Slashdot Log In
MPAA Kills California Anti-Pretexting Bill
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:22 AM
from the revealed-to-be-playing-dirty-pool dept.
from the revealed-to-be-playing-dirty-pool dept.
IAmTheDave writes "A California anti-pretexting bill that got unanimous support in the state senate with a vote of 30-0 was struck down after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA. The bill aimed to make deceptive 'pretexting' (lying) to gain personal information on another person illegal. The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote. California passed a much narrower bill that 'bans the use of deceit to obtain telephone calling records, and nothing else.' In a final 'think of the children' bid, the Califonia Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
History of Violence (Score:5, Informative)
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?"
The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
Best democracy money can buy (Score:4, Insightful)
And people say the European Commission is corrupt...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as you remember that some states do not have two separate bodies.
Re:Best democracy money can buy (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Alright, kernel (Score:5, Funny)
I'd better get back to husking the ears, then, my erstwhile foe.
Parent
Re:Best democracy money can buy (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Best democracy money can buy (Score:4, Informative)
The Legislative system in United States governments at the federal and state levels have two separate bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In order to become law, bills must pass both houses. What happened here is that the Senate wrote and passed a bill, which was voted down by the House.
That's not even close. The bill passed in committee 30-0, and was voted down by the full assembly 33-27. We're talking about California legislators, not the US Congress.
Parent
Re:Best democracy money can buy (Score:5, Informative)
In the US system of government, at both federal and state levels, legislation must pass through both houses of congress (legislative branch) and then be signed into law by the president/governor (executive branch). There are variations on the path that aren't worth getting into for this discussion.
So, the bill passed the CA state Senate, but was killed in the House of Representatives. Two completely different sets of people. The intent of having two legislative bodies is to get different perspectives on an issue. Representatives are (re-)elected every two years, and therefore tend to take a short-term perspective on issues, looking at what's going to look best to their constituents who will be voting on their re-election (or contributing campaign dollars, as the case may be). Senators are supposedly able to take a bigger-picture view because they have a longer term (six years), and aren't scrambling to please constituents as much as Representatives.
This is the theory. In practice, I don't know how well it works. I think the only thing that's really going to make a major difference is some serious campaign finance reform, at both the State and Federal levels. And I have little hope for that happening because it's like asking pigs to vote on whether they'll voluntarily get less slop in their troughs. Yeah, right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:History of Violence (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:History of Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
It is legal to lie in court if you are not specifically under oath. Otherwise, a lot of lying is done in the courtroom: from the typical business practices of attorneys to the large percentage of the accused who did the crime (and know they did it) but lie and plead "not guilty" anyway.
A courtroom without lies would be very very different.
Parent
Re:History of Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?" The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
True. Although do bear in mind this is California, home of the movie industry. I'd be interested in seeing if they were quite as successful in getting a similar bill nuked in, say, Massachussets.
Parent
Re:History of Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of California and the movie industry, does anyone know if we're hearing anything from any of these actors/actresses who speak out so often about social injustice? What's the Governator's opinion on this? I haven't seen anything. I wonder if maybe it's too close to their own pocketbook (maybe it's true about the love of money...) or maybe it's just peer pressure from within their social circles?
Those idiot actors speak out on social injustice when it gives them photo ops with starving children. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Angelina Jolie.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Angelina Jolie [wikipedia.org] is doing it for the photo ops. She's donated millions of US$ out of her own pocket and is continuously working first-hand in dangerous and poverty-stricken areas. I see your point about idiot actors speaking out because they think their views are somehow more informed. But, I think Ms. Jolie is a very bad example for you to use. How
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:History of Violence (Score:4, Interesting)
There was an interesting piece on PBS some years back where they interviewed 4 former California governors at once: Davis, Wilson, Jerry Brown and
Anyway, there was an interesting discussion about what they'd do to 'fix' California if they could, and one of them was to -increase- the amount of time legislators were elected for. They said that the situation now was that the legislators were there for such a brief amount of time between elections that they basically had no time to learn how to do their jobs. When faced with this dilemma, these freshman legislators turn to the only people there with experience at the job at hand - the lobbyists, who have typically been around Sacramento for many years and know how to get things done. As the governors explained it, this is the mechanism by which lobbyists essentially buy laws.
Another thing they thought would be a good idea: pushing the legislature back to part-time, so they had less time to pass useless laws. Say what you will about Arnold, he's like the veto king. He vetoed more laws in his first month than previous governors did their entire term.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's really only been a problem since California passed term limits. Why not repeal them, rather than increasing term length?
Term limits + law of unintended consequences = More power to lobbyists
MPAA needs to stop illegal downloading? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what else they need in order to enforce laws. Prisons? Armed agents? The power to arrest and seize property?
Re:MPAA needs to stop illegal downloading? (Score:4, Funny)
Stop giving them ideas! (not that they can't already do that via other means...)
Parent
Big time! (Score:4, Insightful)
If your car was stolen, the cops would take a very unfavourable view of you impersonating a cop in order to retrieve it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have never been to a Denny's that had donuts, I do love the Grand Slam Slugger breakfast though! I think instead of Denny's you should have said they would get more time at Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kreme, those seem to be common morning cop hangouts in the Chicago area.
Need a "Right to be Left The Fuck Alone" Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
We're fucked.
Already exists... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already exists... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Too bad they take it to the other extreme. Zero regulation of businesses, the complete abandonment of any sort of social safety net and privatising everything are just a few of the disagreements that I have with the Libertarian Party."
The nature of government past and present tends toward eternal scope creep. If Libertarians were to sweep all 3 branches of the US government tomorrow and hold power for a decade, we would still not live in a system that actually *had* zero regulation of businesses, complete abandonment of any sort of social safety net, or total privatization of all that is currently in the civic sphere.
Despite my heavy Libertarian sympathies, I do believe that some things *belong* in the public sector. The Libertarian philosophy may appear extreme to you, and it may in fact be extreme. However, Democrats and Republicans alike have lost sight of any sort of sane boundaries on what belongs in the public sector. I can't imagine a pure Libertarian philosophy ever really being actualized, but I think an extreme dose of it would bring sobriety and balance to bear against government's inexorable tendency to intrude further and further into what should be the private sphere.
Think about it - you surely can see extremity of some sort in the Democrat and Republican parties alike, no? But does this country look entirely like an incarnation of the desires of either one of them? No; it's a hodge-podge of policies -- sometimes contradictory -- hailing from all over the political spectrum. So in the end, infusing the system with a bunch of anti-scope-creep politicians would merely introduce some friction to retard the expansion. Like any other party, if they took it too far, populism would push the pendulum of power away from them and things would drift back in the other direction.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would love to see the Libertarian Party gain enough influence to get their ideas out there in public debate. Unfortunately a lot of the Libertarian candidates that I've met would rather blame the Republicans and the Democrats for "shutting them out".
That's because the way that states keep ANY party off of the ballot is no less than Consitutionally wrong and simple conspiracy between the Repubs and the Dems. The Libertarians will not compromise on having a free and open democratic system that allows anyb
Re:Need a "Right to be Left The Fuck Alone" Amendm (Score:3, Interesting)
Look on the bright side. They just made sure social engineering to obtain personal information on politicians perfectly legal. I think it's time to show them what legal advantages they have given their people. Anyone care to open a public database online in California with government officials personal information? Start with judges, city councel, and the like. Think of the children. Listing all the children's DOB, SSN, school, home address, IM username, ISP, IP address, and such should b
Re:Whatever happened to "secure in their persons.. (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this:
Amendment $NEXT_AMMENDMENT_NUM
The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body.
(That should take care of the damned Corporations. )
Re:The only problem with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).
The only problem? His amendment is so broadly worded that it would probably outlaw credit histories as well. Do you lend money to people? Is this something you'd condone?
Likewise, there were probably very compelling reasons not to pass this bill but we won't hear about them because of the four letter word known as the MPAA. Because they got involved I predict the chances of this being a fruitful discussion on /. at 100 to 1 against.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it'd put a quick end to the whole 'credit culture' that has built up in America and is slowly destroying the national economy.
And I have a problem with the 'credit culture' as well (what's wrong with having the cash for stuff before you buy it and living within your means?) but you are ignoring my point. The point was that when you write something that broad it can have unintended effects.
Want an example on the other side? Did anybody ever think that the social security number would become a nat
from 30-0 to 27-33? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems odd when a committee (in this case, an entire senate) deems a law pragmatic enough it goes up for vote with a unanimous (30-0) sendoff and subsequently because of special interest (MPAA allegedly) the final vote skews not only away from unanimous but actually flips the sentiment (bill loses 27-33).
Consider the gist of the bill (from the article):
This means the MPAA and others argued for the right to make "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements...! Amazing!
There are legitimate ways for the entertainment industry to obtain data when prosecuting alleged piracy activity. This isn't one of them. So, the practice (pretexting) remains legal and the MPAA prevails in yet another seamy side of big business buying milquetoast government.
I've lost the ability to record FM on my Creative Zen with my last firmware update... ostensibly, though I can't confirm it because of industry pressure on Creative -- it was one of the features I bought it for.
The threat continues to loom for providers of excellent technology like TiVo to rein in their features, also ostensibly under pressure.
The better the technology gets, the less they want us to use it.
Re:from 30-0 to 27-33? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the best examples yet of why one should not upgrade firmware on a device unless there is an immediate need for an update.
I should think that removing a feature from a purchased item after the fact is grounds for a lawsuit, especially if the packaging and manual list it as a feature. I'd suggest a class action suit demanding the functionality be restored or a refund of your money. Hey, everyone else is suing someone, let's get in on the action!
Parent
It's bad enough that the police can do this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes me want to break more laws....let's see...what can I do that has a low chance of getting caught...
Re:It's bad enough that the police can do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Legislators rarely suffer from the effects of their actions, while the rest of us are slowly whittled down.
We've got a huge percentage of our population in the prison system, in a 'free country' where putting something into your body is considered a criminal act.
This all falls under the theory that you cannot rule a free man, but if you make SOME aspect of every free man's life technically illegal, you can keep them in line.
Parent
my thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e.:
Pretending to be a everyday/normal person - fine
Pretending to be a Police Officer without being in the employ of a police agency, or a CPA without the actual degrees and licenses: bad
I do not agree with falsifying data either:
"I downloaded these files from the user's hard drive"
if you did this and have absolute proof - fine
if you didn't do this and/or "fudged" the numbers, you need jail time.
what parts of these, with respect to other laws, are impacted by this bill and the changes made?
Re:my thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Its OK if I call your Satelite/cable provider and get a list of all of the services you signed up for?
Its OK if I call you bank and get a list of all of your acounts and their balances?
The problem is not that these people are pretending to be someone they are not, the problem is that they are pretending to be some one in particular and useing that to gain information they could not otherwise gain.
What the MPAA has just done is say "There is information out there that we cant gain through normal legal channels, so we want to be allowed to gather the information through semi/non-legal channels" and the governemnt said "Oh, OK".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not that they are pretending to be someone in particular to gain information, it's that they can gain information by pretending to be someone in particular. The solution is not to prohibit people from pretending, it's for industry to implement some reasonable information security.
Truth will set you free (Score:5, Insightful)
But, but, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it all just comes down to who has the biggest pockets.
Current breakdown of the California State Senate - 25 DNCers, 15 GOPers. But I thought only GOPers who bow to big business?
Wake up people, no party is free of Big Business.
think of the children (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiight. Because a carve-out for protecting kids would just have been impossible to write in.
It couldn't be that the real money in PI work might be in divorce/adultery, paparazzi-ing, or industrial disputes.
You can't have it both ways. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all give and take you know... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that complicated, really (Score:3, Interesting)
So, outlaw pretexting except where it is used to obtain information that, if it were in the posession of an officer of the law, that officer would have a duty to disclose.
For example, you are a police officer who finds out Mr. X, who is in a custody dispute with Mrs. X, has kidnapped the children. You would have a duty to disclose to Mrs. X the whereabout of those children.
However suppose you know Mr. X is having an affair with Ms. Y. You have no duty to tell Mrs. X this, and depending on how you found out you may have a duty not to tell.
In the case of the MPAA, if they are seeking evidence that people are illegally sharing materials whose copyright they hold, this is information to which they have a well established legal right. However, they have no right to other kinds of information they could gain by pretexting, such as who your friends are.
By creating exceptions to a law against preteting, we are in a sense deputizing private parties to conduct searches by force. This entails some invasion of privacy. An officer of the law may obtain sensitive private information while executing a warrant, but if the information is not relevant to some sort of crime he may not disclose it. Neither should a private party acting under an exception to the law against pretexting be allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
Therefore groups using pretexting should be forbidden to use any information they gain as a result unless it is relevant to an exempted purpose.
So, if a record company looks for copyright infringement for its copyrights and finds infringement on another company's copyright, that is disclosable. They can't, however, create a database of music preferences for marketing purposes.
Not necessarily a problem.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the court transcript now: Judge: And how, exactly, were you able to obtain this evidence? **AA: Your honor, we lied and falsified information, but everything we tell you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...honest. Judge: Riiiiiiiiight.....
to be accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
To be more accurate, one would say:
"The MPAA told legislators that it needed this bill killed, presumeably either threatening to pull their financial contributions to said legislators, or offering contributions if the legislator agreed to vote the way they wanted. The MPAA approached sufficient legislators to find enough of them that a sufficient percentage were willing to sell their vote to kill the bill. Like well-paid prostitutes, they did exactly what was asked and thereby prevented the bill from passing."
The MPAA can't kill any bills. It takes whores in the legislature to do that.
The Famous California Referendum Process (Score:3, Interesting)