Sen Hatch Would Like To Destroy Filetraders' PCs 1372
CBackSlash writes "Sen. Hatch is interested in technology to remotely destroy computers. But it would only be used if you're downloading copyrighted material, and only the copyright owner should be able to wield this awesome power, since having the feds do it would be against the law. Here is the AP story from Yahoo!."
Neat. (Score:2, Informative)
Here was my posting of the story: (Score:5, Informative)
Just thought people might appreciate other links and such...guess I should've submitted it a couple minutes earlier....oh well
What's up w/ the Hatches? (Score:5, Informative)
Will someone please investigation campaign contributions made to Orrin? I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Microsoft has made significant contributions to Mr. Hatch's past campaigns.
Re:What's up w/ the Hatches? (Score:3, Informative)
Walt Disney donated $17,000 alone (the corporation, not the man). Interestingly enough, Hatch received $20,500 fron Novell, but I don't see any from SCO.
Just some food for thought.
Campaign contributors (Score:5, Informative)
House and Senate Websites (Score:2, Informative)
www.house.gov
www.senate.gov
Re:Campaign contributors (Score:5, Informative)
1. HealthSouth Corp $38,255
As in this [usdoj.gov] Healthsouth?
I guess piracy, although applicable to a 13 year old kid who downloads a Metallica song, is not applicable to the likes of Ken Lay and Richard Scrushy. I would suggest that if the Senator is truly concerned about fighting crime, he start by returning the money bilked from Healthsouth investors.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a direct link to his feedback/email page: Contact Form [senate.gov]
Re:Why would he do that? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is already possible - Grubbnix! (Score:4, Informative)
have fun
Media hype. (Score:2, Informative)
Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation.
Brent O. Hatch is named here: (Score:4, Informative)
On the subject of loose cannon Senators, the Senator from Disney, Ernest Hollings, got quite a severe mocking today from Rush Limbaugh. Rush was making fun of Hollings saying that the problem with America was "too much consumption".
Can any good Mormons out there explain how the belief that you will (if you pay your tithes, etc) someday become a GOD affect your world view. This is on topic since Orin, Brent, Darl, and most of the SCO board are all apparently Mormons, as is the named Judge, Dale A. Kimball.
Re:HATCH and the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
He was co author of the DMCA, and also responsible [eagleforum.org] for the Copyright Term Extension Act, or CTEA.
He also was responsible for a bill that would have extended the term of the patent for Claritin, as he use Schering-Plough's corporate jet when he was running for president.
He is also a backer of the patriot act, legislation [fcw.com] that made it easier for the FBI to use Carnivore, and other [slashdot.org] legislation that erodes our civil rights. I could go on and on.
He doesn't even bother talking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows that when election time comes the sheeple will vote for him like they do everytime because he belongs "to the right party" (republican). I live in Utah and it makes me sick watching it. Republican leaders in the state legislature have said "you can't be a mormon and vote democrat." So nobody does, and Republicans hold 95% of major public offices in Utah.
Out of all of congress, he is the one most responsible for the infinite and perpetual copyrights we have today.
The greatest thing that could be done to advance our civil and online rights is to get Senator Hatch out of office.
Fairness of justice (Score:2, Informative)
As a mormon... [was: Re:Brent O. Hatch is ...] (Score:2, Informative)
As a "good mormon", I have it on very good authority that:
I'll leave the ethical implications on both sides of the issue as an excersize for the reader.
In any case, I'm just as bothered by the suggestion that a destructive means should be used to prevent filesharing. I'm rather hoping, however, that many of these issues will fade from relevancy as easy, non-draconian, legal solutions (like iTunes) take over. Time will tell, I suppose.
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:2, Informative)
I have far too many other projects that could use 6-7 hours...
Re:Hatch has finally lost it (Score:2, Informative)
If anyone has followed his involvement in the Microsoft battles, you will see that his motives are less than noble.
He had Novell, WordPerfect and many other major competitors to Microsoft in his state that he was supporting. It wouldn't have mattered if it was Microsoft or any other company that was slicing into these companiesâ(TM) profits.
So there is no high road he has taken in any of the Microsoft investigations.
Sen Hatch against due process (Score:2, Informative)
One of the many problems with Congress passing a law to allow vigilantes to destroy people's computers is that it violates due process. You're supposed to have a hearing before a neutral magistrate of some sort (usually a judge) before the government allows you destroy someone's property.
Congress could no more pass a law allowing corporate vigilantes to destroy people's computers without going to court than they could pass a law allowing a company to take your land for its own use without a trial.
Of course Senator Hatch knows this perfectly well. What's revealing is the fact that these so called conservatives who claim to admire limited government are always eager to use the coersive power of government to help big business. Republicans and honorary Republicans like Senator Lieberman are against government when it comes to protecting us from corporations (say through environmental legislation or class action law) but are more than happy to expand the power of government to help companies violate our rights.
Either that or Senator Hatch is attempting to act senile in order that he can replace Strom Thurmond!
Steve
What's that sound? (Score:4, Informative)
For your reading pleasure, I bring several paragraphs which would like a word with you:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I've got a solution to this whole mess ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To each member of the judicary I wrote: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Later in the discussion... (Score:3, Informative)