DMCA Forces Cox To Censor Changelog? 573
Ross Vandegrift writes: "Alan Cox released 2.2.20pre10 today, which includes security fixes. He is refusing to indicate what security holes have been fixed, as Unix-style permissions could be used as an anti-circumvention device. The thread starts here. " It'd be great if people could read the threads here and try to figure out what is going on. I'm a little lost, but it looks like he's being overzealous.
Maybe he's joking? (Score:1, Interesting)
Overzealous, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or that time I wanted to play DVDs in Linux and couldn't because I needed a circumvention device?
Or when some Russian dude got locked up away from his family because he wanted to let blind people use eBooks?
Overzealous my ass. This is a problem and we need to take a stand, whether it's "reasonable" or not. People need to understand what is at stake - and what better way to help that process than by showing them?
Is this an example of how the DCMA is (Score:2, Interesting)
Kinda looks like that is Cox's interpretation.
just making a point (Score:5, Interesting)
US laws? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:he's just trying to "make a point" (Score:2, Interesting)
> This would then presumably lead to password protected access for US kernel
> developers that need to know? And some kind of NDA?
US kernel developers cannot be told. Period.
Just curious... Is Linus considered a US kernel developer? He lives and works in the US, so I guess so...
Re:Overzealous, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
They didn't fall on their sword, they threw it out of the picture and said "What sword?"
Which is the most chilling of all chilling effects -- they get to delay publication of information they're not happy with, then when someone calls their bluff they change their story and say they have no objections, and (according to the DOJ's interpretation), therefore, no prior restraint actually happened and you can't sue to prevent it from happening again.
You know, mid-term elections are happening in almost exactly a year. We all know that voter turnout sucks, especially for off years. What're the chance of a Slashdot party (hell, we're even Green) forming and fielding some geek candidates in key areas? I know my district has had the Republican incumbent running essentially unopposed for years. And we're home to Worldcom, AOL, and many other geek-heavy companies. Hell, these geek companies together probably employ as many people as voted in the entire district in '98, anyway.
Hm. Maybe I should repost this elsewhere...
I definitely think so... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: preaching to the choir (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats not so bad though.
Just because we agree, doesn't mean we are doing anything about it. He is demonstrating how this can hit home, making it hit home.
The point of action and speach isn't always to change minds that disagree, sometimes it is to change minds that agree.... to align them more tightly, to galvanize them into action.
-Steve
Don't forget this year's elections (Score:2, Interesting)
In Virginia there is an election for Governor. One of the candidates (Mark Earley) was the primary supporter for UCITA. For this reason, I will be voting against him and for his opponent Mark Warner.
Hopefully, if enough people vote against Earley we can send a message to other politicians that we won't vote for candidates who are willing to sacrifice the rights of computer users.
*** NOT A TROLL! **** (Score:0, Interesting)
I, for one, would like to take a moment to thank Rob for setting us "Nerds" back where we belong. Way to make us look like a bunch of childish tech-heads with no conception of the real world! Isn't it nice for Rob to characterize all slashdotters as moronic geeks on national radio? (That was sarcasm, you nincompoop!)
Oh, hell, eat this, while I'm at it:
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Offtopic (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).
And they certainly like the gov't when its enforcing the things they like.
Not that no unions, business is good, goverment bad is a good overview of libertarian policy either. Gov't isn't bad. Big, over intrusive gov't is bad (if you're a libertarian).
transit over US links? (Score:3, Interesting)
Inevitably, my traffic to/from thefreeworld.net is going to pass through US sites (well, it does, I just did a traceroute).
The same data are moving along wires in continental US. How is that different from the data being digested by eyeballs in the US? Will you have to draw this distinction?
Is this going to affect my ability as a Canadian to have access to your site?
Gotta love the inter[national]net...
-ben
Re:Offtopic (Score:4, Interesting)
Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).
More generally, "Republicans" do not favor government interference in commerce, and do favor government interference in "moral" conduct. The Republican definition of "moral" seems to coincide with the Religious Right (which is also apparently a vocal subset of Republicans), and does not address most business/commercial practices unless they are also "immoral" for non-business-related religious reasons (e.g., porn).
Conversely, the "Democrat" viewpoint seems to be in favor of government interference in commerce, but against government interference in non-business-related moral issues.
As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.
This applies to the United States of (North) America, naturally. YMMV.
Re:Maybe he's joking? (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Garett
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thefreeworld.net Re:Overzealous, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Only in America.
Re:Maybe he's joking? - Probably not. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who discloses a hack of any kind is committing a crime by helping other people to crack systems.
If Alan Cox had disclosed how the hack that he just fixed worked, then the disclosure of the just-fixed hack could be used to crack systems that are not yet patched.
Ergo, disclosure of the bug that he fixed would be illegal in the USA, and that means that by disclosing this to people in the USA would land him in prison next time he arrives in the land of the free!!
Re:Maybe he's joking? (Score:2, Interesting)
How is it his "job" to take it to Congress? I don't think he's American; isn't he British? (If I'm wrong here then feel free to ignore this post.) US Congress people apparently don't even listen to anyone outside of their individual constituency, let alone someone from another country.
You Americans will have to carry the can on this one. We "damn furriners" can complain but you are the only ones that can actually get something changed. It is your country, not ours, and your government is your responsibility (in my opinion.)
Re:Disgusted to be an American (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, now then...
My assumption is that the Coup you speak of is the DMCA...and I agree with you there...the key difference, is that most of America is blissfully unaware that it even happened. I tell people all the time in discussions who daily lives touch the DMCA in many many ways. The ususal reaction is:
1. A blank stare
2. Huh, what are you talking about
3. No Way they can't do that
4. Your kidding, lieing or Crazy
5. and the best one --The Govenment would never let that happen
Just got back from the Post Office. (Score:5, Interesting)
The SSSCA, which could become DMCA's darker sibling, has even more for Alan Cox to ponder. In fact, I just finished a weekend writing a fairly long letter to my representatives, and sent it only a few moments ago, so that it may get there in time for a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the 25th.
The full letter is at http://www.halley.cc/ed/politics/2001-10-22.conten t.control.html [halley.cc]. I welcome comments, and the letter may be reprinted with attribution.
Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of us care, but not enough to make an effort.
The average voter has no idea who their enemy is. The average voter does not know that the giant media corporations are trying to fence in everyone who wants to read a book, listen to a piece of music or (God forbid!) enjoy a movie on their viewing device of choice. Not unless they can ensure that every time "their property" is perused, you have to pay.
The giant media corporations are the enemy. The problem is that most of you will scream bloody murder for every piece of stupid IP controlling legislation that is passed -- yet tomorrow you will take your kids to Disney World, or buy them a Mickey Mouse T-shirt...
We've lost. Apathy was the big winner. I'm sorry.
libertarianism defined (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a minarchist libertarian, and here is my attempt to briefly describe libertarianism.
First of all, the difference between "libertarian" and "Libertarian" is that the second one specifically means a member of the Libertarian Party, while the first one just means anyone who believes in libertarian ideas. Thus Thomas Jefferson could be called a libertarian, but he was not a Libertarian.
The defining principle that all libertarians must believe in (or else they are not really libertarians) is that people own themselves, and the product of their own labor. All else follows from that.
Because people own themselves, it is wrong for government to outlaw behavior that doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it. Thus it is wrong for government to outlaw smoking, or outlaw eating fatty foods, or outlaw prostitution. (Government may have a legitimate role regulating prostitution, for example to require medical screening of prostitutes for public health reasons, but there is no moral basis for government to outlaw it.)
Because people own themselves, government should not prevent them from freely entering into contracts. Government can legitimately have a role in enforcing contracts. (The major areas where government is useful: national defense, enforcing the laws against violence and theft, and enforcing contracts.) Because of this, if Microsoft wants to require product activation, government shouldn't tell them they can't do that. It's up to people to vote with their dollars. (Note that it was not government that finally dethroned IBM from its monopoly position, it was the free market.)
So, no libertarian can be in favor of a law like the DMCA. The record companies could have annoying license agreements, and libertarians would not be in favor of using government to force the companies to not have them, but the kind of free speech infringement that the DMCA is all about would be right out. And of course no libertarian would be in favor of outlawing encryption.
P.S. In case you are wondering, a "minarchist" libertarian is in favor of a minimal government; an anarchist is in favor of no government. There are many libertarians who believe that we don't need a government at all; the free market can solve all problems. Minarchists like me think we do need a small government to handle things like national defense.
steveha
Re:Overzealous, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I can play dvd's under linux, just not legally. What people don't realize is that people still find a way, it just forces them to take the effort unground and do it illegally. We'll see more and more of this kind of "illegal" activity with the DMCA around, I guarantee it. Only when the minority opinion becomes the majority will the DMCA be repealed. That's how politics works.
I can legally view DVD's on my Linux computer.
I can legally download DECCS.
I can legally buy a DVD player which is regioncode free.
The reason is very simple.
I live in the Netherlands and we don't have the DMCA.
Second, large corporations don't have as much influence on Dutch law as they do have in the US.
Second, contrary to the US we don't have a duocracy.
And third, we don't give a fuck about the US.
Re:Maybe he's joking? - Probably not. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is (not) an exercise (Score:3, Interesting)
The laws associated with copyright and information are so vague and general that it's not surprising that it could be determined that they prevent people from talking about security problems...
Think about it for a minute. Skylerov is in a US jail for a program that his employer sold -- this despite the fact that he put in safeguards to prevent his program's rampant misuse.
If current 'anti-terrorism' laws get passed, things are simply going to get worse... The government is going to be able to spy on us on spec, and arrest us because they 'suspect that he may do something nasty' -- like (in some cases) simply go on strike.
If our course doesn't change radically and quickly, I think that we are in for an information-age Mcarthy era. Cox was made aware of this specific writing on the wall, and he decided to take it seriously. He is, in his own way, inviting us to do the same.
There are times when it is appropriate to willfully break the law, but it should be done carefully and sparingly. Breaking the law just because it is 'inconvenient' is a bad idea. It opens you up to getting your ass really nailed to the wall later on when you do something to get people pissed off.
Cox is a high-profile person. The fact that he doesn't want to risk going to jail for a Skylerov style test case is not something that we should be denouncing him for -- we should be denouncing a law that is so broad that he has to reasonably worry about making security information available to people who have a reasonable need to know.
Re:People! He's Joking! (Score:3, Interesting)
Several hundred years ago, America had a rather large fight, to escape the stupidity of having to make ridiculous payments that were enshrined in Law.
As a Brit, I always thought that the American War of Independance was a thoroughly justified action. It needed to be done. And it was. All was great.
Since then, Europe grew up. It's still bound with silly and ridiculous things, but it's pretty lax on the whole.. I think it burned out it's fervour hundreds of years ago, and learned that the world was a very small place...
Now, however, the US seems to be heading towards where Europe was hundreds of years ago, enacting new laws for corporate profit and so on...
Over here, you find houses with windows bricked up, as long ago, there was a 'window tax' on buildings to get more money for the treasury.. We consider this really stupid...
The people at the time probably thought it was stupid...
But what would they think if you told them you had to pay more every time you read a book you'd already purchased?
Most of the restrictions being placed on media to restrict copy can be thought of as nothing more than a "Corporate Media Tax".. You're being taxed by the corporations for moving something you own to a more modern media.
Yeah, Europe is a bit loony, no we're not pissed that you're now the masters of "Taxation without Representation", we're just highly surprised, and a little bit worried about taking a step down that particular memory lane.
Personally, I'm avoiding going to the US whereever possible. I used to love it, as I have many friends there.. Now, I'm just worried...
Malk