EFF: DMCA Hinders Exposing More Software Cheats Like Volkswagen's 166
ideonexus writes: Automakers have argued that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it unlawful for researchers to review the code controlling their vehicles without the manufacturer's permission, making it extremely difficult to expose software cheats like the one Volkswagen used to fake emissions tests. Arguing that this obfuscation of code goes so far as to endanger lives at times, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) maintains that, "When you entrust your health, safety, or privacy to a device, the law shouldn't punish you for trying to understand how that device works and whether it is trustworthy."
Yep (Score:1)
The DCMA was a bad law in 1998 and it's still a bad law today. Congress should repeal it, but they won't because those with actual political power like it.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
They accepted DMCA as what they could get at the time, but don't make the mistake of sleeping on it, because their lobbyists and lawyers will do whatever they can to get it strengthened, whether in congress or in court rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
And they really wonder why people don't give half a shit about copyright?
If there is no way to actually heed a law, you can just as well ignore it. If you break the law no matter what you do, you can as well do what you please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Use a spelling checker?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is funny is watching people fuck up on basic things in public - like spelling correctly in the language they've chosen to write in - and then get all hoity-toity trying to obscure their carelessness under irrelevant points.
Yes, I made typos while preparing this. I checked them
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress should repeal it, but they won't because those with actual political power like it.
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen. Pretty basic, don't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen. Pretty basic, don't you think?
GOVERNMENT WARNING: Warning! Left to themselves, governments can become extremely dangerous! Please write to your elected officials regarding the issues that are of most concern to you. Vote for those candidates that most closely match your opinions! If conditions do not improve, it may be necessary to run for office yourself!
Re: (Score:2)
Few politicians actually put out a platform these days. The ones from the two major parties (has anyone noticed one of them calls it a "brand" now?) in the US don't; for example, see Clinton's recent answer about approving the pipeline, or Trump's recent answer about whether Obama was born in the USA.
The few that do are usually one-issue candidates. Even if someone does publish a full platform, it's unlikely they're going to put out an opinion on every single law out there, even if they know it's somewh
Re: (Score:2)
Because Obama's birth place is relevant moving forward!
Speaking of which, I would put out a campaign platform that is "Pro Liberty"
My platform is Pro Liberty. In the case where there is any doubt, I will choose the side that lets people decide what is best for themselves, rather than some bean counter or bureaucrat in a far away place. This includes all the proposals to help people by taking from others. You cannot have a free society where caring is coerced by threat of government guns.
Re: (Score:1)
They call that Libertarian. Unfortunately, the party has been coopted by Republicans who are too ashamed to be associated with the party and have no idea of its history or original goals - sometimes called a Classic Libertarian. Ayn Rand was an idiot. As a Classic Libertarian, I'm far more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders than I am to vote for Rand Paul. That, my good sir, is how warped our political spectrum is.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are closer to a brand than to a party. Brands can be bought and sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump gives press conferences where he speaks at extended length about quite a lot of issues. Among them:
- Tax the uber-wealthy such as hedge-fund managers.
- Support a universal healthcare system that does not enrich middlemen who already make obscene amounts of money and whom Obamacare helped
- Put an end to illegal immigration, make America's immigration policy identical to that of every other developed country in the world, and make sure that it is uniformly followed throughout the country
- Ex
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why, as a Libertarian, I oppose any extension of Government power on principle alone. We already have too much government interference in our lives.
Queue up the anti Libertarian rants below, starting with "Somalia" in 3 ... 2 ...1
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why, as a Libertarian, I oppose any extension of Government power on principle alone. We already have too much government interference in our lives.
Beyond Libertarianism even, it is simply what is moral and sensible. No government should just be in the business of making laws *because*. No government should assume that it should have the right to just make laws *because*. Its truly frightening the way some local governments in particular operate as if they are not doing their job by creating more and more laws without even thinking.
The first question that must always be asked when attempting to find a resolution for an issue is: What laws or policie
Re: (Score:2)
I call what you're talking about the "There ought to be a law" argument. These are people who see an outcome that they don't particularly like, who then cry "There ought to be a law" without thinking. It is almost reflexive at this point. I'm just waiting for a sane statesman who will simply counter with a single question "Why?"
Why ought there be a law, simply because you don't like something?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard to do when both of the candidates that I can choose from support the DMCA. Or when one doesn't support the DMCA but supports everything else I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than two candidates, and anybody is allowed to run. Nobody forces you to vote for the ruling party. And save your breath on the 'lesser evil' bullshit.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they do. Political parties and gerrymandering, ballot access laws, and voting systems themselves (e.g. "first-past-the-post") -- among other things -- all conspire to force that.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that there are only two candidates on the ballot? And that the people of the redrawn district can't conspire (petition) to have anyone they want put on the ballot? Sorry, you're still only describing choices made by the voter.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time of the runoff, yes. And even a candidate who 60, 70, or even 80% of the voters hate could still get to that runoff, if his opposition is divided enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Please name all the presidents of the USA in the past, say, 200 years that were not from one of the two major parties.
You won't get writers cramp, don't worry.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
And more importantly, we haven't had an actual supplanting of either of the two parties in the 155 years since then, despite it happening twice in the preceding 50 or so years. Instead, the two parties are so thoroughly entrenched that the more successful tactic has been to infiltrate and take over one of the two parties from within. Both parties have changed noticeably on a number of issues, to the point that they're almost unrecognizable when compared with their original versions (and, more ironically, are arguably closer to the OTHER one's original beliefs/constituencies).
Re: (Score:2)
What alternative did they have?
Re: (Score:2)
So the past 150 years must mean that the voters are absolutely happy with being ruled by The Party.
Re: (Score:2)
The choice you are describing is between "I want to throw my vote away" and "I want to make sure the worst person doesn't get elected". Sure, it is a choice, but it is certainly not the choice that is advertised.
I suggest watching this video series, it explains the problem and some potential solutions: http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic... [cgpgrey.com]
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen.
Voters have a lot of concerns besides DMCA. DMCA was approved by a voice vote, so no one is on record voting either for or against. So who are you going to vote for or against? In general, Democrats tend to be more "pro-IP" because they get big donations from the entertainment industry, and represent almost all the big tech-hubs (Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, NYC, etc.). If you really believe that DMCA is more important than military intervention, inequality, human rights, etc. then I suppose you could vote straight Republican, but I doubt if that would make much difference, since none of them have made "Repeal the DMCA!!!" part of their platform.
Pretty basic, don't you think?
No. Even people that care about this issue have no mechanism for expressing that concern through their votes.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is so hopeless, then it's time to rethink majority rule.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
The problem in the USA is that corporation can fund political parties without any limit. Therefore corporations choose which party can or can't run.
There are only two parties and both of them support the DMCA. To have a chance to repeal the DMCA, USA needs to reform political parties financing rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute nonsense. The money is not the issue. It is the scapegoat. If the voters choose to turn their backs, all the money in the world won't make a bit of difference. Right now it is the voter who sells his vote to the highest bidder. Don't blame the corporations for that. The problem is ours to deal with, the person in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess the voters happily voting either side of The Party into power means that they're happy with their two sides of the same coin and there is no real need for any change.
Happy land USA!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right... try to run a campaign without money. It costs millions of dollars otherwise you don't look credible.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that those that don't want the DMCA to be repealed decide who you may vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Not enough voters care that aren't letting themselves be brainwashed by the media.
The media controls the apathetic voters who don't care, and the ones that do care are far outnumbered.
And guess who owns the media?
Re: (Score:2)
Congress should repeal it, but they won't because those with actual political power like it.
That is the voters' problem. If they don't vote for a congress that will repeal the DMCA, it simply won't happen. Pretty basic, don't you think?
Actually, there are a couple of intermediate steps missing here.
The first thing you have to do is know who your Senators and Congressman (Congresswoman? Congressperson?) are. ("Do you know?" he asks, rhetorically, to the reader...)
And then, the second thing you do is to sit down and have a talk with them...and tell them your views on the matter. Don't come across like a fanatic or a crackpot; It doesn't matter how wrong you think the DMCA is, nor does it matter how strongly you feel it. What matters is
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the herd of apathetic voters with no real concern is going where the sheperds tell them to, even though it means dragging those of us who actually DO care along for the ride.
We can't outvote the herds that are happy to be brainwashed by the elite's corporate owned media.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
I love it! Volkswagen should just say "We didn't do it." Then sue whoever produces their code for reverse-engineering it. Then they can claim whatever "black-hat hacker" did it added the offending code to frame them. Prove otherwise without breaking the law!
Re: (Score:3)
Laws written by corporations and rubber stamped by corrupt politicians trump all other concerns it seems.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, since it's a practical test of real-world things and implemented in MILLIONS of vehicles and was discovered by people doing real-world verification ... AND they've admitted to it ... it's a little late for that.
But make no mistake, the DMCA was written in such a way as to stack the deck for corporations and is an entirely one-sided bit of law which only represents corporate interests.
Re: (Score:1)
I love it! Volkswagen should just say "We didn't do it." Then sue whoever produces their code for reverse-engineering it.
That's thankfully not (yet) how the law works. The EPA does not need the sourcecode or reverse engineer anything, they just say to VW, "hey, wheird thing happened, your cars blow out 40x crap on a street vs in a test-setting. You wanna explain that? No? No problem, come back for approval when you change your mind, recall is hereby issued..."
Re: (Score:2)
That's thankfully not (yet) how the law works. The EPA does not need the sourcecode or reverse engineer anything, they just say to VW, "hey, wheird thing happened, your cars blow out 40x crap on a street vs in a test-setting. You wanna explain that? No? No problem, come back for approval when you change your mind, recall is hereby issued..."
No, that's thankfully not (yet) how the law works. The EPA cannot issue recalls, and cannot reject a companies cars just because they think they did something wrong. They could however subpoena source code, design documents, etc to build their case off of, as well as impose stiffer penalties based on how much they tried to cover it up and who was involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... DMCA? Whazzat? Some law in some foreign land I don't give a shit about? Ok, whatever...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you say that ... but you should check which treaties your government may have signed which imposed an even more evil version on you.
The last bunch of trade treaties the US has been involved in have basically added a LOT of scope creep to a LOT of countries when it comes to copyright and digital rights.
Which means your not giving a shit might be trumped by the fact that your government was cajoled into making you subject to something similar or even more restrictive.
Surprise, bad laws favoring industry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, our variant doesn't keep me from looking at code and pointing out if it's flawed. I must not correct it, though.
No, I didn't ask why. There's no sense and logic in laws concerning sex, drugs and copyright.
Copy right (Score:1)
Congress was granted the power to secure copyrights, the right to copy (and sell) to encourage aithors to create by providing income.
You have the natural right to see the copyrighted material if you bought a copy! That's copy rights, not obfuscation rights. Where cometh this additional Congressional power?
Re: (Score:2)
If Congress can't pass laws without modifying the Constitution, then we would just end up with a Constitution that has 10,000 amendments.
I'm not saying the DMCA is a good thing, but one way or the other, we need Congress to occasionally make new laws.
Re: (Score:2)
From rocks, possibly tied to the ends of sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
I think before that was "sky daddy likes me best" the preferred excuse to rule.
Re: (Score:2)
But before that there was plenty o' chest thumping and stick bashing. In fact i think that predated the concept of sky daddy and the rest of the gods. Sky daddy was a concept that had to have language to discuss. Big stick had bashing potential before there was a word for it, or sky daddy.
Re: (Score:2)
However, since there is no reliable way to determine God's will (partly because there's no reliable way to determine if there is a God), anybody can make the sky daddy argument. The one with the large number of pointy sticks or whatever tended to win the resulting arguments. The excuse was generally sold to the masses to keep them compliant after the pointy-stick phase was over.
The classic black box automata (Score:1)
> Automakers have argued that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it unlawful for researchers to review the code controlling their vehicles without the manufacturer's permission, making it extremely difficult to expose software cheats like the one Volkswagen used to fake emissions tests.
So in other words, we could be driving around in potential death traps and not even know it. So the VW debacle is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Industry: "We know" (Score:2)
Duh. The industry loves that. If pesky researchers weren't poking around so much, we could all go back to the good old days!
The Scooby Doo Ending (Score:2)
*tears the mask off, and gasps*
Researchers: It's Old Man Withers, the owner of the abandoned amusement park!
Withers: And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling hackers!
Re: (Score:1)
By design (Score:5, Interesting)
This is by design in the DCMA. Keep people from looking at your code means preventing independent oversight.
But everyone that knows anything about the software industry already knows this.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that.
It basically says any at a digital lock, no matter how incompetently and pathetically written, is considered legally sacrosanct.
It entrenches in law that, if they intended to keep you out, even if they were stupid morons who wrote something which could never work, then that digital lock is to be treated as a real physical barrier.
It was written to allow them to define and police piracy. And nobody gave a damn about the fact that is was entirely to the benefit of the corporations who wrote th
Re: (Score:2)
Very bad analogy. On more than one level.
First of all, it isn't the lock that makes it illegal to enter my house. Even if the door is unlocked it is not lawful to enter the house.
Then, someone breaking into my house has no business being there. Which is entirely not the case when I sell a copy of my work to someone. Because then he is allowed to use it in accordance with the license granted. Which is, to stay in your analogy, closer to someone renting my house. Who may OF COURSE then enter the house. He may
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it isn't the lock that makes it illegal to enter my house. Even if the door is unlocked it is not lawful to enter the house.
Yeah, but in a lot of places it's more illegal if the house is locked than if it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem here is that using a lock on someone's house is a terrible analogy for software copyright.
Re: (Score:1)
This is by design in the DCMA. Keep people from looking at your code means preventing independent oversight.
But everyone that knows anything about the software industry already knows this.
This is largely a side effect of the DMCA, which, as the title of the law itself suggests, is simply about preventing the production of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. That it has been used to suppress free speech or stifle innovation is a good example of how a bad or even a good law can be abused. Proof again that you can't just vote people into office then sit back and let them do all the dirty work.
Re: (Score:2)
DCMA or not it will not matter. They will just encrypt the code on the flash and keep the key in a secure element. A lot of new controllers offer a quad spi interface to external ram that is encrypted.
If you don't have the key you're out of luck.
So start doing it covertly (Score:2, Interesting)
If the auto manufacturers want to start treating legitimate researchers like blackhats, they should just start acting like them. I'm sure they could cover their tracks and still publish the research.
Security through obscurity is doomed to fail. Auto makers apparently need to learn this lesson, but it would nice if they didn't have to learn it the hard way given the lives at stake. What really needs to happen is the establishment of a standards body and automotive software being held to a standard just as av
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the money in that?
Sorry, but we do research for money, not to out bad guys. Yes, that's a nice side effect, but in the end, we want to monetize that shit. That means that my name has to be tacked to something like this. Your name next to a few cool and important security findings can easily mean a few 10k a year more money in your wallet.
I know that's not what people want to hear, but we don't just do this because we're the good guys and want to show how bad those bad apples in some industries are.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, require source code audits by government inspectors before allowing the software to be certified.
I think the FAA and FCC require this.
All software/firmware should be exposed for review (Score:5, Insightful)
All of it is doing things that would make us riot in the street if we had insight into its behavior. People need access to every piece of code for every thing they own and should have the right to change it if they deem it necessary. Hardware and Things do not = software and we should have the right to buy the thing but decline or change the software if we don't agree with what it does and how it does it. Change nothing about how we pay for it, people deserve to get paid if they so choose, but they don't deserve to force their backdoors, cheats, anti-consumer behaviors etc on us if we don't want to use their crap.
DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And it only took 5 years to find it... and 1 year for CARB to reveal it to the public.
If I was into aluminum hats I would claim now that the fallout we see has been carefully scripted upon mutually agreed terms that will reveal themselves later. Note that politicians like the secrecy as they can make deals that benefit themselves w/o public scrutiny.
Which entity is really cheating? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just going to throw this out there knowing that a certain type of reader will scoff.
First, the EPA sets two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible? My guess is not just no but hell no. It's also possible that the EPA can get away with this by playing the evil, greedy corporation card saying, "The car companies don't want to do this because they are greedy," and a certain type of person will believe it. So, if you're a manufacturer trying to sell a product, which of these two requirements is going to sell better? I can pretty much guarantee that the consumer doesn't give a rat's ass about emissions when they could be saving money on gas which may also be artificially expensive.
Second, it's entirely possible that the EPA has created unrealistic if not unattainable requirements for auto manufacturers not because they have any real scientific or engineering expertise that it's possible but in a thinly-veiled long-con attempt to drive these companies out of business. Kafka would say, "Damn, wish I had thought of this." The consumer is never going to pay more money for less product unless they are forced to. Brow-beating them into "saving the planet" doesn't work when it's costing the individual a lot more money.
Re:Which entity is really cheating? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible?
Maybe the last 100 years of internal combustion engine evolution? Detroit whined it was impossible until the Japanese and Europeans started selling cars with improved mileage.
My guess is that there is a shitload of engineering consulting on setting pollution and fuel consumption targets with ranges known to be obtainable with well understood technologies. I kind of doubt they are throwing darts on a dartboard.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you weren't around in the 1970s during the Arab Oil Embargo. Detroit was just giving the consumers what they wanted - bigger cars. The Japanese automakers were unable to compete, so were forced into the niche market of econoboxes. Suddenly gas prices skyrocketed, and the market shifted towards those econoboxes. That's
Re: (Score:2)
two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible?
So cursory google searches do suggest that incomplete combustion is a common cause for both lower mileage and higher emissions. If two problems have a common cause, then addressing that cause addresses both items. If it is possible to more completely combust the fuel, it would be possible to simultaneously get better mileage and reduce emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you claim " lower emissions and higher mileage" are competing requirements?
If you are getting more miles per gallon, then you are emitting fewer emissions per mile. A car getting 45 MPG, is emitting 0-200 CO2 (g/mile); while a 20-23 MPG car is getting 379-456 (g/mile) (source [fueleconomy.gov]). Fuel economy is correlated with emissions. If you increase the MPG, you lower the emissions.
I confess, I'm the "certain type of reader" who is scoffing at this bizarre statement and wondering where it came from (and wondering
Re: (Score:2)
If you are getting more miles per gallon, then you are emitting fewer emissions per mile.
Yes, that's the kind of simplistic nonsense politicians believe, when they pass incompatible regulations and expect engineers to work magic.
Hint: it's not true, since NOx emissions are only indirectly related to the amount of fuel you burn.
Fuel economy vs emissions (Score:2)
First, the EPA sets two competing requirements: lower emissions and higher mileage. Do they have any engineering expertise that proves this is even possible?
It's already been done so yes it is demonstrably possible. And yes the EPA has access to engineers and scientists who can provide reasoned opinions about what is actually possible. Second, lower emissions and higher mileage are NOT diametrically opposed. Cars that are lighter and get higher fuel economy also have lower emissions in part because they burn less fuel. Vehicle emissions are in part a direct function of the amount of fuel burned. Burn less and you emit less by definition.
It's also possible that the EPA can get away with this by playing the evil, greedy corporation card saying, "The car companies don't want to do this because they are greedy,"
That argument abo
Re: (Score:2)
The VW TDIs could easily meet the emission standards without compromising fuel economy and performance. All they had to do was add in a urea system to chemically destroy the NOx. Lots of other automakers do this. The didn't because it adds $400 or so to the cost of the car.
There's no "vs." here.
Re: (Score:2)
Another good reason to get rid of it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You know, the candidate who gets the most votes still wins.
Don't confuse "I disagree with the majority vote" with "We have no democracy anymore".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is not a boolean. It's a full spectrum. The USA is a flawed democracy. It's still better than a dictatorship, but many countries are more democratic. All of them also tend to have greatly different policies, starting with free health care.
So true it hurts my conscience (Score:2)
A case for black box testing (Score:2)
The reason VW was allowed to sell vehicles wasn't about examining the code that drove the ECU, but a failure to actually test the vehicle in real world conditions independently. That means you don't trust the ECU, you test using separate instrumentation to verify that it operates within parameters under actual road conditions; not in a lab, not on a dyno and use random samples available from dealers after it goes on sale. The EPA shouldn't rely on the ECU OBD information, use information from the tailpipe
Re: (Score:2)
How and where does a dynamometer differ from actual road conditions? Is it the same/different when it comes to the engine, and for which other parts of the car's operation? Just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Traffic, road heat/cold and overall car vibration. You can simulate a load on a dyno but much like in racing you don't see all the exact conditions until it's out on track.
Re: (Score:2)
The testing is done under artificial controlled conditions for consistent and fair results. The idea is that an auto maker that cheats on the tests can be hit for massive legal penalties.
A Very Telling statement was in the Article (Score:2, Informative)
It went as follows: . . .
"Surprisingly, the EPA wrote in [PDF] to the Copyright Office to oppose the exemptions we’re seeking. In doing this, the EPA is asking the Copyright Office to leave copyright law in place as a barrier to a wide range of activities that are perfectly legal under environmental regulations: ecomodding that actually improves emissions and fuel economy, modification of vehicles for off-road racing, or activities that have nothing to do with pollution. "
I don't think "Suprisingly
Black Box Software (Score:5, Interesting)
The best way to test the emissions software, and the best from an engineering validation perspective, is to compare the Volkswagen software readings against direct measurements of the emissions (out of the tailpipe). This is a much more accurate method of regulation, and would have prevented this Volkswagen fiasco from the beginning. Regulators should test it this way rather than assume a vehicle manufacturer wrote software correctly, or even deliberately miswrote it. Access to software source code becomes unnecessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is whether doing this on a dyno is sufficient. It's not impossible, but difficult to haul emissions monitoring hardware on the road and reproduce a variety of standard conditions. Cheating could still be performed by measuring accelerometers, differential readings, driver input and reaction times, etc.
Copylefted free software is needed (Score:2)
Even if the software source code isn't necessary for the emissions testing out of the tailpipe it is necessary for car owners to make the car do what they want. This is an opportunity for the public to get the car that is completely under their control. There's plenty of other fraudulent behavior that is under the control of the car software which can't be fixed except by changing the software (radio emissions and input via car remote controls, for example). Car owners deserve to be able to control their ow
Simple solution: (Score:2)
The DMCA is only valid in the USA.
Do the reverse assembly elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll make a point of donating to them (for the first time). Thanks for the prod, anonymous fear-monger!
Re: Of course it does (Score:1)
You could at least explain why. Right now your post looks like fear mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Way too soon.
When people talk about WWII in the same context that we talk about the Roman Empire, then it might be funny.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the Roman Empire was no more or no less evil than any other empire/country/kingdom/whatever of its time. The same can't be said of Nazi Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you that. I simply meant the time frame.