Regulators want to establish jurisdiction over VoIP services that are both interstate and international in nature, Powell says in a statement issued in October. "To hold that packets flying across...digital networks should be subject to state commission economic regulatory authority
is to dumb down the Internet to match the limited vision of government officials," he argues.
Whoa there Michael, you just said something that shows:
A) insight for the fact that the Internet is more subtle than those in government, and
B) disdain for the ability of government to properly regulate high technology
Excuse me, would someone please call 911? I believe that doozy just about sent me into shock. Maybe there's hope for the man after all.
-Steve
Guys, i think what we need to realize here is that this is PROGRESS, no matter how you might feel about the patriot act. This applies to acts passed many years before Sept. 11, and keeps ol' Johnny A a little more honest. We need all the help we can get in that regard, and this is help. Those who advocate for radical change all at once are shooting themselves in the foot. Progress happens incrementally.
In Soviet Russia, the fax sends YOU!...more seriously, the parent post here slightly misses the point. Our laws don't have jurisdiction (yet) over people doing things in Russia. The point of this article was that you can get back at the home-grown spammers, on the theory that every little bit helps.
The argument in this case is not over principles but over methods (well, the intelligent argument anyway). Nobody is advocating that we should do nothing to help protect children from porn and other objectionable content. The important point is that it should be the PARENTS doing this, and deciding what is appropriate and what is not - not the government. Even if the government is going to set some minimum standard, its methods for enforcement should not include mandatory (And often *overly* restrictive) software.
The ACLU's main point, as I see it, is that the protection of children from porn has become an "overvalued idea", and with this legislation is running rampant over the legitimate free speech rights of many other groups, such as those who want to use computers in libraries to browse the internet. If you can't do a research project on breast cancer, that may not be an ordeal worth jumping up and down screaming over, but it's a step in a very wrong direction.
If you want to holla back at the USPTO, and tell them how much prior art has gone through these precise methods, you can mail them the below addresses, quoted from the USPTO site:
----------
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows:
Box
Commissioner for Patents
Washington, D.C. 20231
Please address mail to be delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL, Laser, Action, Purolater, etc.) as follows:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
2011 South Clark Place
Customer Window, Box
Crystal Plaza Two, Lobby, Room 1B03
Arlington, Virginia 22202
---------
You can also call them at: 800-PTO-9199 (800-786-9199) or 703-308-HELP (703-308-4357)
Personally, I'd quote them a dozen or so sites that use online tests regularly, especially for-profit (i guess thespark.com doesn't qualify =P) and then mention the general case of Universities, who are slowly moving towards great use of online tests to ease their administrative loads. I'm sure enough comments can get a patent reviewed.
Wow, I'm surprised this one ever saw the light of day again.
I just want to let everyone know that for my sophomore and junior-year high school science projects, I built this thing. Cost me about $1200, most of which was the vacuum chamber and neon sign transformer (for the high voltage). I used the high speeds of the electrostatically-contained hydrogen i put in the thing to measure the redshift and blueshift of the atoms (with a spectrometer).
My point isn't that I'm cool, my point is that it's both possible and has been done many times. Check out the journal "Plasma Fusion" put out by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain (sp?), its editors have a bent towards experiments involving electrostatic fusors such as this one. I can also give you email addresses of people who have built many versions of this thing and are quite experts on it. Email me at destes(at)ix.netcom.com if you want more info.
I happen to be a registered Democrat and hard-line liberal, going to a quite liberal college, voting for those who would generally be categorized as liberal, and would rather my friends shoot me than vote for most of the Republican candidates I see floating around (with notable exceptions).
My comment about "commie pinko liberals" was semi-sarcasm, as the quotes should make clear.
And I believe that my explanation retains its same point regardless of where on the political spectrum I happen to put myself. Speaking of which, what was *your* point here, besides trying to discredit me?
To those of you who may not know who Phyllis Schafly is, it may be informative to read the biography of her on that site.
As a further illustration of the type of news this is, when you visit the site, you get a pop-up window inviting you to receive "commentaries" from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Before some of you out there gag, understand that this is an important victory for the opponents of these controlling forces in today's intellectual-property field. It is not just "commie pinko liberals" who are advocating change here, but thoughtful conservative writers as well. If others follow, we may have support building from an unlikely place. I say it's good.
I've known Lexis-Nexis mostly as a periodical and newspaper search engine (and a gigantic one, at that). Now that they're collecting personal information, don't they have to obey the same laws that (supposedly) outlaw such things as spam and unwanted telemarketing? In other words, don't they have to allow us some means to purge all our personal data from their databases? I was under the impression that this was a federal law, but IANAL.
I advocate searching out opt-in spam lists for junk snail-mail, and putting her home address into them. When she needs a wheelbarrow to bring in the mail, I think it might just do "Man in the Wilderness" justice.
We need to think about what we really want as far as legislative protections, and actually cooperate with this guy, if we ever want to see protections for the common hacker become reality. As an earlier poster noted, Clarke is showing SOME support for us - our goal should be work within the system, not attack it because it's imperfect.
To that end, I've put together a sample of what some protective legislation could look like. I think this takes into account most of the opinions expressed on this board as far as what's fair. Some further comments of mine are below.
----
(1) The DMCA is hereby amended such that the Reverse-engineering of software for the purpose of discovering security holes, and the modification of technological measures that control access for the purpose of discovering security holes, are legal. (insert definition of security holes)
(2) Discovering such security holes for the purpose of exploiting them to commit computer crimes (insert list here), however, is illegal. (fill in requirements for establishing purpose)
(2A) Sharing those discoveries with those who have the purpose of exploiting them to commit computer crimes is also illegal.
(insert penalties, remedies etc here)
(3) Upon discovery of a security hole, the discoverer should report it to the person, company or group whose responsibility it is to develop the software.
(4) Disclosure of the nature of a security hole, technical details of one, or methods that could be used to exploit it, or any details of a security hole beyond its existence and the product it affects, to anyone other than the developers of the software, within 15 days of the notification mentioned in section (3), is illegal.
(after 15 days you can tell the public the basic idea)
(5) Disclosure of the exact basis for a security hole, including methods that could be used to exploit it for the commission of computer crimes, or details that could lead someone unexperienced in computer security to exploit it for the commission of computer crimes, to anyone other than the developers of the software, within 45 days of the notification mentioned in section (3), is illegal.
(after 45 days you can release anything you want)
(6) Any discovery or disclosure of security holes not in compliance with these provisions is subject to liability under Title 17, Sec 1201 (DMCA)
----
Now, the thing that really strikes me about this is that, while it permits violation of what the DMCA mostly regulated (modification of technological measures designed to control access to things), it does so by way of regulating free speech. It specifically prohibits you in what you may say about these things. We can talk about the morality of disclosing details of security holes, and to that end these guidelines might be fairly "moral" (in my view), but they clearly trod over the first amendment. Does this mean that there can really be no compromise between people designing security systems, and people who want to hack those systems and expose weaknesses? I think if we can't find a constitutional middle-ground between controlled, proprietary security systems and people who genuinely want to improve the security of those systems, we may end up with the (DMCA'd) status quo.
9. All passengers who have personal items confiscated at the screening stations shall be provided with mailing envelopes for use in mailing seized items to passenger's home address. The passenger shall be permitted to place the item in the envelope, seal the envelope, and place the item in the U.S. mail at the screening station.
I just want to underscore how important it is to have SOME form of this rule in place. The person who replied to this item had some good ideas, but regardless of whose are used, this is of paramount importance.
Last weekend, I embarked on a flight from boston's logan airport. Preoccupied with my flight, I neglected to check the swiss army knife i always carry in my pocket, and of course the xrayers at security caught it. As I saw them pass it over to one of the other screeners, I said "What are you doing with that?".
"Disposing of it, sir."
"That's my property, I paid good money for that in switzerland!"
"New regulations, sir."
"Yeah, I know... my mistake. Can I go back and check it?"
"We can't allow that, sir. Once it's gone through security, it can't go back out again."
"Look, I don't intend to bring it onto the airplane. Maybe I can take it back outside, mail it to myself, and come back through security?"
"We can't allow that. We're taking it, sir." He goes and puts it in a basket in a drawer next to the machines.
Now, i'm no expert on this subject, but nowhere did I read that the airport, airlines, or even the FAA had the right to deprive me of my property when it was not used in the commission of a crime. Stop me from getting on the airplane with it, sure, that's their job. But take it and not let me send it home or check it? Something doesn't add up. If I'm in the wrong here, why? If they're in the wrong here, what can I (or we, collectively) do about it?
I agree. If AOL is responsible for what their users post, then BnetD is responsible for people taking their open source project and modifying it against the copyright of Blizzard.
I actually don't think there's too much wrong with the DMCA, but several proposed amendments to it (I forget the one that's really out of line, that requires security measures on every piece of internet software) can be fairly out of whack.
Speaking as someone who's been involved in the bnetD project (though not in the center of it), I should probably point out a couple things, on the offchance someone hasn't mentioned them already. Typhoon and Mysticales are working on a legal response (possibly in line with the helpful link the original poster made). In any event, the project isn't going anywhere.
Some people in these threads support Blizzard or at least think they have a case, so please let me address that. The specific complaints Blizzard lists in their note are:
The aforementioned site either hosts or distributes software which illegally modifies and/or alters Blizzard Entertainment copyrighted software or bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard Entertainment copyrights.
Let's run down the list there.
Modifies or alters Blizzard software. Nope, it's entirely independent. Users choose to connect of their own accord, by their own means. We only run our own software.
Bypasses anti-circumvention technology. What, the CDkey system for Blizzard games? We don't enable users to pirate software, we only provide gaming servers for people who already own the games.
Something else to consider. If BnetD violates copyrights, then how about the 15,000 average concurrent users on FSGS? Anyone remember Kali? Surely if Blizzard let those services exist for years upon years, bnetD is no more harmful a precedent.
Last, Blizzard ought to rethink their policy of aggression on anyone who tries to enhance the experience for their users (might I mention UltimateBot). The thousands of users that FSGS claims are NOT hogging the limited bandwidth (or development resources) of the battle.net staff. FSGS, BnetD and any related projects are really helping Blizzard more than they're hurting them.
All fans of the project can rest assured that this isn't the last you've heard about BnetD:)
Thanks,
Slashdot Mirror
i think i speak for everyone when I say this post should be "insightful". the guy somewhat knows what he's talking about, neh?
Guys, i think what we need to realize here is that this is PROGRESS, no matter how you might feel about the patriot act. This applies to acts passed many years before Sept. 11, and keeps ol' Johnny A a little more honest. We need all the help we can get in that regard, and this is help. Those who advocate for radical change all at once are shooting themselves in the foot. Progress happens incrementally.
In Soviet Russia, the fax sends YOU! ...more seriously, the parent post here slightly misses the point. Our laws don't have jurisdiction (yet) over people doing things in Russia. The point of this article was that you can get back at the home-grown spammers, on the theory that every little bit helps.
The argument in this case is not over principles but over methods (well, the intelligent argument anyway). Nobody is advocating that we should do nothing to help protect children from porn and other objectionable content. The important point is that it should be the PARENTS doing this, and deciding what is appropriate and what is not - not the government. Even if the government is going to set some minimum standard, its methods for enforcement should not include mandatory (And often *overly* restrictive) software.
The ACLU's main point, as I see it, is that the protection of children from porn has become an "overvalued idea", and with this legislation is running rampant over the legitimate free speech rights of many other groups, such as those who want to use computers in libraries to browse the internet. If you can't do a research project on breast cancer, that may not be an ordeal worth jumping up and down screaming over, but it's a step in a very wrong direction.
If you want to holla back at the USPTO, and tell them how much prior art has gone through these precise methods, you can mail them the below addresses, quoted from the USPTO site:
----------
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
Box
Commissioner for Patents
Washington, D.C. 20231
Please address mail to be delivered by other delivery services (Federal
Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL, Laser, Action, Purolater, etc.) as follows:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
2011 South Clark Place
Customer Window, Box
Crystal Plaza Two, Lobby, Room 1B03
Arlington, Virginia 22202
---------
You can also call them at: 800-PTO-9199 (800-786-9199) or 703-308-HELP (703-308-4357)
Personally, I'd quote them a dozen or so sites that use online tests regularly, especially for-profit (i guess thespark.com doesn't qualify =P) and then mention the general case of Universities, who are slowly moving towards great use of online tests to ease their administrative loads. I'm sure enough comments can get a patent reviewed.
Wow, I'm surprised this one ever saw the light of day again.
I just want to let everyone know that for my sophomore and junior-year high school science projects, I built this thing. Cost me about $1200, most of which was the vacuum chamber and neon sign transformer (for the high voltage). I used the high speeds of the electrostatically-contained hydrogen i put in the thing to measure the redshift and blueshift of the atoms (with a spectrometer).
My point isn't that I'm cool, my point is that it's both possible and has been done many times. Check out the journal "Plasma Fusion" put out by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champlain (sp?), its editors have a bent towards experiments involving electrostatic fusors such as this one. I can also give you email addresses of people who have built many versions of this thing and are quite experts on it. Email me at destes(at)ix.netcom.com if you want more info.
Cheers,
Steve
Mind the flamebait, mr. Rabbit.
I happen to be a registered Democrat and hard-line liberal, going to a quite liberal college, voting for those who would generally be categorized as liberal, and would rather my friends shoot me than vote for most of the Republican candidates I see floating around (with notable exceptions).
My comment about "commie pinko liberals" was semi-sarcasm, as the quotes should make clear.
And I believe that my explanation retains its same point regardless of where on the political spectrum I happen to put myself. Speaking of which, what was *your* point here, besides trying to discredit me?
To those of you who may not know who Phyllis Schafly is, it may be informative to read the biography of her on that site.
As a further illustration of the type of news this is, when you visit the site, you get a pop-up window inviting you to receive "commentaries" from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Before some of you out there gag, understand that this is an important victory for the opponents of these controlling forces in today's intellectual-property field. It is not just "commie pinko liberals" who are advocating change here, but thoughtful conservative writers as well. If others follow, we may have support building from an unlikely place. I say it's good.
I've known Lexis-Nexis mostly as a periodical and newspaper search engine (and a gigantic one, at that). Now that they're collecting personal information, don't they have to obey the same laws that (supposedly) outlaw such things as spam and unwanted telemarketing? In other words, don't they have to allow us some means to purge all our personal data from their databases? I was under the impression that this was a federal law, but IANAL.
I advocate searching out opt-in spam lists for junk snail-mail, and putting her home address into them. When she needs a wheelbarrow to bring in the mail, I think it might just do "Man in the Wilderness" justice.
We need to think about what we really want as far as legislative protections, and actually cooperate with this guy, if we ever want to see protections for the common hacker become reality. As an earlier poster noted, Clarke is showing SOME support for us - our goal should be work within the system, not attack it because it's imperfect.
To that end, I've put together a sample of what some protective legislation could look like. I think this takes into account most of the opinions expressed on this board as far as what's fair. Some further comments of mine are below.
----
(1) The DMCA is hereby amended such that the Reverse-engineering of software for the purpose of discovering security holes, and the modification of technological measures that control access for the purpose of discovering security holes, are legal. (insert definition of security holes)
(2) Discovering such security holes for the purpose of exploiting them to commit computer crimes (insert list here), however, is illegal. (fill in requirements for establishing purpose)
(2A) Sharing those discoveries with those who have the purpose of exploiting them to commit computer crimes is also illegal.
(insert penalties, remedies etc here)
(3) Upon discovery of a security hole, the discoverer should report it to the person, company or group whose responsibility it is to develop the software.
(4) Disclosure of the nature of a security hole, technical details of one, or methods that could be used to exploit it, or any details of a security hole beyond its existence and the product it affects, to anyone other than the developers of the software, within 15 days of the notification mentioned in section (3), is illegal.
(after 15 days you can tell the public the basic idea)
(5) Disclosure of the exact basis for a security hole, including methods that could be used to exploit it for the commission of computer crimes, or details that could lead someone unexperienced in computer security to exploit it for the commission of computer crimes, to anyone other than the developers of the software, within 45 days of the notification mentioned in section (3), is illegal.
(after 45 days you can release anything you want)
(6) Any discovery or disclosure of security holes not in compliance with these provisions is subject to liability under Title 17, Sec 1201 (DMCA)
----
Now, the thing that really strikes me about this is that, while it permits violation of what the DMCA mostly regulated (modification of technological measures designed to control access to things), it does so by way of regulating free speech. It specifically prohibits you in what you may say about these things. We can talk about the morality of disclosing details of security holes, and to that end these guidelines might be fairly "moral" (in my view), but they clearly trod over the first amendment. Does this mean that there can really be no compromise between people designing security systems, and people who want to hack those systems and expose weaknesses? I think if we can't find a constitutional middle-ground between controlled, proprietary security systems and people who genuinely want to improve the security of those systems, we may end up with the (DMCA'd) status quo.
9. All passengers who have personal items confiscated at the screening stations shall be provided with mailing envelopes for use in mailing seized items to passenger's home address. The passenger shall be permitted to place the item in the envelope, seal the envelope, and place the item in the U.S. mail at the screening station.
I just want to underscore how important it is to have SOME form of this rule in place. The person who replied to this item had some good ideas, but regardless of whose are used, this is of paramount importance.
Last weekend, I embarked on a flight from boston's logan airport. Preoccupied with my flight, I neglected to check the swiss army knife i always carry in my pocket, and of course the xrayers at security caught it. As I saw them pass it over to one of the other screeners, I said "What are you doing with that?".
"Disposing of it, sir."
"That's my property, I paid good money for that in switzerland!"
"New regulations, sir."
"Yeah, I know... my mistake. Can I go back and check it?"
"We can't allow that, sir. Once it's gone through security, it can't go back out again."
"Look, I don't intend to bring it onto the airplane. Maybe I can take it back outside, mail it to myself, and come back through security?"
"We can't allow that. We're taking it, sir." He goes and puts it in a basket in a drawer next to the machines.
Now, i'm no expert on this subject, but nowhere did I read that the airport, airlines, or even the FAA had the right to deprive me of my property when it was not used in the commission of a crime. Stop me from getting on the airplane with it, sure, that's their job. But take it and not let me send it home or check it? Something doesn't add up. If I'm in the wrong here, why? If they're in the wrong here, what can I (or we, collectively) do about it?
I agree. If AOL is responsible for what their users post, then BnetD is responsible for people taking their open source project and modifying it against the copyright of Blizzard. I actually don't think there's too much wrong with the DMCA, but several proposed amendments to it (I forget the one that's really out of line, that requires security measures on every piece of internet software) can be fairly out of whack.
- Modifies or alters Blizzard software. Nope, it's entirely independent. Users choose to connect of their own accord, by their own means. We only run our own software.
- Bypasses anti-circumvention technology. What, the CDkey system for Blizzard games? We don't enable users to pirate software, we only provide gaming servers for people who already own the games.
Something else to consider. If BnetD violates copyrights, then how about the 15,000 average concurrent users on FSGS? Anyone remember Kali? Surely if Blizzard let those services exist for years upon years, bnetD is no more harmful a precedent. Last, Blizzard ought to rethink their policy of aggression on anyone who tries to enhance the experience for their users (might I mention UltimateBot). The thousands of users that FSGS claims are NOT hogging the limited bandwidth (or development resources) of the battle.net staff. FSGS, BnetD and any related projects are really helping Blizzard more than they're hurting them. All fans of the project can rest assured that this isn't the last you've heard about BnetD