I've worked on a similar project at MIT, with the goal of open sourcing the hardware and software to make this capability available to media, NGOs and other non-state actors. Something like this would be incredbily useful in Afghanistan or Darfur for making food or medical supply drops, or distributing leaflets. We conducted test flights on the US/Mexico border looking for evidence of anti-immigrant groups that are known to promulgate unlawful violence against political and economic refugees there. While much has been made of using UAVs for "border security," the systems may also be used to keep our homeland safe by observing and reporting illegal proto-fascist activities.
As a Vermonter concerned with civil liberties, and their rapid destruction by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Senate, I was shocked and dismayed to see that you cosponsored S. 2560. This bill, while short, it tremendously broad, with far reaching implications for many entirely legal forms of data transfer over the Internet.
Why is this sweeping redefinition necessary? Isn't the DMCA enough? That already makes legitimate research illegal, and has caused numerous chilling effects on art, parody and legitimate businesses. (http://www.chillingeffects.org/)
I have long admired your politics, and you have frequently been a defender of privacy and freedom, with your sponsorships of senate bills 436, 1440, 1695, and others that restore Congressional oversight to the executive branch. How can you now move to destroy freedom and privacy with this bill?
Bill 2560 seems to make any involvement with software that can possibly be used to infringe copyright illegal. Many innocuous protocols and software can be used in this manner, including HTTP, FTP, AIM, and email itself. Had I enclosed a copyrighted MP3 file in this message, or even a link to it, or written instructions on how to acquire it, under this act, both you and I would be liable.
This bill is a direct attack on free speech, and I am appalled that a man of your principle has cosponsored it.
Even if you don't agree with all of the views expressed there, you have to agree that Salon, like Slashdot, is one of the few truly independent news sources out there.
Unfortunately, not everything on the internet can be entirely free. It costs money for Talbot and his crew to write; it is only fair that we pay to read. I'm a Premium Member, and just purchased a "Make A Difference" subscription so someone else can experience the wonder of independent media.
In a world where the major news sources resort to fear-mongering to sell themselves, Salon and those similar to it are a last refuge of sanity. You have to remember, the sole purpose of television news is to keep you watching between commercials. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aren't interested in presenting the truth, only something entertaining, or scary enough to keep you from changing the channel. Salon and Slasdot are different; the two communities should support each other. Do your part to keep Salon alive, buy a subscription, it's only $30, or $18.50 with ads. In the long run, that amount is negligible, even for the pimply faced teens.
This probably sounds like an NPR fund drive, and it kind of is, but this vital source of information and commentary is going to die unless we do something about it. If one tenth of the ~600,000 registered Slashdot users help support Salon, we will double the number of Premium subscribers. This is doable, even if stopping the war, or overturning the DMCA isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked on a similar project at MIT, with the goal of open sourcing the hardware and software to make this capability available to media, NGOs and other non-state actors. Something like this would be incredbily useful in Afghanistan or Darfur for making food or medical supply drops, or distributing leaflets. We conducted test flights on the US/Mexico border looking for evidence of anti-immigrant groups that are known to promulgate unlawful violence against political and economic refugees there. While much has been made of using UAVs for "border security," the systems may also be used to keep our homeland safe by observing and reporting illegal proto-fascist activities.
TFA has a list.
"The six sites sued Thursday include ShunTV, Zonatracker, Btefnet, Scifi-Classics, CDDVDHeaven and Bragginrights."
I wrote my Senator. How about you?
---
Senator Leahy,
As a Vermonter concerned with civil liberties, and their rapid destruction by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Senate, I was shocked and dismayed to see that you cosponsored S. 2560. This bill, while short, it tremendously broad, with far reaching implications for many entirely legal forms of data transfer over the Internet.
Why is this sweeping redefinition necessary? Isn't the DMCA enough? That already makes legitimate research illegal, and has caused numerous chilling effects on art, parody and legitimate businesses. (http://www.chillingeffects.org/)
I have long admired your politics, and you have frequently been a defender of privacy and freedom, with your sponsorships of senate bills 436, 1440, 1695, and others that restore Congressional oversight to the executive branch. How can you now move to destroy freedom and privacy with this bill?
Bill 2560 seems to make any involvement with software that can possibly be used to infringe copyright illegal. Many innocuous protocols and software can be used in this manner, including HTTP, FTP, AIM, and email itself. Had I enclosed a copyrighted MP3 file in this message, or even a link to it, or written instructions on how to acquire it, under this act, both you and I would be liable.
This bill is a direct attack on free speech, and I am appalled that a man of your principle has cosponsored it.
Sincerely,
Josh Levinger
Norwich, VT
Even if you don't agree with all of the views expressed there, you have to agree that Salon, like Slashdot, is one of the few truly independent news sources out there. Unfortunately, not everything on the internet can be entirely free. It costs money for Talbot and his crew to write; it is only fair that we pay to read. I'm a Premium Member, and just purchased a "Make A Difference" subscription so someone else can experience the wonder of independent media. In a world where the major news sources resort to fear-mongering to sell themselves, Salon and those similar to it are a last refuge of sanity. You have to remember, the sole purpose of television news is to keep you watching between commercials. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aren't interested in presenting the truth, only something entertaining, or scary enough to keep you from changing the channel. Salon and Slasdot are different; the two communities should support each other. Do your part to keep Salon alive, buy a subscription, it's only $30, or $18.50 with ads. In the long run, that amount is negligible, even for the pimply faced teens. This probably sounds like an NPR fund drive, and it kind of is, but this vital source of information and commentary is going to die unless we do something about it. If one tenth of the ~600,000 registered Slashdot users help support Salon, we will double the number of Premium subscribers. This is doable, even if stopping the war, or overturning the DMCA isn't.