Bill Would Let FBI Police File-Sharing 422
vnguyen6 writes "According to an article on MSNBC, a bill introduced in the Senate gives the FBI power to police file sharing. As if the FBI didn't have their own messes to clean up such as the handling of pre-911 intelligence, FBI agents turned spy (Robert Hanssen), the Los Alamos lab debacle, double agent Mrs. Katrina Leung, need I say more?"
Corporatism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Corporatism (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Corporatism (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Interesting)
Why, exactly do you think that copyrights are *wrong*? I don't mean the specifics -- "xx years is too many, xx would be better", "xxx company abuses it" -- but why is the actual concept the use of an idea being controlled by the person who thought up the idea (and if anybody has a better def of copyright, feel free to tell me) not good?
As a member of the faction of /. that thinks that IP as a government-sponsored institution should be abolished, I feel obligated to respond.
Copyright isn't wrong, per se. It's flawed. It is based on the idea that any idea that can be had will only ever be had by one person, and then grants control of that idea to the one person that dreams it up for a limited period of time. While I don't think ideas should be controlled, let's take a look at whether or not the base idea is correct.
First, the chances that someone will think up an idea never change. (Base assumption, the chances might actually change, depending on whether or not new ideas inspire the thought to be had or suppress the thought)
More and more people in the world everyday means that there are more opportunities for someone to have a certain idea. Laws of statistics are built upon the foundation that coincidences can and do happen, every day in fact.
Now, the longer a work is, the less likely someone else is to create that identical work. However, when we're talking about music, there's just not that many new ideas coming into play in music. There's your regular 4 chords in rock and roll, and there's hundreds of thousands of songs that all sound the same because they use the same progressions. There's a finite number of permutations of those chords, and a finite number of rhythms and phrases in which you can work those chords. It's no surprise, then, that people create songs that are infringing works. No, I can't substantiate this, other than with the George Harrison suit, and George Harrison wasn't particularly creative so it's likely he did rip off the song. :)
Novels are a different story, simply because of what is actually copyrighted in a novel. It's the entire text of the book. It doesn't take very long before it becomes highly unlikely that someone else will write a duplicate of the work.
In any case, there's more people on this planet every year, and more opportunities for a copyright to be infringed by a totally independent creative effort. How do you address this problem?
Now, patents are different than copyrights, and I'm more opposed to patents than to copyright, because a patent really is giving complete control of an idea to one person for a period of time.
In other words, if I, say, write a novel and publish it (which I hope to do some day), why shouldn't have some control of how it is sold, what is done with the story, and how profits are made off it?
Several things, here. First, is the story the part of the book that's copyrighted? Or is it the entire work? Do you want complete control over the story? What happens when you write a book with a story that matches someone else's real life experiences, and they also write a book about it? What part of the work are you seeking control over? Is it the characters? Or is it the work as a whole?
Nobody's trying to take away your right to try to make money any way you can, we're just trying to make it a more competitive market. That's all. :) Here's a question: if I go down to the bookstore and buy a copy of your book, what right do you have to tell me I can't make copies and pass them around to my friends and family? What right do you have to tell me what I can and can't do with the book I purchased? I say none at all, and if you want that right, don't sell it to me. What right do you have to tell me that I can't quote parts or all of the book in any fashion without your permission? I say that the only responsibility I have in that case is to cite the author and t
Re:Corporatism (Score:5, Insightful)
The discussion is about the FBI enforcing the *CIVIL* offense of copyright violation.
When corporations can buy enough influence to make their desires law, it's called "corporatism", or "facism".
Please try to stay on topic
Re:Corporatism (Score:3, Informative)
Corporatism is fascism in the service of corporate interests. It happens when corporations gain so much power
Re:Corporatism sha (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporatism (Score:2)
On the otherhand I am pimping the ideas of a philosophy based on property and ones right to pass his wealth to his children.
Re:Corporatism (Score:3, Informative)
You need to re-read his comment. Mussolini was obviously in favor of corporatism. He certainly didn't hate it.
Abuse of copyright laws (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no guarantee this law will stop criminal activity. However, "copyright holders" have a track record of using these types of laws to silence detractors and competitors. Just think of all the abuses of the DMCA. A guy was going to give a speech about how crappy ebook encription was, so the company had him arrested under the DMCA. Printer manufacturers use it to shut down competing ink cartridge manufacturers. Various cults and companies routinely use it to shut down naysayer websites. The list goes on and on.
In these cases, States + Corporations do equal fascism! More and more these days, the US Government together with large Corporations (not nessesarily US based) are acting like the old Soviet Union. Censorship (DMCA). Banning of devices which may override censorship (mandated DRM). Taking away individual's property rights (Selling something to a customer, then, after they pay, saying it's really leased, and you have to follow a very absurd and restrictive license agreement). In Soviet Russia, the government owns you. In Soviet US, the corporations own you.
Re:Corporatism (Score:5, Insightful)
'tis no coincidence, my friend. Those laws were paid for by RIAA.
Re:The Third Way (Score:2, Insightful)
Those people will be targeted as well. Shooting a cannon against a mosquito. Or, if you like, from the POV of the offenders, mobilising the whole city police squad for getting someone who stole an apple
All the while real big crime, human abuse a
Re:The Third Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus Christ! It is NOT theft! It is copyright infringement! They are two very different things!
Re:The Third Way (Score:4, Insightful)
I download plenty of things that I did not pay for, but I don't try to rationalize my actions with bullshit arguments about 'rights'. What I'm doing is illegal, and possibly immoral. When I speed, I don't get angry at the cop for pulling me over, I knew I was doing something illegal, did it anyway, and got caught.
I may feel that some of the specifics of the speeding laws are off-base, I may feel that some streets have the wrong minimum speeds, but that doesn't mean that I feel that we should tear the whole concept of speeding violations down. Just as I feel that lengths of copyrights, and who can own them and what can be done with them might be wrong, but I still see the good in them (protecting people who make their living by their ideas).
Yes - HOWEVER: (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Speeding is a criminal act. File sharing is not. Copyright violation is a CIVIL matter.
-Graham
Re:The Third Way (Score:3, Insightful)
its not a bullshit argument. no, there may be no inherent RIGHT to the product. Likewise there is no inherent RIGHT to protection. The current protection system is corporateserving and corrupt. Illegal != immoral, as you alluded to.
When a cop pulls me over, I understand why they did. But I may not necessarily think what they did is moral. Insofar as it is their job, yes. But there are towns in my state who use traffic tickets as a sole source of profit. Roads are zoned for tickettaking. Roads that aren
Re:The Third Way (Score:3, Informative)
The egregious part of this bill is influence peddlers getting to tell the FBI what it's priorities should be.
If you are only a smalltime briber, the FBI will infact persecute you for the same crap that RIAA and MPAA are perpetrating at this very mo
Re:Corporatism (Score:2)
These posts are being archived for later reference, by your favourite TLA.
Re:What, you'd wanna live under Il Duce?!? (Score:3, Informative)
German fascism illustrates this quite well. Corporate officers served at the whim of the State; working hours, wa
Bill Who? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps it's Mr. Gates at it again
A thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it comes down to a secretive police force investigating people on behalf of corporate funding rather than allowing these funds to be spent on murder, terrorism, rape or theft charges.
Shame on you.
Re:A thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought thats exactly what America was about? You mean its not? Well i dont live there, but i just got the impression that politicians and government agencies were all "sponsored" by various corporations with their own agendas.
rather than allowing these funds to be spent on murder, terrorism, rape or theft charges.
Q: Who says music piracy is less important than murder? A: Well the RIAA ofcourse! - when your funded by sponsors, you do what they say.
why do i always confuse IRA with RIAA??
Re:A thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, the FBI already investigates software piracy claims (at least in the sense of people making illegal copies available). However, they obviously have not completely stopped that (far from it really). They didn't even have a handle o
Wholesale FileSharing Isn't Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
If you copy your entire CD collection and serve it up to the world, that's infringement, not fair use.
The only thing that the great crowd of filesharing whiners is going to get for the rest of us is a bunch of costly and annoying technical copy prohibition schemes.
Re:Wholesale FileSharing Isn't Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is meant to enrich authors, artists, and inventors: not cartel middle men. Even with an ASCAP protection payment, the original authors never get their cut.
Re:Wholesale FileSharing Isn't Fair Use (Score:4, Insightful)
What you may or may not think fair use "ought" to be is irrelevant. In most cases, duplicating the entirety of a work and distributing it is not considered fair use. Nor does the alw apply different standards depending on the techology in question. In other words, using p2p to distribute your CD's is the equivalent to making copies of every book you own and then trying to sell them.
Re:A thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the RIAA pays them to.
Hijack a million open proxies to fill your kids' inboxes with h0t w3t 5lutz wh0 w4nt 2 suk ur c0ck? No problem! (Hell, not even charter.com gives a fuck, and it's charter's clueless fuckwit customers whose open proxies are being abused to tell your kids about incest goat pr0n.)
But listen to Britney Spears without paying RIAA their cut? Yo, dude, that's a crime. FBI'll be on your ass like Hilary Rosen on a box of Krispy Kremes.
All I want is to live in a world where comments like this could be moderated (-1, Troll) instead of (+1, Informative).
Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
The FBI only has 11,000 agents. After September 11th, 7,000 of them were dealing with counterterrorism. The FBI needs more agents. They DO NOT have unlimited manpower.
The FBI has enough problems. We are seeing increases in drug and sex trafficking. The DEA and local enforcement has been largely abandoned by the FBI in terms of aid in fighting drug cartels. Counterterrorism is the priority. With stuff like this, it only takes away more resources from fighting the real stuff.
This is very,
As long as they do it legally (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure that's all debatable, but local law enforcement isn't up to the task. It's a decentralized problem geographically, but from another perspective it's centralized on the net and attacking it might best be handled by a central, and technologically capable command. The FBI seems like the most logical choice.
Sure they have other fish to fry, but considering that most people I know, including those who can barely use a computer, are sharing software movies and music, perhaps government has to grow a little to keep this from becoming even worse as in some places like China and Russia.
Re:As long as they do it legally (Score:4, Insightful)
Context:
Now that anyone I know can afford a book how will the church control information? Now that anyone I know can afford to copy a page from a book, how will publishers and printers stay in business?
Shit happens. It's not our government's job to protect us from knowledge and information... unlike in those "free" countries you mentioned.
Re:As long as they do it legally (Score:4, Interesting)
Sending the 0101010's of Microsoft Windows XP + serial to your buddy for him to use without paying is not covered by the first ammendment or any other law.
Sure industries need to adapt, and the ones most under fire from piracy have shown a strong will against adapting to give consumers what they want. But a strong attempt at a boycott should have been tried before we turned to looting.
Re:As long as they do it legally (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that IS protected speech. However, Microsoft,etc. are also entitled to use the court system to sue you for damages, and have you punished. Laws are made to restrict freedoms, not create them. The law does not know, just in the transmission of data, whether your action is licensed, sanctioned, or anything else - it's the interpretation after
Re:As long as they do it legally (Score:2)
Knee-jerk policing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh wait, that's not on their checklist now is it?
Here's a technique: (Score:2)
If they enforced this in the right way: at least 10% of the largest violators caught and subjected to a few hundreds of dollars of fines, like speeding tickets, then I'd be in
Don't they have something better to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a complete waste of our goverment which can be doing useful things such as tracking down pedophiles or hanging rapists assholes. Hell, if corperates had their way police would be giving out nothing but tickets, letting the real criminals go (becuase it costs money to put em' in jail)...I don't think most polcemen signed onto the force to go after the average joe who's sick of a media monopoly, I think they'd rather be cracking the skull a real criminal.
Re:Don't they have something better to do? (Score:2)
its called newspeak from 1984 [online-literature.com] try and keep up please.
Re:Don't they have something better to do? (Score:2)
I wouldn't be suprised if tracking pedophiles was the first excuse the government uses to validate this. After all *nobody* could possibly be against keeping our children safe!...
And unfortunately it seems as though most police[wo]men these days signed on to get immunity from being harrassed from other police[wo]men...
(ps- my appologies to any law enforcement officers reading; I recently was fined $30 for wearing my seatbelt, and am thus sl
Re:Don't they have something better to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. you hit the nail right on the head.
And this is justified by saying that downloading music and movies online hurts the economy.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The amount of people who only download music and movies and don't buy them can't be very high. First off, only 50% of the households in the U.S. have computers in the first place. Secondly, it's hard to believe that all of those 50% use a file sharing system. After all, only, what? 10% or of those have broadband connections? I mean downloading the stuff over a 56K modem connection takes an excruciating amount of time. And what percentage of those don't buy music or movies and exclusively use stuff they got off the net? Personally, my purchase of movies and music has *increased*, not decreased since I got broadband and started using file sharing services.
And, why would the FBI investigate this stuff? Last I checked, copyright violation was a civil, not a criminal matter. Violation of copyright is not theft anyway. Check with the U.S. copyright office. They do not consider it theft.
Why do we need this government interference in our lives? Why should the RIAA and the MPAA dictate our lives? What happened to our constitutionally limited republic?
I'm sick of this. I'm about ready to move to some country that has smaller government and less governmental interference in my life. Anybody got any suggestions?
Re:Don't they have something better to do? (Score:2, Informative)
Check again. Among other things, the DMCA made copyright violation into a criminal matter. One of the really nasty bits, imo.
How right you are. (Score:2)
Thing is, the FBI is not feeling too good lately. They hunted for Eric Rudolph for years, and spent tens of millions of dollars and who busts him? A rookie local cop with less than a year on the force, who catches
Not their job... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not their job... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not their job... (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure copyright infringement is a civil crime and hence is not an arrestable offense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:Not their job... (Score:3, Informative)
If we limit our discussion to the United States, then usually copyright infringement is a civil matter. Criminal proceedings can take place under 17 USC 506 [cornell.edu]. (A fellow /.er [slashdot.org] filled me in during a previous discussion.)
The bit governing criminal offenses:
Re:Not their job... (Score:2)
What about other contries? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm as "guilty" as most... (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, we _are_ guilty of copyright infringement, and the sharing networks could pretty easily lock out that material. As a software engineer I very much dislike seeing software pirated online and it'd be pretty hypocritical of me to support downloading music but wanting to punish/prevent software piracy.
The point is, we're commiting a federal crime, which falls under FBI jurasdiction, it's pretty hard to contest this. Contest the laws, fine, but give me a good reason this doesn't fall under the FBI's umbrella.
Re:I'm as "guilty" as most... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm as "guilty" as most... (Score:2, Insightful)
International enforcement? (Score:2)
New Business Opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
FBI no, anarchy yes (Score:3, Interesting)
If McDonald's announced it were going to start selling BBQ pork chops, would you say "as if they didn't have their own messes...one time an employee spit in a burger...need I say more?"
Or, maybe you saw a small bug in notepad.exe...quick! Condem all of Microsoft! (ok, maybe)
But, aside from this file-sharing issue, it seems you have an FBI axe you'd like ground to the hilt. I'm sure the FBI is far from perfect. How do you propose it be fixed?
Service Announcement: The text of this post that you've just read is copyright, me, and I have not given you permission to read it. You are in violation of my copyright and the FBI will be raiding you soon. Thank you.
Never! (Score:2)
FBI and File-Sharing (Score:3, Informative)
"After an internal FBI probe also released today sharply criticized the manner in which the Clinton White House obtained more than 400 such files from the FBI. The internal inquiry by the FBI's general counsel found that the White House's request between December of 1993 and February of 1994 were without justification and amounted to "egregious violations of privacy." "
Well, a reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
In darkest times of communist terror in Poland, there was a common saying "Don't worry, they can find a paragraph for everyone". Seems this law is just one more of such paragraphs to "match everyone".
Re:Well, a reason... (Score:2)
I'm not the paranoid type, but it really isn't that far of a jump.
US 'paragraphs' (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, like the MA state law which makes it illegal to "misuse" the equipment in your vehicle, which cops use to stop you when there's something hanging from your rear-view mirror, if they don't like the looks of you? Then there's the popular-in-movies "[smack] Gee, your taillight is out..."
How about an even
Don't they already have this power? (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't see what extra powers the FBI needs here.
Re:Don't they already have this power? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that the 'extra' is political legitimacy. Most people think that existing laws are for catching criminals and they don't see themselves as criminal. Once the FBI gets the 'extra' they will prosecute a few cases with a lot of publicity. It's just a tactic for moving the privacy/criminality boundary one step at a time.
College students watch out (Score:2)
Bad FBI things only ever get publicised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad FBI things only ever get publicised (Score:2)
Maybe because your site gives a 403 Forbidden error! ;-)
That is the FBI job description... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever happened to the millions of cases the FBI solved, or prevented crimes, or caught murderers?
I deal with them all the time as a newsman. That is their friggin' job. They are the federal police and they catch criminals. They work on high profile cases. That is what they do. Slapping them on the back for a job well done? Then you really are going to wear your arm out slapping everyone else in America on the back as well for doing their job right, and keeping society running. I love those guys, but sucking up to their good points just slows down the process... besides it is a special person that can be in the FBI, they choose them for loyalty and determination.
If you want to thank anyone in law enforcement, thank the beat cops in major cities, they are the ones that have to shake the tree daily and find the street punks that are the most dangerous to the public at large. FBI can be patient and call in all the people they want, due to the nature of the criminals they are pursuing. Beat cops are the ones that most likely get shot. Some FBI agents I know have their gun in their desk. That is a big difference in law enforcement style.
Look, the FBI are good guys. But allowing them jurisdiction on a corporate and civil matter is preposterous. It is corporatism. It is where this country is going. Copyright infringement is not outright theft, but it is not allowable either. It is prosecutable, but the FBI sure as hell does not need to be involved in it. They have much bigger fish to fry these days than worrying about file sharing on the internet.
Please to be writing clearly (Score:2)
This is what happens when you let Mahir write the headlines...
I know what they mean, but I still have mental images of the "FBI Police" sitting around eating donuts and p2p-ing porn...
The Corporation's.... (Score:2)
Nuff Said.
Next generation P2P (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course as soon as a viable solution exists that makes people anonymous on the internet, no doubt the congress-critters will pass legislation to make it illeg
News!! 2 more planes hit 2 more towers in New York (Score:3, Funny)
Welome to the land of the free and home of the brave.
Great.... (Score:2)
Let Them! (Score:3, Interesting)
In a way that is the point. The purpose of politics (and less directly government) is that it's better to fight wars with words rather than with blood. But to copy things does not require coercion at all, the rules are not the same, we are not dealing with limited resources where when one person gains another looses. They will not get disenfranchised help, they will not get public support, and they will not get personal fufillment helping a bunch of hollywood brats act like the gestapo.
Don't get too worried (Score:4, Funny)
Its telling that the most auspicious factoid regarding the FBI is that their former leader used to wear dresses.
Re:Don't get too worried (Score:2)
My God. Who put a woman in charge of the FBI?!?
;)
Re:Don't get too worried (Score:2)
What a piece of work.
Don't you dare comment! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!
Re:Don't you dare comment! (Score:4, Insightful)
Real CD trade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real CD trade (Score:2)
More RIAA cost-shifting (Score:4, Insightful)
This strikes me as a continuation of the cost-shifting that began when sufficient levels of copyright violation were made 'criminal'. The cost of prosecuting a civil case is borne by the plaintiff (i.e. the RIAA). The cost of prosecuting a criminal case is borne by the taxpayer. Hence the criminalisation of copyright violation caused the costs of prosecuting those violations to be shifted from the RIAA et al to the taxpayer.
This is the same type of thing. The RIAA et al faces fairly high costs in trying to deal with P2P networks. Putting the FBI in charge of policing P2P networks means the taxpayer will be funding those investigations instead of the RIAA.
$10,000 rule (Score:4, Interesting)
As for this case, the $10k rule doesn't apply since this insane value (up to $250,000? iirc) has been placed on copyright violations. Perhaps if the FBI valued a "stolen" song on what it is actually worth we wouldn't have this problem.
On top of the insane overvaluing of copyright violations there is the fact that the law doesn't state copyright violation as theft, they didn't actually lose anything. So lets assume that a 15 song CD costs $15 (not that this is accurate). Then a stolen song from the CD should be worth $1, oh for fun we'll say it was the one good song on the album and give it a $2 value. So it would take 5000 of the best songs on 5000 cds to make the FBI even look at the case under normal circumstances.
Then one would think, wait, $10k worth of damages wasn't actually done. No one was actually deprived of anything besides what they thought they were due. So then we end up with another problem, how much are they actually worth? It gets very complicated and basiclly comes down to what we all knew all along, some is getting bought off.
Tax Payers (Score:3, Insightful)
I must give the RIAA credit though, they finally realized that they could not afford the bill to keep suing people with no money so they bri...er gave campaign contributions to some congressman to make the tax payers pay the bill. Something about the sleaziness of all this that you have to admire.
What will the FBI do though? The FBI likes to go after people with MONEY or is a high profile person. The majority of users donâ(TM)t fit either of those categories. The FBI will make a big show of going after people at first but one they find out the joys of WHACK-A-MOLE P2P they will only go after the big fish like the riaa is doing anyway.
I hope this bill donâ(TM)t pass but I am too pessimistic to believe otherwise
FBI failures (Score:2)
The price of Freedom ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Freedom is - you never know what people will actually do with it
Stay tuned - the war continues
give me a break! (Score:2)
Like they are going to know what to do....
Right...
Hey! Was that a monkey that just flew out of my ass??!!
Sade (Score:3, Insightful)
The corporate machine is not fascist, or totalitarian. It's greedy, is all. The dummies who want to kill p2p are just shooting themselves in the foot because they aren't smart enought to realize that it BOOSTS the ecconomy. Come on Harvard, where are the papers to back this up!?!
And they won't do anything about cybercrime (Score:2)
It's amazing. And every description of the FBI resources in the context of fighting terrorism uses the word "thin".
Too Busy (Score:2)
Police versus vigilantism (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah..... (Score:2)
Atleast the FBI must follow due process (Score:2)
But on the other hand, I really think the FBI has much better things to do then pursue audio piracy. It's hard enough getting them to investigate forms of cybercrime unless you're a business and can demonstrate a dollar amount lost (believe it's $5000 for FBI). While we may get annoyed by this a
Death of the Internet, News at 5 (Score:3, Insightful)
After the commercialization pretty much destroyed what it stood for.
On a related note, when did it become the problem of the FBI to investigate CIVIL issues?
Oh wait, its all part of total control of information... nevermind. The whole thing just pisses me off.
Far reaching consequences. (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider an earlier article published last week, where Sweden was about to enforce draconian IP laws and rights to enforce them. Those laws would lead to their police (and probably other obscure agencies) starting to patrol(1) a lot of Internet services such as p2p networks for example. How would this be received by other nations as there is not simple way of distinguishing a user's nationality from some IP address?
Let's face it, going down the current path, the US isn't going to be the only country doing massive interception and analysis of communication on the Internet and when the politicians wake up and smell the coffee, this kind of mess will have spiraled far out of their control.
Ponder this. Does anyone imagine a government capable of intercepting and filtering most communication to be standing on some kind of high moral and ethical ground where a reasoning like "The correct thing for us to do is to only police our own waters for domestic criminal activity" is going be the current agenda?
No friggin way is my assessment.
This is paving the way for a situation where espionage(2) is the trade of the day. In a few years when most states have caught up with any current technological forerunners there are, in my view, going to be only two choices. Either you encrypt all traffic(3), allowing you some kind of domestic protection, or you will have no protection at all.
The future in my view looks rather bleak if certain politicians and their fellow lobbyists are going to have their way. As I see it, the first ones to realize this problem has been the same type of people making the technological measures allowing such potential abuse, tech-savy folks such as some members of this blog. Mr. and Mrs. Clueless will be the first ones lined up against the wall as they will be caught off guard, unaware of how technology works and how it can be abused and thus unable to protect themselves from the private agendas of those with monetary and political power.
As a final Note. Most know that the last 9 in 99.999% availability figure is extremely expensive to obtain. Likewise, getting the last 9 when it comes to making people law-abiding(4) is going to be infinitely more expensive both from a monetary cost and most importantly, the cost of lost freedom...
As many of us know, the only information system totally secure is a system without external interfaces. The only secure(5) or safe society is a society without a mind of it's own, without free thought.
Which society do you wish the future to hold?
1. Meaning intercepting and scanning.
2. Of foreign power, corporate and any entity which the people with the means might be interested in for one reason or another.
3. Since modules in a computer system co-exist and make use of each other more and more for various tasks, it's getting harder and harder to know what component is transmitting what information and thus the only way to feel some kind of security is to only allow encrypted traffic.
4. Be it a valid law supported by the majority of the citizen or not.
5. Also known as "safe" or "convenient" in some corporate lingo.
The FBI's new priorities (Score:3, Interesting)
Will not paying parking tickets also become a Federal crime next?
Do politicians have a clue as to why they don't have the public's respect anymore?
Perhaps they've proven they don't deserve it.
Just think. If anyone had come forward last year to put up the startup money for a professionally run high-tech PAC to represent us to Congress, we'd be talking this year about getting the votes together to get rid of the DMCA and any politician stupid enough to refuse to cooperate with us.
"People always get the local government they deserve."
E.E. "Doc" Smith
This is as a grim a comment about US geeks (and the ones who aren't doing anything about anti-tech political action in the EU) as can be made.
Taking the FBI private: the RIAA's own cops (Score:4, Interesting)
The current legislation proposes something very old-fashioned: the privatization, in a sense, of our law enforcement. Oh, the FBI would still be publicly funded, but essentially their mission would be reconstituted to make them the private police force of immensely wealthy copyright holders. We'd have a situation analogous in substance to 19th century America, with its strike-breaking private cops doing the bidding of their factory masters. Not only would the FBI be the servant of the music, movie and software companies, flattening any and all freedoms that thwart the perfect and unfettered progress of business (while also forging the kinds of interconnectedness that would make it politically and legally hard ever to police those industries).
But more drastically, the FBI would become a tool used to correct a failure of the marketplace: it would become the bludgeon that stops the consumer revolt that is embodied in online file trading - expunging, through intrusion and harassment, any impulse but that of proper obedience. Is a generation of future American debtors missing the lesson of arbeit macht frei? Then the FBI will be called in to teach them the fundamentals!
Mind, this is of a piece with Hatch's outburst last week about destroying downloaders' computers. Such is Washington's obsequiousness before the power it serves, and so deep runs its contempt for the freedoms of average citizens. (It's all fine and good to trot out your defense secretary to call freedom "messy" when it's overseas; but here, of course, here we send in the G-Men.) The Net has allowed the little person a measure of freedom not dreamt of in the corridors of our oligarchy. I don't expect our rulers to rest until they've brought this democratic, not to say anarchical, spirit to heel.
corporatism and all that... (Score:3, Interesting)
There have been a lot of threads here, some philosophically/politically loaded with arguments of varying quality: the first thread talked about control of the economy under Mussoliniâ(TM)s Fascism. Another attacked that one, praising raw capitalism while yet another early note gave what might or might not be an informed view of how the Naziâ(TM)s handled capitalism under the third Reich. Somehow, the subject became very dramatic and youâ(TM)ve got to ask if high drama is justifiable when you look at the core of the thing.
Without drama, there are good reasons to say that there is nothing new in the FBI being made to favor the interests of American businessâ"even businesses whose actions are as loathsome as the music industryâ(TM)s with regard to file-sharing. The proposition of the bill can be looked at as a (sad) comment on the nature of our government: people and organizations with vast sums have influence which often overrides the interests of the massesâ"thatâ(TM)s, âyou and me,â(TM) bud.
We live in a representative democracy and the systemâ(TM)s oddest and ugliest flaw is that wealthy people and organizations direct the actions of government more directly, and more immediately than the slower processes of ordinary governance: this is the âno surpriseâ(TM) factor. The FBI is directed by the federal government, the federal government is run by societyâ(TM)s loudest voices and money is an amplifier that drowns out other voices (If you think this is untrue, you probably like the âBig-Mac-for-you/your salary-x-ten for them,â(TM) tax-cuts).
In the final analysis, it really is a matter of voices. Many of us want to say, âthe music industry has been at the trough for too long and the net has changed everything.â(TM) For their part, maybe a dozen multibillion-dollar corporations with the money to make a politicianâ(TM)s re-election campaigns with their contributions alone want the government to wage a campaign to frighten nameless, faceless people who are costing them money.
This raises two key questions: âWhy is this surprising news?â(TM) and âWhom do you expect to win?â(TM)
Re:Next Article (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is a problem why?
Anybody with a lick of common sense realizes that most traffic laws exist to generate a revenue stream for the government and have almost nothing to do with public safety.
Did you realize that posted speed limits aren't needed, because traffic is pretty much self-regulating? Do you HOW the determine what the speed limit for a given stretch of road is? They monitor speeds over that stretch, and set the actual speed limi
This is probably what they were talking about... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's clear up the record a bit here... (Score:4, Informative)
It was not the case that "apparently Chinese intelligence had penetrated the Los Alamos lab". On the contrary, it was apparently the case that Chinese intelligence had obtained secrets about nuclear warheads that could only have come from a contractor OUTSIDE of the lab, someone further downstream in the weapons production process. Although the discovery of this leak led investigators to look initially at Los Alamos, Los Alamos was eventually ruled out as the source of the information.
Interest in Wen Ho Lee continued, for a variety of reasons, but mostly, in my opinion, because he was a convenient scapegoat for perceived problems at the time.
Later, after an inspection of his lab computer, he was discovered to have backed up some of his data on to magnetic tapes. This led to an entirely separate and different legal case, the case that ended up being brought against him.
But that case was a crock. The data he backed up, or "downloaded" as the prosecutors liked to say, was the code he was working with along with supporting libraries and other parts of the build environment. He had had experience with computers at the Lab crashing and losing data. Also he knew there was a RIF (Reduction In Force) coming up, and the way those work at the Lab is sometimes someone is RIF'ed and then almost immediately re-hired, only to have to rebuild their work environment (computing environment) from scratch. Defenders of Lee have pointed out that wanting to avoid having to rebuild his work environment from scratch was a perfectly innocent motivation for having made tapes.
I own a security brochure from Los Alamos Lab which urges workers to "_Always_ Back Up Your Data On Cartridges or Tapes." It does not say "tell the backup department to back up your data." It basically says do it yourself. The brochure is not classified, but refers to both classified and unclassified data.
Back to DesCorp's post. "The investigation focused on Lee..." again, there were two investigations, two different cases, the first was found to be ridiculous (the data couldn't have come from Los Alamos); the second was ginned up to help the prosecuting entities avoid embarassment.
By the way, contrary to what is often implied in the media, Lee did not take the tapes home. They remained in the secure area of the lab, behind a tall fence with gates that have iris scanners, palm print scanners, metal man cages, 24 hour armed guards, etc. etc.
At the end of Lee's final hearing, at which he was released, the judge in the case apologized to Lee and pointed out that Lee was also owed an apology from the other branches of government.
Which leads to the final and most serious inaccuracy in DesCorp's post, about the historical view of the case now, after the fact. Washington insiders (other than a few paranoid diehards) do not think the botching of the case involved letting a spy get away. Rather, they think the botching of the case was in fingering the wrong man. Vernon Loeb, the intelligence reporter for the Washington Post, has affirmed in writing that this is his understanding of what people in Washington think. It's probably not neccessary to point out that he is someone who has his finger pretty well on the pulse of the Washington intelligence community.