Actually, the opposite is true and that is what precipitated this crisis. People have stopped waiting and are acting now. That's why processing times are increasing and funds have been exhausted.
When the government condemns your house so they can build a road over the property, you deserve to be compensated.
The government condemned the analog spectrum so they could auction it off. The digital television conversion is a "taking", and the people forced out deserve some compensation for their costs. That compensation is not being paid with tax dollars, but through a portion of revenues from selling off that spectrum.
I am using a prepaid T-Mobile account. I just walked into one of their retail stores, opened an account, and got a SIM.
For some reason I was unable to activate the SIM card in the FreeRunner, but once I did in another phone it worked fine.
I am able to use voice and SMS, but not data. For my purposes that's ok. I'm happy with wi-fi for data.
When I was threatened by a reverse domain hijacking, the EFF provided reference to a lawyer who helped with my case. We won, and I've been told my case has established precedent. As a result of my case, a company cannot try to steal a domain by filing a lawsuit in a distant state.
The anti-muni provisions of Texas HR 789 will be highly harmful to Texans. It certainly will harm communities. How it harms any given community, however, will vary. Texas is a very big place.
In metro areas, such as Austin, wireless access is proving to be a mighty tool for economic development and for bridging the digital divide. These absolutely are causes of civic concern, and municipalities should be involved.
Here in Austin, for instance, the private Austin Wireless City project has been a leader in the drive to provide wireless access. The city has been involved, but it's mostly been logistical and organizational support, not funding. This sort of public/private partnership is good for people and good for business, but could be prohibited by HR 789.
In rural areas, the story is much grimmer. I hear that government shouldn't compete with private enterprise, but what if private enterprise isn't even showing up to compete? The broadband fiber isn't landing in the small towns, because SBC can't justify the buildout investment.
In the last century there was a big push for rural electrification. Internet access is the 21st counterpart. If these small towns don't get broadband access, they are going to find their economic options significantly limited and their quality of life impacted. These towns need the right to assure local infrastructure.
This issue is not about free lunches or something for nothing. It's about making sure citizens and markets determine what's right for our communities, and not the special interests of the incumbent communication providers.
If you live in Texas, please visit the Save Muni Wireless web site to learn more about the issue and what you can do.
Our link has been mentioned once in this thread, but I want to highlight it. If you want to learn more about the battle to stop the anti-muni network provisions of HR 789, or (please! please!) if you are a Texan interested in helping to get this stopped, please visit our web site.
Do you have a reference to where Panix said they locked the domain? I've been wondering whether or not that was done. I posted a blog entry on this topic earlier this evening.
That's true. But keep in mind that Tauzin is said to be the first choice for head of the MPAA when Jack Valenti retires. It makes sense they've got a direct line into all his technology legislation. Heck, he may have inserted that himself without their prompting.
What's becoming clear is that Microsoft has a strategy to control spam, not eliminate it. You'll find that the legislation that Microsoft supports typically: 1) legalizes spam, 2) mandates opt-out, and 3) places power of enforcement in the hands of service providers rather than individuals.
One essential element of any good anti-spam law would be the right to private action: the spam victim gets to go to court and collect damages directly. This is one of the things that has made the junk fax law so effective. This is precisely what Microsoft does not want to happen.
Although the Microsoft supported laws aren't killing private action outright, they tend to make it useless. For instance, the trick they pulled in Texas was to allow ISPs to collect $25,000 or $10/spam, whichever is more, but individuals get $25,000 or $10/spam whichever is less. So, under the new (Microsoft-endorsed) Texas spam law, you could drag a spammer into small claims court and not even collect enough to cover your filing fees.
I believe Microsoft's intention is to chase away the rogue spammers, and then turn the corporate spammers into a revenue stream. So instead of 100 messages/day sellng us viagra or pr0n, we'll get 100 messages/day selling us insurance or aluminum siding. Oh yeah! That's so much better.
I don't know why DAV is scriptable but HTTP isn't. Yet, the fact that there is a 2200% difference between the two indicates that's the case.
Yes, I do believe the HTTP spam I see from Hotmail is manual. The bulk of it is 419 spam, which is reported to be largely done by hand by itinerant Nigerians. The rest appears to be from mom-n-pop or work-at-home cluebies.
Right, the substitute has not been posted to the legislative web site yet. That's why I'm referring people to my report on the hearing. The one-paragraph substitute is included there.
I am Sheriff of the EFF-Austin Open Source Posse and coordinator for our efforts on SB 1579. I want to offer some quick corrections to what is being discussed.
The main problem is that a lot of people are discussing the content of and materials about the bill as originally introduced. In the legislative process, that is often an initial bid just to get the discussion going. It is not uncommon for bills to be amended--or even completely substituted--as they go through the process. That is what has happened here.
Sen. Carona, the author of SB 1579, offered up a complete substitute. It has been accepted by the committee, replacing the original text. Therefore, the bill as originally written is off the table.
The article links to my report on the committee hearing. In that report you'll find the complete text of the one-paragraph substitute, along with the reasons why EFF-Austin supports it.
The substitute is significantly less sweeping in scope than the original. It is still valuable, and it is a great opening to see more open source in Texas government. In Thursday's hearing Sen. Carona stood strongly behind this bill, and stated that he planned to be back next legislative session with even stronger measures.
Our wiki page has been updated with the latest information on SB 1579. Our sb1579 mailing list (subscribe directions on the wiki page) is the best way to stay informed on this particular issue.
Thanks to everybody who has supported the effort to promote open source software in Texas state government.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the success of his proposal depends upon the efficacy of filtering. His bounty, if it works as desired, ensures that we have subject tags to do that filtering. My claim is that even if Larry's proposal allows for perfect filtering, we're still in store for a mail system meltdown.
This claim has not been well received.:)
The problem is that too many people--a significant number of them hang out on this web site--believe filtering is a magic bullet. It isn't, and Larry's proposal provides an example of the situation where you can implement perfect filtering and still have a mail system meltdown.
I do think there may be a remedy that may save Larry's proposal. If the filtering tag is moved from the Subject header into the tranport session (say, an ESTMP parameter), that may reduce the cost of rejecting spam enough to avoid the system meltdown problem.
Interestingly, after the discussion yesterday I reinstalled it but left out the plug-ins. It sucked up most of the remaining memory, but it hasn't pushed me into paging as it had before. This is looking somewhat promising...
My LInux workstation is a completely reasonable machine (Athlon 800MHz, 512MB memory, LVD SCSI). I''m running the Gnome desktop. Not too much else happening. I'll start Mozilla and *wham* within moments my machine is on the edge of paging. Just opening up the application to an empty screen sucks 112MB memory.
Again, this isn't meant as flamebait. If there was some way I could reduce the memory footprint I'd be delighted to use Mozilla. However, I don't think it's reasonable for a desktop application to require a machine to have a gig of memory. What am I missing here? I just don't get it.
I'm sure that a judge will be just ecstatic to hear about how a bunch of people using a free service
First, many of us are paying for Yahoo! services. I am using their Bill Paying service, so they have possession of my most valuable personal and financial information. I entrusted them with that information for the purposes stated in the user agreement. Now, they are planning to use that information for other purposes, and contrary to my expressed desires.
Second, this is a strawman argument. Whether or not I've paid for service is irrelvant. What matters is what information was collected, for what purposes, and how is it being used. The problem is that Yahoo collected information for one purpose and is now planning to use it for another. That's not just rude, it's fraud.
Not that it will do any good, but I'd encourage people who are upset by this policy to file a TrustE complaint.
I saw in the complaint that he requested $50,000 for the domain
Yes, that allegation was in the complaint I deny it.
You don't have to take my word for it. All of my communication with USI (prior to the cease and desist letter) was by email, and that email is
available online. You can read it and decide for yourself.
I think the decision goes beyond interesting, and really will be valuable. The jurisdiction question is an area of the law that needed clarification, and I'm really proud that we were able to do that. This decision will help shield the independent web publisher from "long arm" tactics, that would pull them into a long-distance lawsuit they couldn't fight.
(By the way... I was sued in a Federal court, not State court. If they want to come back after me, they are going to have to come to Austin and do it.)
You are right that there were other matters in question, but once jursidiction was settled they all became moot. Somebody, someday, is going to have to litigate those issues too. (Hey, why you looking at me!!?!)
I agree with your analysis. However it greatly rearranges the playing field, and that helps me tremendously. I won't have to fight a long-distance lawsuit. If they choose to re-file, they would have to retain ($$$$) Texas counsel. (I believe all of their work on the lawsuit to-date has been done with in-house counsel.)
I think the big value in the Unicom v. Rosenthal decision is that it provides the independent web publisher some peace of mind that some company cannot reach out, claim jurisdiction, and make them fight a long-distance lawsuit. That's very expensive and very difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the opposite is true and that is what precipitated this crisis. People have stopped waiting and are acting now. That's why processing times are increasing and funds have been exhausted.
When the government condemns your house so they can build a road over the property, you deserve to be compensated. The government condemned the analog spectrum so they could auction it off. The digital television conversion is a "taking", and the people forced out deserve some compensation for their costs. That compensation is not being paid with tax dollars, but through a portion of revenues from selling off that spectrum.
I am using a prepaid T-Mobile account. I just walked into one of their retail stores, opened an account, and got a SIM. For some reason I was unable to activate the SIM card in the FreeRunner, but once I did in another phone it worked fine. I am able to use voice and SMS, but not data. For my purposes that's ok. I'm happy with wi-fi for data.
Here is a working link to the article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6190900.html
When I was threatened by a reverse domain hijacking, the EFF provided reference to a lawyer who helped with my case. We won, and I've been told my case has established precedent. As a result of my case, a company cannot try to steal a domain by filing a lawsuit in a distant state.
I'm grateful for the support of the EFF.
This article (annoying registration required) quotes the HB 789 sponsor as saying he will try again in two years (next legislative session).
The anti-muni provisions of Texas HR 789 will be highly harmful to Texans. It certainly will harm communities. How it harms any given community, however, will vary. Texas is a very big place.
In metro areas, such as Austin, wireless access is proving to be a mighty tool for economic development and for bridging the digital divide. These absolutely are causes of civic concern, and municipalities should be involved.
Here in Austin, for instance, the private Austin Wireless City project has been a leader in the drive to provide wireless access. The city has been involved, but it's mostly been logistical and organizational support, not funding. This sort of public/private partnership is good for people and good for business, but could be prohibited by HR 789.
In rural areas, the story is much grimmer. I hear that government shouldn't compete with private enterprise, but what if private enterprise isn't even showing up to compete? The broadband fiber isn't landing in the small towns, because SBC can't justify the buildout investment.
In the last century there was a big push for rural electrification. Internet access is the 21st counterpart. If these small towns don't get broadband access, they are going to find their economic options significantly limited and their quality of life impacted. These towns need the right to assure local infrastructure.
This issue is not about free lunches or something for nothing. It's about making sure citizens and markets determine what's right for our communities, and not the special interests of the incumbent communication providers.
If you live in Texas, please visit the Save Muni Wireless web site to learn more about the issue and what you can do.
Our link has been mentioned once in this thread, but I want to highlight it. If you want to learn more about the battle to stop the anti-muni network provisions of HR 789, or (please! please!) if you are a Texan interested in helping to get this stopped, please visit our web site.
Do you have a reference to where Panix said they locked the domain? I've been wondering whether or not that was done. I posted a blog entry on this topic earlier this evening.
That's true. But keep in mind that Tauzin is said to be the first choice for head of the MPAA when Jack Valenti retires. It makes sense they've got a direct line into all his technology legislation. Heck, he may have inserted that himself without their prompting.
What's becoming clear is that Microsoft has a strategy to control spam, not eliminate it. You'll find that the legislation that Microsoft supports typically: 1) legalizes spam, 2) mandates opt-out, and 3) places power of enforcement in the hands of service providers rather than individuals.
One essential element of any good anti-spam law would be the right to private action: the spam victim gets to go to court and collect damages directly. This is one of the things that has made the junk fax law so effective. This is precisely what Microsoft does not want to happen.
Although the Microsoft supported laws aren't killing private action outright, they tend to make it useless. For instance, the trick they pulled in Texas was to allow ISPs to collect $25,000 or $10/spam, whichever is more, but individuals get $25,000 or $10/spam whichever is less. So, under the new (Microsoft-endorsed) Texas spam law, you could drag a spammer into small claims court and not even collect enough to cover your filing fees.
I believe Microsoft's intention is to chase away the rogue spammers, and then turn the corporate spammers into a revenue stream. So instead of 100 messages/day sellng us viagra or pr0n, we'll get 100 messages/day selling us insurance or aluminum siding. Oh yeah! That's so much better.
You're right, I'll correct that to 1100%. Thanks.
Okay ... I'll post the complete message that was quoted in the article.
Now, will the people who are whinging, "You can't trust From: headers" please stop? :)
I don't know why DAV is scriptable but HTTP isn't. Yet, the fact that there is a 2200% difference between the two indicates that's the case.
Yes, I do believe the HTTP spam I see from Hotmail is manual. The bulk of it is 419 spam, which is reported to be largely done by hand by itinerant Nigerians. The rest appears to be from mom-n-pop or work-at-home cluebies.
Right, the substitute has not been posted to the legislative web site yet. That's why I'm referring people to my report on the hearing. The one-paragraph substitute is included there.
Ooops! The parent story did not link to the hearing report. It actually links to extrameous info.
Ignore that. Read the hearing report instead.
I am Sheriff of the EFF-Austin Open Source Posse and coordinator for our efforts on SB 1579. I want to offer some quick corrections to what is being discussed.
The main problem is that a lot of people are discussing the content of and materials about the bill as originally introduced. In the legislative process, that is often an initial bid just to get the discussion going. It is not uncommon for bills to be amended--or even completely substituted--as they go through the process. That is what has happened here.
Sen. Carona, the author of SB 1579, offered up a complete substitute. It has been accepted by the committee, replacing the original text. Therefore, the bill as originally written is off the table.
The article links to my report on the committee hearing. In that report you'll find the complete text of the one-paragraph substitute, along with the reasons why EFF-Austin supports it.
The substitute is significantly less sweeping in scope than the original. It is still valuable, and it is a great opening to see more open source in Texas government. In Thursday's hearing Sen. Carona stood strongly behind this bill, and stated that he planned to be back next legislative session with even stronger measures.
Our wiki page has been updated with the latest information on SB 1579. Our sb1579 mailing list (subscribe directions on the wiki page) is the best way to stay informed on this particular issue.
Thanks to everybody who has supported the effort to promote open source software in Texas state government.
I blogged my rebuttal to Larry last January.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that the success of his proposal depends upon the efficacy of filtering. His bounty, if it works as desired, ensures that we have subject tags to do that filtering. My claim is that even if Larry's proposal allows for perfect filtering, we're still in store for a mail system meltdown.
This claim has not been well received. :)
The problem is that too many people--a significant number of them hang out on this web site--believe filtering is a magic bullet. It isn't, and Larry's proposal provides an example of the situation where you can implement perfect filtering and still have a mail system meltdown.
I do think there may be a remedy that may save Larry's proposal. If the filtering tag is moved from the Subject header into the tranport session (say, an ESTMP parameter), that may reduce the cost of rejecting spam enough to avoid the system meltdown problem.
There is nothing in these proposals to change .ORG's status as an open TLD.
Interestingly, after the discussion yesterday I reinstalled it but left out the plug-ins. It sucked up most of the remaining memory, but it hasn't pushed me into paging as it had before. This is looking somewhat promising ...
I swear I'm not posting this as flamebait.
My LInux workstation is a completely reasonable machine (Athlon 800MHz, 512MB memory, LVD SCSI). I''m running the Gnome desktop. Not too much else happening. I'll start Mozilla and *wham* within moments my machine is on the edge of paging. Just opening up the application to an empty screen sucks 112MB memory.
Again, this isn't meant as flamebait. If there was some way I could reduce the memory footprint I'd be delighted to use Mozilla. However, I don't think it's reasonable for a desktop application to require a machine to have a gig of memory. What am I missing here? I just don't get it.
First, many of us are paying for Yahoo! services. I am using their Bill Paying service, so they have possession of my most valuable personal and financial information. I entrusted them with that information for the purposes stated in the user agreement. Now, they are planning to use that information for other purposes, and contrary to my expressed desires.
Second, this is a strawman argument. Whether or not I've paid for service is irrelvant. What matters is what information was collected, for what purposes, and how is it being used. The problem is that Yahoo collected information for one purpose and is now planning to use it for another. That's not just rude, it's fraud.
Not that it will do any good, but I'd encourage people who are upset by this policy to file a TrustE complaint.
Yes, that allegation was in the complaint I deny it.
You don't have to take my word for it. All of my communication with USI (prior to the cease and desist letter) was by email, and that email is available online. You can read it and decide for yourself.
Thanks for the support, Dino.
I think the decision goes beyond interesting, and really will be valuable. The jurisdiction question is an area of the law that needed clarification, and I'm really proud that we were able to do that. This decision will help shield the independent web publisher from "long arm" tactics, that would pull them into a long-distance lawsuit they couldn't fight.
(By the way ... I was sued in a Federal court, not State court. If they want to come back after me, they are going to have to come to Austin and do it.)
You are right that there were other matters in question, but once jursidiction was settled they all became moot. Somebody, someday, is going to have to litigate those issues too. (Hey, why you looking at me!!?!)
I think the big value in the Unicom v. Rosenthal decision is that it provides the independent web publisher some peace of mind that some company cannot reach out, claim jurisdiction, and make them fight a long-distance lawsuit. That's very expensive and very difficult.