for many legitimate applications (whereas that was extremely difficult to argue with a straight face with P2P), but I think this statement is a little overboard. I'd say that, currently, "legitimate" use of BitTorrent is a "token minority" of its use. The vast, vast majority is pirated software, pirated movies, and pirated TV shows (and, to a lesser extent, music, just because of the nature of BitTorrent being more conveniently applicable to small amounts of large files, rather than large amounts of small files).
Anyone not admitting that at this particular point in time is lying to themselves.
Note that I agree wholeheartedly that BitTorrent isn't going to go away. Neither did P2P. But the content owners will continue to rightfully go after people and sites who distribute copyrighted content unlawfully, no matter the mechanism (please, no fringe examples of 83 year old grandmothers and dead people). But yes, I get the point - and agree with it - that BitTorrent could potentially have much more legitimate use than traditional P2P.
The point is valid: the fundamental distribution mechanism of BitTorrent is a novel and good one; there is no reason that BitTorrent couldn't, for example, be made even more robust and further "protocolized", and integrated into browsers and other download clients, allowing content distributors of any stripe to take advantage of its clear benefits. And in order for it to be a compelling solution for real content providers, that's exactly what will have to happen.
In all seriousness, we have found that a desktop or laptop with Mac OS X, with X11, all of the compilers and development tools, and a ports/package manager like Fink or DarwinPorts, which still allows running normal productivity software like Microsoft Office, mainstream media players, Adobe products, etc., has been the most productive platform of all.
The PATRIOT provisions requires the Deparment of Justice Office of the Inspector General to collect and respond to complaints, when appropriate, and issue a report on its findings twice a year.
Consider the stats from the latest report, released on Friday. DOJ received 1,943 complaints about alleged civil liberties abuses. Of these, 1,748 either did not warrant an investigation or were outside DOJ's jurisdiction:
Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 complaints made allegations that did not warrant an investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs. The remaining one-quarter of the 1,748 complaints in this category involved allegations against agencies or entities outside of the DOJ, including other federal agencies, local governments, or private businesses. We referred those complaints to the appropriate entity or advised complainants of the entity with jurisdiction over their allegations.
Of the 195 complaints that did warrant investigation, 170 involved what the report describes as "management issues" rather than civil liberties abuses, such as reports by "inmates [who] complained about the general conditions at federal prisons, such as the poor quality of the food or the lack of hygiene products."
The bottom line is that PATRIOT, while not itself a "law", merely modified existing statutes, mostly to bring them up to date (e.g., dealing with cell phones, wireless devices, email, etc. in the context of "wiretaps") and expand definitions in others. The result is imperfect, like all laws, and should be watched for abuse. But there is nothing inherently evil about it. Interested persons would do well, at a minimum, to at least read the text of the act.
Prior to being at JHU's APL for the second time, Dr. Griffin was also the "president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests."
Some may be familiar with In-Q-Tel as the CIA's private venture firm.
He had just rejoined APL last April. He was with APL in the 1980s, and left to become the technology chief for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
To expand a bit on what the summary said, "in addition to a doctorate in aerospace engineering, he holds master's degrees in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, civil engineering and business administration, and a bachelor's degree in physics." He is also the president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
There's no question he is not only a skilled academic with a clear appreciation for space sciences, but a competent administrator and manager as well, and experienced with Washington politics to boot. Let's hope he does well for NASA.
If someone tells you something that they shouldn't have told you (because they would be violating their NDA), but fails to tell you that they are violating their NDA, does that make you a criminal for reporting it?
Possibly.
"[...] the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," said [Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School]. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it." (source)
They broke a law? Which one? Any evidence?
The judge didn't rule on any of that today. But assuming they did get their information from someone under a confidentiality agreement at Apple or a contractor, which, while circumstantial, seems overwhelmingly clear, then yes, they may have broken a law. The judge today said that REGARDLESS of whether any law has been broken - which is yet to be decided - the information at issue in this case does NOT constitute information in a clear public interest, and therefore, the web sites/journalists in question are NOT protected by journalist shield laws.
Your entire post is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I'll pick just this piece:
You're wrong in a million ways, but the most important one is this. This particular expression of speech does not in any way present a clear and present danger to life and limb and consequently, it not only "ought" to be protected, it is protected according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Threatening someone's profit margin is not the same thing as threatening their safety.
The speech IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.
Yeah, but this isn't about those that violated an NDA, it is about those who revealed information that they obtained from someone who violated an NDA.
Yeah. That, and the small issue that they might have broken a law doing so.
What property right justifies the application of restrictions imposed by an agreement on someone that never signed that agreement?
The fact that the UTSA says that revealing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained as the result of the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement is prohibited. Do you understand that NDAs or any confidentiality agreements would be meaningless if all you had to do was leak them to someone else, who in turn publicly leaks them, all with no repurcussions of any kind nor any recourse for the employer?
Does this mean that Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert was just as much of a "journalist" as anyone else in the White House Press room? Since there is a BLOGGER in the White House now, and apparently anyone with a web site is a journalist, doesn't this apply there as well?
(Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic there.)
Or shall we stay on topic here?
And to directly answer your question, yes, Novak should reveal his source if there is ever any court action that compels him to do so. (Disclaimer: I am not familiar with shield laws on this topic in Novak's jurisdiction or Washington DC.)
And it's not treason. Treason in the US is very specifically defined as only "levying war against the United States or 'in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,' and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction."
This judge has clearly shown that he has a grasp of the fundamental issues surrounding this case, and has realized that this is not a case about whether online sites are "journalists" or about the "right to blog". It's about when it's about when the dissemination of information in the public interest clearly overrides any other legal concerns or contracts and entitles journalists to not reveal their sources - and when it clearly doesn't.
And if you're not going to RTFA, here is some of the jugde's ruling:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
Note that the judge did not say that Think Secret and other online sites weren't journalists; indeed, he tacitly acknowledged that they, and many others, may in fact be "journalists". But that fact is, correctly, irrelevant. In other words, online sites or bloggers may in fact be journalists; this isn't about "the right to blog". However, being a "journalist" does not automatically mean the mechanisms of obtaining information, the information itself, and the sources of the information are automatically protected by journalist shield laws and exempt from discovery, especially when otherwise applicable laws (such as the UTSA) may have been violated. In other words, when a crime may have been committed (and the burden of whether or not this information constitutes a "trade secret" still rests on Apple, even after this ruling).
Further, the judge makes no distinction between online publications and mainstream newspapers, simply a distinction that any and all information gathering mechanisms are not necessarily protected if other laws are violated. The assertion on the part of some that "these subpoenas wouldn't exist if it was the New York Times or salon.com" is baseless at best.
No doubt someone will find issue with what is or isn't "public interest" and the fact that the courts (i.e. the "government") must make such a determination and is simply shifting the importance of whether someone can be considered a "journalist" to another consideration, essentially allowing the government to decide what is "acceptable" to be leaked and what isn't, and will make arguments that this will make it easier for corporations and/or the government to hide abuses, stop whistleblowers, etc. However, all of these arguments are red herrings. The court clearly acknowledged that sources information in the clear public interest must indeed be protected. Further note that the court DID NOT rule on the merits of Apple's claim itself, i.e., that the information was in fact a trade secret: "The order of this court does not go beyond the questions necessary t
Forget about Sony, HP, Matsushita, Apple, Dell, and Disney...
The porn industry, which releases 11,000 titles a year, will likely silently decide which format "wins" (previous slashdot coverage).
And some of the bigger porn houses are coming down on the side of Blu-ray because of its capacity advantage over HD-DVD. That the porn industry would have such an influence comes as no surprise to those who know just how big the industry really is.
I've been using this for several years, and it works extremely well. If you can use EZ forms, you can use their EZ product. Almost everyone else, up through some very sophisticated needs, can use their "Basic" products. It will also handle your state returns. If you use Basic, expect about $45 to electronically file everything.
It's a very capable product, and, while not itself an open source product, at least lets you *run* it on open source OSes and OSes other than Windows.
Editorial shows on FOX News (O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, etc.) = Editorials
News shows on FOX News (FOX and Friends, FOX News Live, FOX Report, Special Report, etc.) = News
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference, and I love how someone brings up FOX News in every freaking single one of these stories. What about the op-ed pages of newspapers? Or editorial shows on CNN?
Then why is it that Apple is consistently ranked #1, ahead of all other vendors, in customer service and support, and has been for years? I wouldn't call that an "adversarial relationship" with customers. (1,2)
...you're completely wrong, and the fact that you'd say this represents a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. "You can count on it."
This doesn't crack or break anything (as, e.g., Hymn does) nor does it circumvent any type of DRM or copy protection, and it uses iTunes on the backend to actually send the music anyway, so no, this won't be broken.
The one you're talking about (and the only one he's apparently talking about) was Southwest Airlines out of Oakland. United at San Francisco was going to let him fly, but he chose not to. And if he was testing this system, he should have followed through. But he didn't.
Yes, I really do hope all this gets resolved. Though it might seem so from my posts, I SUPPORT John's mission to shed some sunshine on this whole issue. It's either a law, or it isn't, and you should either have to show ID, or not. I suspect many would be content to just know the contents of such regulations, so they could either be followed, or challenged.
But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't guess that it is a "law", per se. I think it's likely more along the lines of security "directives" from the TSA and/or FAA that operate as guidelines or recommendations for how airports and air carriers should conduct their business and their security. And yes, I'm sure they probably are secret. Frankly, I'm not sure security guidelines *shouldn't* be secret.
Where I come down on this issue is as follows: checking IDs and all the ridiculousness in airports since Sept 11 might do little to make them "more secure". What it DOES do is make the general populace believe the government is "doing something" about security. Even though it probably does little, allows people who really do want to go down the road to a police state more leeway, and terrorists would likely choose a completely different mechanism of attack in the future, since the airlines have already been used. But what it DOES do is keep people flying, which is good for a huge industry, and in turn, good for our economy and many other businesses in general. That's not necessarily a bad thing...
You're still wrong. You're taking this tack that him being allowed to fly with no ID was in itself a mistake on the part of a counter agent. I disagree. If the ID requirement was hard and fast, they wouldn't let it slide like that. As I have said, I *agree* that there are secret security directives and guidelines from the FAA/TSA for airlines and airports. I've already stipulated to that numerous times. And these may be tantamount to "laws", as applied, as far as a passenger is concerned. After all, if you can't really challenge it and it stops you from flying, what's the difference? Yes, I get it. Jeez. But what I'm getting at is the need for HONESTY in this debate if it's to be effective. I hope Gilmore is successful! But I wish he wouldn't frame it as a need to show "identity papers", generically, for all travel, as he does in his soundbite style quotes for interviews, or say that he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID when he didn't even follow through at SFO when they told him he could.
What if I told you that I have flown, post-September 11, with no ID? ORD to MSN. I had to submit to the extensive search, but I still did it. I'd lost my wallet, so I had no choice. All I had was my ticket, my luggage, and the clothes I was wearing.
I agree with you about the No Fly lists and the broken nature of the system. And the publicity that something like Gilmore's case can bring can shed some light on things. But over-exaggerating the issues is, I believe, dishonest, disingenuous, and counterproductive. I mean, if you think you're on the righteous side on this one, why not just stick to the facts instead of making Orwellian statements and predictions? I'm not saying you, personally, are doing that, but many of Gilmore's own comments echo of Nazi Germany or Soviet states, and I simply don't think the comparison is apt.
Oh, for fuck's sake. He's on a mission to test this, remember? His PURPOSE was to test this, and pursue it in court, and now you're going to use this bullshit argument on me? He made a premeditated decision to politely test this system, and see if he could shake loose the whole "papers, please" issue.
Since that is the case, hell fucking yes he should have tried to get on the plane at SFO. But you choose to take the "um, aren't you surprised he didn't try after he'd been rejected once" tack. By your logic, he shouldn't have even gone to the second airport at all! They told him they'd allow him to fly if he submitted to a search. And while that may have sounded familiar to him, if his goal was to go on a crusade with this, he should have tested it again, yes? And don't give me any bullshit about embarrassment, because he was prepared for this since his goal was to challenge this system.
And yes, I do expect he would have been let on, because *I* have flown without ID before. Twice now! After Sept 11. I lost my wallet and all I had was my plane ticket, going from ORD to MSN. And yes, I had to submit to the special search, but I still flew. So yes, I do expect he could have flown with no ID, albeit with much hassle. Of course you won't believe this, but no matter.
Look, I'm not saying that the system is great, and I think John's cause is worthwhile. I just think that exaggerating things (i.e., that he can't fly with no ID, even though SFO was about to let him - and we'll never know either way, will we - or, that this is a universal issue of being able to travel without "identity papers", when this case applies only to air travel, and there are numerous other ways to travel - and it doesn't matter if they're slower - without ID. The point is that he shouldn't hurt this case by overdramatizing things.)
You're the one assuming this amounted to a strip search.
Likely, it was no more intensive than the "normal" intensive searches they do when they randomly pull people out of lin during the routine course of screening passengers.
And yes, I'm aware of times when individual TSA personnel have been abusive and/or inappropriate. But I'm assuming that they will operate within their guidelines, as the majority of them do, whereas you'd likely assume the worst.
Further, and I know this is a very cliche argument, but why do you think they want to search someone more intensively if they don't show ID? Whether it's the case or not, don't you think the prevailing notion is that they're hiding something? I'm not saying that's valid, I'm just asking you to consider it. And if searches are worthless, why do any searches or screening at all, seriously? Because rightly or wrongly, if there were security incidents and people didn't feel like we were doing "all we can" to secure air carriers, air travel would suffer greatly and our economy would suffer as a result. Whether that's right or wrong, or whether you think it's the fault of the "corporate controlled media" by not helping to explain that air travel really is a safe way to travel even if there are isolated security incidents and that people shouldn't be sacrificing liberty for security, etc., less people would fly if they were scared and didn't believe "the government" was doing anything about it, period. Like it or not, people don't react well to 50 or 200 people dying at once, no matter if they had a ten times statistical chance of dying by getting in their car.
I hope that someone understands all of this.
Oh, wait. Our elected officials and the people in charge do.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anything Daimaou, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get the company to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Is there anything that content owners, or anyone else for that matter, can do to get illegal downloaders to cut short their plans and play fair with IP that obviously doesn't belong entirely to them?
Surely if copyright is viewed as so abused as to be invalid invalid in the context of justifying illegal music downloads, it must be equally invalid in the context of the GPL?
Or does it not work both ways...?
Specifics aside, and negligible fallacies in the analogy aside, this is really a very simple question.
steal:
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share
An apt excerpt:
[...] different types of stealing are covered by different laws because they differ in the details. Theft through breaking and entering: burglary. Theft from one's employer: embezzlement. Theft by committing fraud through the mail: the aptly named mail fraud. Theft by the unlawful copying of somebody else's property: copyright infringement.
Each one is a crime, the severity of which varies in proportion to the severity of the theft.
It amazes me how people always want pre-existing laws and legal principles to apply to the internet, or technology, or information if it is in their own favor or somehow benefits them, and then go out of their way to make crazy rationalizations about how downloading things that don't belong to you and that you didn't pay for isn't "stealing", it's "copyright infringement" simply because it's been duplicated, with complete ignorance of the ease that one work can be distributed globally in literally hours with virtually no work by any interim party, and no considerations for the owner's rights, not to mention what a horribly pathetic and downright destructive ethic that is encouraged by taking things without permission simply because YOU think they're too expensive or YOU don't agree with how business X has done Y or Z; and since copyright = bad or favors the corrupt and powerful, you personally find it invalid, and therefore, it's "okay" to infringe against copyrights owned by big, evil, blood-sucking, money-grubbing corporations.[1]
Some people feel obligated to pay for the work and effort of others within the bounds of the laws that society has collectively set up; others feel that it's okay to take from others with no compensation, and manufacture arguments designed to rationalize it, rather than thinking, "Hm, wouldn't it be nice to {improve my lot in life | work more hours | work toward a better job | make myself more desirable in the marketplace | etc.} so that I can reward myself with the things I want?"[2]
Theft is theft and stealing is stealing. If you want to make the tired old "no deprivation" arguments and do the mental gymnastics necessary to convince yourself it's not stealing - and I've absolutely no doubt that you really believe it - then by all means, go ahead.
[1,2] This paragraph is taken from a previous post of mine on this topic.
And because they can do it, they of course are doing it?
...
...Juberti's blog (the chief architect for the AIM service):
AIM Privacy and Slashdot
OK, I am getting tired of hearing about how "The new AIM TOS allows AOL to have all rights to anything you say on IM, AOL reads/stores all your IMs, etc."
I take this kind of personally, because that is not something I would want to be associated with.
First off, that blurb in the TOS only refers to AIM forum posts, not IMs. I agree that it is vague and should be reworded to be clear.
Second, the amount of IM traffic is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day. It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it.
Thirdly, if you still don't trust us, we have Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions of the AIM software. In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any.
I am saying this as a concerned invidual, and not as a corporate mouthpiece.
Not to quote the lion's share of the article here, but there are some things that need to be seen...
The tweaks to the terms of service will be made in the section titled "Content You Post" and will explicitly exclude user-to-user chat sessions from the privacy rights an AIM user gives up to AOL.
"We're not making any policy changes. We're making some linguistic changes to clarify certain things and explain it a little better to our users," AOL spokesperson Andrew Weinstein told eWEEK.com.
The modifications will use similar language from the AIM privacy policy to "make it clear that AOL does not read private user-to-user communications," Weinstein said.
[...]
More importantly, Weinstein said a blunt and inelegant line that reads "You waive any right to privacy" will be deleted altogether.
"That's a phrase that should not have been in that section in the first place. It clearly caused confusion, with good reason," Weinstein conceded.
[...]
Justin Uberti, chief architect for AIM, also joined the discussion, admitting the controversial section of the terms of service was "vague" and needed to be reworded.
Uberti explained on his Weblog that the amount of IM traffic on the AIM network "is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes a day."
"It would be very costly, and we have no desire to record all IM traffic. We don't do it," Uberti wrote.
For AIM users who remain distrustful, Uberti pointed out that the application offers Direct IM (aka Send IM Image) and Secure IM in all recent versions.
"In other words, you can send your IMs in such a way that they never go through our servers, and/or are encrypted with industry-standard SSL and S/MIME technology. I know this since I designed these features. There are no backdoors; I would not have permitted any," Uberti said.
It might, however, be just what movie studios and record labels need to market and distribute their own content efficiently on the Web.
Well, at least someone realizes this, instead of tacitly - or overtly - arguing that it's okay for them to be unabashedly ripped off, coupled with myriad ridiculous justifications and semantic acrobatics about how it's not really "stealing".
Frankly, the content industry convincing major ISPs to enable multicast on their networks may go a lot further toward efficiently distributing non-"on demand" content than something like BitTorrent.
But backing up a bit:
One reason for this change of heart may be that in BitTorrent, unlike many other file-sharing programs, legitimate use doesn't amount to a token minority. It's central to this program's existence.
Not that I don't recognize that BitTorrent is currently used for many legitimate applications (whereas that was extremely difficult to argue with a straight face with P2P), but I think this statement is a little overboard. I'd say that, currently, "legitimate" use of BitTorrent is a "token minority" of its use. The vast, vast majority is pirated software, pirated movies, and pirated TV shows (and, to a lesser extent, music, just because of the nature of BitTorrent being more conveniently applicable to small amounts of large files, rather than large amounts of small files).
Anyone not admitting that at this particular point in time is lying to themselves.
Note that I agree wholeheartedly that BitTorrent isn't going to go away. Neither did P2P. But the content owners will continue to rightfully go after people and sites who distribute copyrighted content unlawfully, no matter the mechanism (please, no fringe examples of 83 year old grandmothers and dead people). But yes, I get the point - and agree with it - that BitTorrent could potentially have much more legitimate use than traditional P2P.
The point is valid: the fundamental distribution mechanism of BitTorrent is a novel and good one; there is no reason that BitTorrent couldn't, for example, be made even more robust and further "protocolized", and integrated into browsers and other download clients, allowing content distributors of any stripe to take advantage of its clear benefits. And in order for it to be a compelling solution for real content providers, that's exactly what will have to happen.
A successful enterprise Linux distribution?
Mac OS X + X11 + Apple Developer Tools (Xcode) + Fink
In all seriousness, we have found that a desktop or laptop with Mac OS X, with X11, all of the compilers and development tools, and a ports/package manager like Fink or DarwinPorts, which still allows running normal productivity software like Microsoft Office, mainstream media players, Adobe products, etc., has been the most productive platform of all.
The PATRIOT provisions requires the Deparment of Justice Office of the Inspector General to collect and respond to complaints, when appropriate, and issue a report on its findings twice a year.
The March 11, 2005 report is here.
And from TFA:
Consider the stats from the latest report, released on Friday. DOJ received 1,943 complaints about alleged civil liberties abuses. Of these, 1,748 either did not warrant an investigation or were outside DOJ's jurisdiction:
Approximately three-quarters of the 1,748 complaints made allegations that did not warrant an investigation. For example, some of the complaints alleged that government agents were broadcasting signals that interfere with a person's thoughts or dreams or that prison officials had laced the prison food with hallucinogenic drugs. The remaining one-quarter of the 1,748 complaints in this category involved allegations against agencies or entities outside of the DOJ, including other federal agencies, local governments, or private businesses. We referred those complaints to the appropriate entity or advised complainants of the entity with jurisdiction over their allegations.
Of the 195 complaints that did warrant investigation, 170 involved what the report describes as "management issues" rather than civil liberties abuses, such as reports by "inmates [who] complained about the general conditions at federal prisons, such as the poor quality of the food or the lack of hygiene products."
The bottom line is that PATRIOT, while not itself a "law", merely modified existing statutes, mostly to bring them up to date (e.g., dealing with cell phones, wireless devices, email, etc. in the context of "wiretaps") and expand definitions in others. The result is imperfect, like all laws, and should be watched for abuse. But there is nothing inherently evil about it. Interested persons would do well, at a minimum, to at least read the text of the act.
Prior to being at JHU's APL for the second time, Dr. Griffin was also the "president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests."
Some may be familiar with In-Q-Tel as the CIA's private venture firm.
He had just rejoined APL last April. He was with APL in the 1980s, and left to become the technology chief for the Strategic Defense Initiative.
To expand a bit on what the summary said, "in addition to a doctorate in aerospace engineering, he holds master's degrees in aerospace science, electrical engineering, applied physics, civil engineering and business administration, and a bachelor's degree in physics." He is also the president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).
There's no question he is not only a skilled academic with a clear appreciation for space sciences, but a competent administrator and manager as well, and experienced with Washington politics to boot. Let's hope he does well for NASA.
If someone tells you something that they shouldn't have told you (because they would be violating their NDA), but fails to tell you that they are violating their NDA, does that make you a criminal for reporting it?
Possibly.
"[...] the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," said [Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School]. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it." (source)
They broke a law? Which one? Any evidence?
The judge didn't rule on any of that today. But assuming they did get their information from someone under a confidentiality agreement at Apple or a contractor, which, while circumstantial, seems overwhelmingly clear, then yes, they may have broken a law. The judge today said that REGARDLESS of whether any law has been broken - which is yet to be decided - the information at issue in this case does NOT constitute information in a clear public interest, and therefore, the web sites/journalists in question are NOT protected by journalist shield laws.
Your entire post is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I'll pick just this piece:
You're wrong in a million ways, but the most important one is this. This particular expression of speech does not in any way present a clear and present danger to life and limb and consequently, it not only "ought" to be protected, it is protected according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Threatening someone's profit margin is not the same thing as threatening their safety.
The speech IS protected. No one is going to throw the proprietors of Think Secret, PowerPage, or AppleInsider in jail over their speech.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information, and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
This is not about speech. This is not about the right to blog. And if you think it's about the employees' right to "speak" about topics covered under confidentiality agreement, apparently someone forgot to tell them, and you, that they don't have to work there if they have that little respect for good-faith agreements with their own employer.
Yeah, but this isn't about those that violated an NDA, it is about those who revealed information that they obtained from someone who violated an NDA.
Yeah. That, and the small issue that they might have broken a law doing so.
What property right justifies the application of restrictions imposed by an agreement on someone that never signed that agreement?
The fact that the UTSA says that revealing information that can reasonably be believed to have been obtained as the result of the breach of a binding confidentiality agreement is prohibited. Do you understand that NDAs or any confidentiality agreements would be meaningless if all you had to do was leak them to someone else, who in turn publicly leaks them, all with no repurcussions of any kind nor any recourse for the employer?
Does this mean that Jeff Gannon aka James Guckert was just as much of a "journalist" as anyone else in the White House Press room? Since there is a BLOGGER in the White House now, and apparently anyone with a web site is a journalist, doesn't this apply there as well?
(Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic there.)
Or shall we stay on topic here?
And to directly answer your question, yes, Novak should reveal his source if there is ever any court action that compels him to do so. (Disclaimer: I am not familiar with shield laws on this topic in Novak's jurisdiction or Washington DC.)
And it's not treason. Treason in the US is very specifically defined as only "levying war against the United States or 'in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,' and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction."
(Note: More coverage in this news.com story)
This judge has clearly shown that he has a grasp of the fundamental issues surrounding this case, and has realized that this is not a case about whether online sites are "journalists" or about the "right to blog". It's about when it's about when the dissemination of information in the public interest clearly overrides any other legal concerns or contracts and entitles journalists to not reveal their sources - and when it clearly doesn't.
And if you're not going to RTFA, here is some of the jugde's ruling:
"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.[1]
[...]
Defining what is a 'journalist' has become more complicated as the variety of media has expanded. But even if the movants are journalists, this is not the equivalent of a free pass.
[...]
The journalist's privilege is not absolute. For example, journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime.
[...]
[The information about Apple's unreleased products] is stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive [or not] would be. The bottom line is there is no exception or exemption in either the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] or the Penal Code for journalists--however defined--or anyone else.
[...]
The public has had, and continues to have, a profound interest in gossip about Apple. Therefore, it is not surprising that hundreds of thousands of 'hits' on a Web site about Apple have and will happen. But an interested public is not the same as the public interest."
Note that the judge did not say that Think Secret and other online sites weren't journalists; indeed, he tacitly acknowledged that they, and many others, may in fact be "journalists". But that fact is, correctly, irrelevant. In other words, online sites or bloggers may in fact be journalists; this isn't about "the right to blog". However, being a "journalist" does not automatically mean the mechanisms of obtaining information, the information itself, and the sources of the information are automatically protected by journalist shield laws and exempt from discovery, especially when otherwise applicable laws (such as the UTSA) may have been violated. In other words, when a crime may have been committed (and the burden of whether or not this information constitutes a "trade secret" still rests on Apple, even after this ruling).
Further, the judge makes no distinction between online publications and mainstream newspapers, simply a distinction that any and all information gathering mechanisms are not necessarily protected if other laws are violated. The assertion on the part of some that "these subpoenas wouldn't exist if it was the New York Times or salon.com" is baseless at best.
No doubt someone will find issue with what is or isn't "public interest" and the fact that the courts (i.e. the "government") must make such a determination and is simply shifting the importance of whether someone can be considered a "journalist" to another consideration, essentially allowing the government to decide what is "acceptable" to be leaked and what isn't, and will make arguments that this will make it easier for corporations and/or the government to hide abuses, stop whistleblowers, etc. However, all of these arguments are red herrings. The court clearly acknowledged that sources information in the clear public interest must indeed be protected. Further note that the court DID NOT rule on the merits of Apple's claim itself, i.e., that the information was in fact a trade secret: "The order of this court does not go beyond the questions necessary t
Forget about Sony, HP, Matsushita, Apple, Dell, and Disney...
The porn industry, which releases 11,000 titles a year, will likely silently decide which format "wins" (previous slashdot coverage).
And some of the bigger porn houses are coming down on the side of Blu-ray because of its capacity advantage over HD-DVD. That the porn industry would have such an influence comes as no surprise to those who know just how big the industry really is.
TurboTax for the Web
I've been using this for several years, and it works extremely well. If you can use EZ forms, you can use their EZ product. Almost everyone else, up through some very sophisticated needs, can use their "Basic" products. It will also handle your state returns. If you use Basic, expect about $45 to electronically file everything.
It's a very capable product, and, while not itself an open source product, at least lets you *run* it on open source OSes and OSes other than Windows.
Editorial shows on FOX News (O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, etc.) = Editorials
News shows on FOX News (FOX and Friends, FOX News Live, FOX Report, Special Report, etc.) = News
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference, and I love how someone brings up FOX News in every freaking single one of these stories. What about the op-ed pages of newspapers? Or editorial shows on CNN?
Then why is it that Apple is consistently ranked #1, ahead of all other vendors, in customer service and support, and has been for years? I wouldn't call that an "adversarial relationship" with customers. (1,2)
...you're completely wrong, and the fact that you'd say this represents a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. "You can count on it."
This doesn't crack or break anything (as, e.g., Hymn does) nor does it circumvent any type of DRM or copy protection, and it uses iTunes on the backend to actually send the music anyway, so no, this won't be broken.
The one you're talking about (and the only one he's apparently talking about) was Southwest Airlines out of Oakland. United at San Francisco was going to let him fly, but he chose not to. And if he was testing this system, he should have followed through. But he didn't.
Details here.
Yes, I really do hope all this gets resolved. Though it might seem so from my posts, I SUPPORT John's mission to shed some sunshine on this whole issue. It's either a law, or it isn't, and you should either have to show ID, or not. I suspect many would be content to just know the contents of such regulations, so they could either be followed, or challenged.
But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't guess that it is a "law", per se. I think it's likely more along the lines of security "directives" from the TSA and/or FAA that operate as guidelines or recommendations for how airports and air carriers should conduct their business and their security. And yes, I'm sure they probably are secret. Frankly, I'm not sure security guidelines *shouldn't* be secret.
Where I come down on this issue is as follows: checking IDs and all the ridiculousness in airports since Sept 11 might do little to make them "more secure". What it DOES do is make the general populace believe the government is "doing something" about security. Even though it probably does little, allows people who really do want to go down the road to a police state more leeway, and terrorists would likely choose a completely different mechanism of attack in the future, since the airlines have already been used. But what it DOES do is keep people flying, which is good for a huge industry, and in turn, good for our economy and many other businesses in general. That's not necessarily a bad thing...
Gilmore's can shed some light on this issue.
All I'm calling for is:
- Honesty, and not lying about or omitting events, like being allowed to fly at SFO if he submitted to a search, albeit a more intensive one
- Not exaggerating the story with charged phrases like "identity papers" when it could just be called "ID"
You're still wrong. You're taking this tack that him being allowed to fly with no ID was in itself a mistake on the part of a counter agent. I disagree. If the ID requirement was hard and fast, they wouldn't let it slide like that. As I have said, I *agree* that there are secret security directives and guidelines from the FAA/TSA for airlines and airports. I've already stipulated to that numerous times. And these may be tantamount to "laws", as applied, as far as a passenger is concerned. After all, if you can't really challenge it and it stops you from flying, what's the difference? Yes, I get it. Jeez. But what I'm getting at is the need for HONESTY in this debate if it's to be effective. I hope Gilmore is successful! But I wish he wouldn't frame it as a need to show "identity papers", generically, for all travel, as he does in his soundbite style quotes for interviews, or say that he wasn't allowed to fly with no ID when he didn't even follow through at SFO when they told him he could.
What if I told you that I have flown, post-September 11, with no ID? ORD to MSN. I had to submit to the extensive search, but I still did it. I'd lost my wallet, so I had no choice. All I had was my ticket, my luggage, and the clothes I was wearing.
I agree with you about the No Fly lists and the broken nature of the system. And the publicity that something like Gilmore's case can bring can shed some light on things. But over-exaggerating the issues is, I believe, dishonest, disingenuous, and counterproductive. I mean, if you think you're on the righteous side on this one, why not just stick to the facts instead of making Orwellian statements and predictions? I'm not saying you, personally, are doing that, but many of Gilmore's own comments echo of Nazi Germany or Soviet states, and I simply don't think the comparison is apt.
Oh, for fuck's sake. He's on a mission to test this, remember? His PURPOSE was to test this, and pursue it in court, and now you're going to use this bullshit argument on me? He made a premeditated decision to politely test this system, and see if he could shake loose the whole "papers, please" issue.
Since that is the case, hell fucking yes he should have tried to get on the plane at SFO. But you choose to take the "um, aren't you surprised he didn't try after he'd been rejected once" tack. By your logic, he shouldn't have even gone to the second airport at all! They told him they'd allow him to fly if he submitted to a search. And while that may have sounded familiar to him, if his goal was to go on a crusade with this, he should have tested it again, yes? And don't give me any bullshit about embarrassment, because he was prepared for this since his goal was to challenge this system.
And yes, I do expect he would have been let on, because *I* have flown without ID before. Twice now! After Sept 11. I lost my wallet and all I had was my plane ticket, going from ORD to MSN. And yes, I had to submit to the special search, but I still flew. So yes, I do expect he could have flown with no ID, albeit with much hassle. Of course you won't believe this, but no matter.
Look, I'm not saying that the system is great, and I think John's cause is worthwhile. I just think that exaggerating things (i.e., that he can't fly with no ID, even though SFO was about to let him - and we'll never know either way, will we - or, that this is a universal issue of being able to travel without "identity papers", when this case applies only to air travel, and there are numerous other ways to travel - and it doesn't matter if they're slower - without ID. The point is that he shouldn't hurt this case by overdramatizing things.)
You're the one assuming this amounted to a strip search.
Likely, it was no more intensive than the "normal" intensive searches they do when they randomly pull people out of lin during the routine course of screening passengers.
And yes, I'm aware of times when individual TSA personnel have been abusive and/or inappropriate. But I'm assuming that they will operate within their guidelines, as the majority of them do, whereas you'd likely assume the worst.
Further, and I know this is a very cliche argument, but why do you think they want to search someone more intensively if they don't show ID? Whether it's the case or not, don't you think the prevailing notion is that they're hiding something? I'm not saying that's valid, I'm just asking you to consider it. And if searches are worthless, why do any searches or screening at all, seriously? Because rightly or wrongly, if there were security incidents and people didn't feel like we were doing "all we can" to secure air carriers, air travel would suffer greatly and our economy would suffer as a result. Whether that's right or wrong, or whether you think it's the fault of the "corporate controlled media" by not helping to explain that air travel really is a safe way to travel even if there are isolated security incidents and that people shouldn't be sacrificing liberty for security, etc., less people would fly if they were scared and didn't believe "the government" was doing anything about it, period. Like it or not, people don't react well to 50 or 200 people dying at once, no matter if they had a ten times statistical chance of dying by getting in their car.
I hope that someone understands all of this.
Oh, wait. Our elected officials and the people in charge do.