Students, ISP Sue Diebold 345
Quixotic1 writes "The campaign against Diebold that began as electronic civil disobedience took an exciting turn today as the EFF announced that they were filing suit against Diebold for abuse of copyright claims. They will be representing Swarthmore College students and the ISP Online Policy Group, who hosted and linked to copies of controversial internal memos."
You can kill a revolutionary (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Anyone who favors a revolution that only involves people other than themselves being set upon with hardship didn't really favor it to begin with. I would be more suspect of anyone who took that kind of attitude than whatever I was revolting against in the first place.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer voting. The revolutionary business doesn't pay well, and the hours suck.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
yea, that reminds me I have to mail in my membership to the EFF and the ACLU.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Funny)
Give him a 30 year fixed mortgage.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, I know it's a joke but I'll bite anyways. The problem with revolutions is that they tend to get a lot of other people killed as well, not just revolutionaries, in fact a lot more often than is desirable the people who win the revolution are not the people generally desired to lead but the ones who are most successful at killing the other side. Always remember
dreams of perfect society + bloody revolution = bloody dictatorship
That being said there becomes a point where a political system degrades far enough some kind of revolution may be in the long term interest. If this Diebold problem isn't fixed fast (i.e.before the next US presidential election) than the US may find the foundations of their political system in very serious trouble. No I'm not saying you guys should have a revolution
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Informative)
Afraid I'm not super familiar with the american revolution but I think I'd tend to classify it more as a liberation than a revolution. From what I understand British loyalists would of been a minority and probably socially segregated for the most part. Either way the actual battles would of generally been local militants against forgien military in a time when military technology was simple enough that both had an eq
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Actually, it was a fairly even split: 1/3 revolutionaries, 1/3 loyalists, 1/3 didn't care.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Now, let's think about the United States. Gun ownership is much higher, and involves much more sophisticated weaponry. While Americans may not care about Iraqi children getting blown to smithereens in bombing runs, they certainly *would* care about American chi
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Interesting)
You must be in another world! :p
The populace is armed, but not trained. Just having a heavily armed group of people does not a standing army make. Few people in this country are capable of fighting the trained, organized military that's in place. Consider that even during the American revolution the British would've pretty much rolled right over the colonies given a moderate amount of time. Outside intervention and mercs, particularly from the Germans, helped turn the tide of the war in favor of the co
Humm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that the general american populace had access to something more sophisticated than surface to air heat seeking rockets.
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the CPA has been trying to crack down on gun ownership, but I'd be surprised if there is less gun ownership there then here.
(so much for an armed populo
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it any wonder the liberal line is to claim the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to "the people"?
Personally I think that guns for revolution in modern states are kind of obselete. True it can cause big problems for the military (as a previous poster mentioned of Iraq) but for a revolution in a modern country I've always t
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:5, Insightful)
Try this quote, instead: "Power comes from the end of a gun." Considering that quote is from someone who actually seized power over a country with hundreds of millions of people and not a wide-eyed visionary novelist, I think it delivers a more powerful statement.
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it sounds to me as if the Chinese government was very afraid, why else massacre the marchers? Unfortunately I don't have the information to know if those peoples deaths led to the chinese government trying t
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Interesting)
" Um, the only thing *civilized* governments fear is people in the streets (not a correction to the quote, a correction to the idea). Take China, for instance. People marched in the street, and even stood up to tanks. Then they got mowed down by machine gun fire and were run over by the tanks.
"
Actually it sounds to me as if the Chinese government was very afraid, why else massacre the marchers? Unfortunately I don't have the information to know if those peoples deaths led to the chinese government trying
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2, Insightful)
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That comma causes more problems... but the subject of the sentance is "A well regulated Militia" and not "the people." The problem is that people are no longer members of a well regulated militia.
Therefore in no small way they have abdicated thier rights to bear arms. They only well regulated milita I can think of is intercit
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:3, Interesting)
As one guy who was arrested for refusing to move to one of those zones put it, "I thought the whole country was a free speech zone."
Re:You can kill a revolutionary (Score:2)
Of course not... (Score:2)
Kjella
Memos (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
"Diebold's blanket cease-and-desist notices are a blatant abuse of copyright law," said EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "Publication of the Diebold documents is clear fair use because of their importance to the public debate over the accuracy of electronic voting machines."
Indeed. Better still:
"Instead of paying lawyers to threaten its critics, Diebold should invest in creating electronic voting machines that include voter-verified paper ballots and other security protections," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn.
Or just give up and leave it to someone else. Diebold's credibility is ruined, IMHO. If you don't agree, read those memos flying around. Systemic fraud exists in Diebold's practices. The should be nailed. And not like Enron, really nailed.
Re:Awesome (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Most of the general public has never heard of them.
Re:Awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:2)
Radio coverage (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=14
Re:Awesome (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Informative)
browsable archive (Score:5, Informative)
http://tapdance.sourceforge.net/diebold/ [sourceforge.net]
hope this helps
Re:browsable archive (Score:5, Informative)
Shady? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Publication of the Diebold documents is clear fair use because of their importance to the public debate over the accuracy of electronic voting machines."
How that statement is going to hold up in court would be very interesting; it's debatable how much we the people (in the eyes of the court) should know about the internal workings.
For example, I'd imagine that's why we don't get to listen in on the Supreme Court's discussions; that's a basis for our democratic process, but we don't watch it, we aren't allowed to (no big fuss about that either).
Blah, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Sig & Below [sp00fed.net]
Re:Shady? (Score:5, Insightful)
- They show intent to break the law (among other things, patching an election system without having the patch certified, not to mention faking demonstrations for elections officials). You can't claim copyright on the plans to rob a bank and then complain when people start investigating.
- The work is factual. This isn't about pirating The Matrix or Britney Spears.
- The memos (themselves) are not marketable. Yes, of course, this will affect Diebold's business immensely. But the DMCA's fair use clause only applies to works that themselves have a market.
- They're fundamental to democracy -- and aren't checked in any other way. The Supreme Court can operate "in secret" (though it's not really all that secret) because they are checked by the Congress. We have no mechanism for impeaching Diebold, especially if they cloud all of their vote-counting procedures under trade secrets or spurious claims of copyright(-infringement).
I would say, in fact, that this is one of the most solid copyright-contesting cases to come along in a while.
--
Quick general question... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they wanted to protect the information, couldn't they invoke Trade Secrets? It would seem to me a better path than copyright.
Of course, couldn't Diebold be liable for sedition? They are trying to usurp the power of the election, something clearly listed and enumerated in the Constitution. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, check out the wording.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2384.html
Re:Shady? (Score:2)
That's as maybe, but it does nothing if it doesn't force Diebold to change the way they develop their voting machines. THAT takes some outrage on the part of the public, as generated by the press, and I have yet to see any of that, save by a few hundred slashdotters.
Perhaps if someone would mail copies of these materials to every Congressman/woman (Democrats would be more interested in this than R
Re:you hit the nail on the head (Score:2)
It is debatable - perhaps the sooner this debate is held (although in which forum/s, is another matter for debate...) the better it is for the United States as a whole.
Re:Shady? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shady? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shady? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well now, this does bring up an interesting question. What makes something a governnment document? If it was created solely for the purpose of performing government business, is only meaningfull within the government and plays a vital role in the functioning of that government? Doesn't that make it a govenment document, even if the people who wrote it were technically private/contractors?
Wouldn't this arguement apply to a lot of [all?] contracted government services? It is a
Once it is known... (Score:2)
No, but assume someone did find memos from the Supreme court, that cast doubt over their competence at what they do. Could then the court use copyright law to stop everyone from discussing it? Is it reasonable to expect to be able to "put the cat back in the bag", and pretend it didn't happen
Re:Once it is known... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Once it is known... (Score:3, Interesting)
I recall reading an article on CNN a couple years ago (if anyone has a link, please post -- tried to find it quickly but was unable) where a guy received a nasty C&D letter when he posted a copy of his state laws on the Internet.
Apparently his state had contracted a publisher to print books with all the state laws. Said publisher cl
Re:Shady? (Score:4, Insightful)
I regret to say that I must agree with you: This case is going to be a tough one for the EFF.
The primary problem is that past court cases have already "settled" the question of public interest vs. copyright. Sadly, the courts decided that copyright trumps compelling public interest, and that copyright holders can silence any critics who attempt to use their own words against them in the theater of public debate. These decisions were sought and obtained by the Scientology cult.
Schwab
Scientology argument ain't the same... (Score:5, Insightful)
So there is a difference between these cases.
Re:Shady? (Score:2)
That is correct. The Supreme Court docket is public, and oral arguments are open to the public. Go here [supremecourtus.gov] for some info. The press usually attends these sessions and reports on them. Also, I don't think that argument has anything to do with why Diebold is abusing copyright law to subvert the US political system.
Re:Shady? (Fair Use) (Score:3, Insightful)
Diebold might win this case, but just the fact that it is being brought means that they have lost. All the facts will be aired and Diebold will lose the public trust. It's hard to imagine how a voting machine company could continue to operate under those circumstances.
But on to the case itself: According to the traditional four points courts consider in determing fair use, I'd say the EFF has a pretty reasonable case. (Thou
Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was a (hypothetical) member of the Diebold mailing list, and there were a few e-mails in that bunch that I authored, do I retain copyright on my e-mail? I always assumed I was offering a non-exclusive right to the audience of the list to read/retain/copy/etc., but if that audience increases without my knowledge or consent do I lose the legal right to complain?
When the media reports on specific items in the memos, do lawyers/judges figure the toothpaste is pretty much out of the tube at this point or is there the possibility of going after reporters?
Re:Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:2)
I think.
Re:Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is whether they can be republished anyway under fair use.
--
Re:Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:2)
That's a good point that I hadn't considered. (Score:2)
Re:Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:4, Insightful)
But copyright does not trump all other interests, specifically copyright does not prevent the documents from being used in a criminal investigation or civil discovery action. It doesn't even prevent the documents from being used in making arguments to open a criminal investigation or initiate a civil suit.
IMHO (and as a non-lawyer who has a strong professional interest in civil liberties) what Diebold is doing is legally no different from some sick bastard who videotapes himself drugging and raping women trying to prevent his victims from taking the video to the police. The harm caused by allowing the complaints to be squelched is far greater than the harm caused by forcing disclosure against the wishes of the copyright holder.
Now if Diebold was sending C&D orders to prevent their inclusion in a general interest book on computer voting systems... then they might have a case. In that case the memos would be used to enrich somebody else, not to call attention to a matter of critical public interest.
Re:Lots of interesting issues here. (Score:2)
1) No. I can put my copyrighted intellectual property out in plain view for anyone to read and still retain ownership. That's the entire point of copyright. If I had to keep copyrighted material secret, I wouldn't bother to copyright it. Plus, where have you seen that little (c) before?
2) If you were a member of the mailing list, you retain copyright of the material, but there is probably an implicit grant of use. Other's could probably not republish for
Diebold is winning (Score:5, Funny)
You have the right not to vote. Any vote you make can be used against you in a court of law. The judge presiding in such a court of law may be appointed by Diebold, Inc., and need not require a jury, but if a jury is summoned, it need not be a jury of your peers.
By acting to vote you consent to our determining whether your vote is valid, and in the event it is judged not to be valid, you consent to our voiding your vote and further voiding your right to vote in the future.
You furthermore acknowledge that owing to storage and bandwidth limitations that Diebold, Inc., may experience, your vote may be digitally compressed in a way such that your true intent in casting the vote may be lost. If such an eventuality should occur, your vote may be determined using statistical data derived from any source we deem appropriate or convenient.
You have the right to protest if your vote is cancelled, altered, or in any way modified as the result of such action on our part, however, you hereby acknowledge that in such an eventuality, Diebold, Inc. may determine that your right to vote is deleterious to democracy as implement by Diebold, Inc., and therefore may be considered to be an overt act against the national security of these United States.
You have 10 seconds to comply.
God Bless America.
Re:Diebold is winning (Score:2)
Donate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Donate (Score:2)
Seriously, what's the point of being based in SF?
Re:Donate - offtopic (Score:3, Interesting)
On my way to donate I noticed that they were a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. I thought that political groups were not allowed to be claimed as non-profit? Where exactly is the line drawn?
thanks
Re:Donate (Score:2)
If you agree with EFF's decision to stand up... (Score:5, Informative)
Even better... (Score:2)
Become a member -- the more people on their lists, the more respect they demand...
(Oh, and give them some money at the same time, obviously).
I just gave the EFF money ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just demand a recount. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, they've got that covered. (Score:3, Interesting)
How I wish.
But they covered that: If you demand a manual recount, they print the database as hardcopy individual ballots, for humans to hand count.
Of course the count comes out the same. (Unless a human goofs, of course.)
And of course if the issue was that the database was corrupted, the recount means nothing.
I'm a poor student livin' on loans (Score:5, Interesting)
I really encourage everyone to do the same. Lawsuits don't come cheaply.
James
If you want it done right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Vegas Baby, Vegas (Score:5, Insightful)
Get out the vote! (Score:3, Funny)
Punch in your vote, pull the lever, get a receipt and maybe a jackpot!
Re:Vegas Baby, Vegas (Score:2)
-Isaac
Re:If you want it done right... (Score:2)
You know.. (Score:2)
The discovery process. I want to see documents presented in court that are imperative to the EFF's case that are absolutely incriminating to Diebold when it comes to voter fraud. If that stuff gets on the record, the news media is going to have a heyday.
don't even need discovery (Score:2)
That said, discovery won't prove anything one way or the other besides ownership of the documents. What this case will do is provide clear and unambiguous ammunition for Senate/Congressional inquiries, States Attorneys, etc. I b
since so many are passionate about this (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be many, many people who are very passionate about this issue. Why can't someone produce a talented team to produce a free, open source alternative to Diebold's system and then pitch it to concerned governments?
Re:since so many are passionate about this (Score:2)
Such software would be valuable, but not sufficient in itself.
Re:since so many are passionate about this (Score:3, Informative)
Reminds me so much of MS (Score:4, Interesting)
"4K Smart cards which had never been previously programmed are being recognized by the Card Manager as manager cards."
Reminds me of the Win2K/XP feature that makes you an Admin if you insert an install disk.
Re:Reminds me so much of MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me so much of MS (Score:2)
NPR (Score:4, Interesting)
All Things Considered ran a good overview [npr.org] tonight of the Diebold story.
Cited are critiques of security and even poor code quality, the guts of internal memos now floating around, Diebold's threats against ISPs, and comments from the EFF.
(Runtime, 4:50; RealPlayer or WMP required)
Was the voting software written off-shore? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nitya Varadarajan
Chennai, March 7: Diebold HMA, a joint venture with 50:50 holding between Diebold Inc and HMA Data Systems in Chennai, will be expanding its software development operations for Diebold Inc's operations worldwide
Court Documents (Score:3, Insightful)
Where to sue? Venue counts... (Score:5, Informative)
The Constitution of NH includes as Article 10:
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
This is one of the most clearly delineated passages anywhere in American law pertaining to the ultimate rights and, more importantly, RESPONSIBILITIES of citizens.
I wonder when..... (Score:2)
that would be quite interesting, ya
Diebold might not hold up in court, but if this were M$, I wonder if the situation would be the same.....
Vermont (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vermont (Score:2)
Exercise in futility (Score:2, Insightful)
The courts hate people challenging copyright.
Democracy at its root (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is a fight we have to take on locally. Find out what's used in your district. If they use black-box machines with no paper trail (virtually everyone does) then hit 'em with a big ole ream of this [ratm.net]. Send it your city councilmember, call your Congresscritter [house.gov] and your Senators [senate.gov], bitch to your local paper, blog. Do something.
My favourite excerpts:
Or how about:
Or even:
Makes me feel all warm and gooey inside, but not in that comfortable, sated, internally glowing way. In that queasy, rumbling, internally bleeding, hosting-an-Alien-baby kind of way.
Great scheduling (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not clear whether they'll win a preliminary injunction, but there's a good chance of it. Either way, it's great PR.
Whuh?? (Score:3, Funny)
What is this? Soviet Russia?
Re:Internal memos aren't copyrighted (Score:2)
You don't have to publish, you don't have to register, all you have to do is write it down.
Re:Internal memos aren't copyrighted (Score:2)
Some things that courts have ruled are not copyrightable include phone lists and opcodes. You can copyright the presentation or mnemonics, but since only phone number reaches Bob Smith and only one particular bit code adds the contents of the BX register to the accumulator this information is not copyrightable.
Wrong! (Score:2)
You don't even have to think hard to come up with countless examples of things that clearly need protection but are never published. All proprietary source code. All internal work product. All backup tapes and discs.
mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Diebold, die! (Score:3, Insightful)
How could you claim to be a free country if you had a law that specifically prevented that individual from doing so? The conflict of interest is clear, perhaps, but there seems to be no problem with disclosure. You want to be the first one down the slope where you decide what ventures people may or may not invest in? You want to use the theory that