Trusted Computing/DMCA vs. Diebold Pentagon Paper 290
The Importance of writes "Diebold's ill-fated e-voting machines have gotten a lot of coverage recently. Of particular interest is the fact that some of the most damning documents are legal memos leaked from Diebold's law firm, Jones Day. The memos were leaked to the Oakland Tribune. Now Diebold's lawyers are trying to suppress their publication. The judge has ordered the documents returned, except for those already published on the internet. Hopefully, the First Amendment will protect the newspaper's rights to hold onto the documents. However, EFF's Jason Schultz points out a very real and very scary scenario in which trusted computing combined with the DMCA makes such leaks illegal, regardless of the First Amendment."
This is just not good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is just not good (Score:2)
Worst case scenario, they can't publish the report verbatim, but they can summarize it. Mark my words.
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Interesting)
The Oakland Tribune could just *leak* them again to another paper.
I hope they have not complied with the court order, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Funny)
Now you've done it! Prepare for Ashcroft to land a black helicopter in your lawn ...
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on
That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Informative)
Oh c'mon, the U.S. government? That'll never happen. [usatoday.com]
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Informative)
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Not of their own initiative, and against their internal policies.
B. The photos were not of Iraqi war dead. They were of the Columbia space shuttle astronauts.
*Some of* the photos were, apparently a lot of them. But not all. (According to your source, anyway.)
And the photo that got a woman fired [cnn.com]from her job as a military contractor in Kuwait was definitely of Iraqi war dead.
Revolution? I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans are too busy watching reruns of Celebrity Treasure Island or American Idol to care about boring shit like abuse of the Constitution.
We harp on and on about being the Land of the Free(tm) and Home of the Brave(tm) but we meekly rolled over and pissed on ourselves the second we were told to by President Rumsfeld.
Don't get used to the current state of affairs, because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.
Re:Revolution? I doubt it. (Score:3, Interesting)
> going to get a hell of a lot worse eventually.
Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Starr.
Lifetime appointments last longer than 4 years.
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the case isn't just about freedom of speech, it's about the confidential nature of the lawyer-client relationship. To illustrate, let me pose a hypothetical.
You're the accused in a high-profile case on some new, egregious law, a la the DMCA or PATRIOT Act. You're not certain about whether you're guilty or not given the novelty of the provision under which you're charged, so you seek legal advice, making full and frank disclosure of what you've done so your lawyer can give you the best advice possible. Somewhere along the way a "concerned citizen" gets ahold of the memos generated in the course of obtaining this advice and passes it to the prosecution, or, better yet, the press, who throw it into the public domain so it loses its quality of confidentiality.
Now, who's rights should prevail here? Your right to skilled legal representation and the necessary adjunct right of lawyer-client confidentiality, or freedom of speech? Granted, Diebold is a corporation and nobody's liberty is at stake, but Diebold is a vessel for the economic interests of its shareholders, so property (another important right) is at stake and ought to be protected, no?
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Insightful)
That seems to be a nice example of the general position, "I trust myself implicitly so I don't need oversight, but you, sir, are another matter". Your point on public interest is taken, but public interest is a very slippery concept, especially when you're using it to try and define the scope of important basic rights.
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all the fault of the defendant and his lawyers.
The whole point of there being an attorney-client privilege is that both the attorney and the client have to keep the information private.
Apparently, someone at Jones Day has committed malpractice. That is not the newspaper's fault. It is Jones Day's fault, and it is Diebold's fa
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is just not good (Score:5, Informative)
Do a google for "bob novak" and "valerie plame" if you want some examples of a journalist receiving information that was provided to him illegally. The provider of the information broke the law (much like the leak at Jones Day). But Mr. Novak did not break the law in receiving the information... he merely listened. The press has no obligation to shut its eyes or hang up the phone merely because it knows that the person communicating with it has broken the law.
The fact that the informant broke the law does not follow the information in order to somehow make the newspaper guilty.
Re:This is just not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the linked article is not about the attorney-client privilege. That's a separate right that exists with or without DMCA, and applies to the government. IANAL, but I believe any evidence obtained by prosecution that violates attorney-client privilege will not be admissible in court.
The linked article [corante.com], however, discusses something else. This does not only apply to lawyers' doc
REALITY CHECK (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anytime. Or more specifically, whenever the Supreme Court says they can and law enforcement, guns and all (beginning with the Justice Dept.), sides with government. Who appoints justices and cabinet-level law enforcement? The President.
This is why presidential elections matter, even though it's supposedly congress that makes laws... the existence of checks and balances is not foreordained by the nature of the universe; it depends on a populace who votes carefully to keep these checks and balances in place and to keep the power-hungry or purchasable out of office.
Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Regardless? (Score:4, Insightful)
not voting IS the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
if everyone actually got out there and voted, the whole election game would be miles left of where it is now. many with liberal leanings tend to feel dis-enfranchised (see: youth) and dont vote. and they make the system as bad as it is by letting all these assclown republicans actually have the relative support (votes: the only support that matters in the end) for the prank
Re:not voting IS the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Insightful)
A. Bush will stay in office if they do not vote Democrat.
b. Their vote does not count unless they vote democrat or republican.
I refuse to give into fear-mongering.
You don't have to do it across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it shows a trend toward the major disenchantment with the major parties that people are voicing more and more. They're currently getting their feet wet with the other parties. If those parties prove themselves on a local level, we'll start seeing more fo them win in Congress and eventually they may take the presidency. And I, for one, welcome our new left-handed lesbian eskimo albino party overlords.
Re:You don't have to do it across the board (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure there is: my own conscience.
"Anybody but Bush" is a very, very dangerous path to tread. I'll vote for Kerry if I think I wouldn't mind him as president, but if he pisses me off the way Gore did, a minor party will be getting my vote again.
Then again, I'm in California, so it's not like I'm going to lose the election for the Democrats (latest poll [latimes.com] shows Bush'
Re:Regardless? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's nearly impossible for somebody who is not affiliated with an established political party to win White House. Simply put, our electoral system requires that the most powerful single-person role in or system have more backing than can be obtained in just one race alone.
See, in order to win the Electoral College vote, a canadate needs a whole lot more than just a plurality of the popular vote. A majority of the Electoral College votes must be captured, and that means one must win a plurality in several states. Having an evenly distributed 5% of the vote will register as a 0 under this scoring system. You'll need to distact at least 40% of the vote, and you'll need to do that in multiple states. Not just more than both the Democratic and Republican candidate, but you'll need to get a majority of the Electoral College "points" to secure a victory.
No non-party candiate has much of a hope of ever pulling that feat. At best, in a 3-man race, the most likely outcome will be a roughly-even split, something along the lines of 38%, 32%, 30%. That kicks our electoral system into overtime...
In such a situation that no ticket gets a majority of the Electoral College, the presidential race kicks to the House Of Representives... in a one-state, one-vote configuration determined by the representives of that state. In short, it'll end up being a party-lines vote going to the side that has a majority in the House.
Anybody who hopes to be president without the Democrats or the Republican Party's help must start their own party, and establish it by winning House seats one-by-one first. They don't need to take a majority control of the congress, they goal is to control a majority of the delegation to the House of at least 20, perferably 26 of 50 states. That way, their candidate needs only win a small number of states to win the election.
Ralph Nader's reputation is to be a "challenge the system" kind of guy, but the electoral system is entrenched in the Constitution and it's going to take an amendment to get it out. It doesn't mandate that we have a 2-party system, but it more or less prevents one individual from taking over the executive branch single-handedly.
A third party should seek a firm control of lower offices before trying to reach for the big one. One Representive it all it takes to filibuster the House, which is almost as effective as a presidential veto.
Re:Regardless? (Score:2)
Um, filibusters are unique to the Senate.
Re:Regardless? (Score:2)
Re:Regardless? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is of course, assuming people challenge it in court, and the courts have a sense of justice and haven't sold out. Maybe when the people realize what has happened to them, they will demand their rights, and feel free to use armed revolution if necessary. Unfortunately, the apathy of the average American (spoken as a young American who is disenchanted by the rights we have lost so far, and the rights we will come to liose) makes me fear the future.
Re:Regardless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. And assuming that someone is so passionate about our RIGHTS that they have the balls to disobey the DMCA so that it can be challenged.
Until someone stops complaining about it and gets it to the Supreme Court, nothing is going to change. So the question is, is anyone ready to take the leap? I'm hoping that the Tribune goes and publishes anyway. Someone needs to take this risk, maybe it will be them.
I'm know I'd buy a subscription if they went through with it - probably not of much consequence to them if they lose the case, of course.
Here's to the digital millenium.
Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Insightful)
You aren't going to topple the U.S. government with arms anytime soon. Nonviolence, think Ghandi is the only viable approach to defeating the monster that has taken control of America. Study Ghandi's tactics, for example his march to the sea to make salt to defy Britain's colonial tax on salt. Peaceful protests, legal but on the edge and sure to provoke an excessive
Re:Regardless? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Regardless? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Regardless? (Score:2)
But the legal precedents for freedom of speech are not the same as those for freedom of the press. This is not the same kind of case as a free speech case.
Posting (Score:5, Funny)
Time to re-write the Star Spangled Banner (Score:2, Insightful)
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking greater good here. It is in the interest of the public to know that Diebold's voting machines are downright dangerous to the freedom and security of American elections, DMCA and other laws on information be damned.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Is it in the public's interest to know the identities of everyone who is HIV-positive? I mean, greater good and all...
It *is* important whether or not the information was obtained legally. These laws protect *everyone*, even the bad guys. If we stop respecting them
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about if right to privacy trumped free speech in ALL cases - there wouldn't be _any_ leaked memos. I think that, in this case, a newspaper might very well win the case, but it's not a forgone conclusion, nor should it be.
Illegally obtained information is not specially prote
Re:So... (Score:2)
I wouldn't agree with that statement at all. Sure, they serve similar roles, and perhaps have similar importance, though I tend to think that there's even still a difference between criminal and civil matters for attorney-client privilege. Criminal is more like doctor-patient, because you're talking about liberty, which ranks right after life. Pursuit of happiness might encompass civil matters, but that's a stretch.
But they're
lets get diebold, monster style.. (Score:5, Funny)
Who can pitch in for the torches?
<g>
Re:lets get diebold, monster style.. (Score:2)
(maybe I'll bring a 12' high platform too-- just in case).
This has ben going on for some time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporate America.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I strongly believe it could get a lot worse which it will, history tells us that.
Not exactly an obscure scenario... (Score:5, Interesting)
Information wants to be free isn't just a hacker hippie value. It's the foundation of western society, from acadamia through government. The sharing of information is fundamental to the stable and just growth of any society.
Re:Not exactly an obscure scenario... (Score:3, Insightful)
however, by esposing the value of 'freedom of information' in such absolute form, you risk your crusade ruining your support.
patents are a form of information control. our military needs information control. there is a place for the control of information. however, the point of the DMCA 'evil' is that it should not be the corporations who control every bit of information at all related to them.
take everyth
It's what Osama wanted! (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle. Is it so bad to admit the man you support is an asshat, and needs to be thrown out of power, and taken up on criminal charges? God people, take some responsibility, and quit listening to Rush and attacking anyone who doesn't think like you do.
In the immortal words of George Carlin:
I say live and let live. Anyone who can't accept that should be executed.
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Umm no. ... I hope (Score:2, Redundant)
At least, that's how it's supposed to work.
Re:Umm no. ... I hope (Score:2)
Um, actually, treaties trump the Constitution. It's a clever loophole: Article VI lists them second, but Supreme Court precedent in Japan Line, Ltd., et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al. finds that the Supremacy Clause can actually trump states' rights, if something "prevents the United States from 'speaking with one voice' in regulating foreign trade." This gives Congress the right to enter into treaties that govern activities they are normally forbidden f
Re:Umm no. ... I hope (Score:2)
And I really have no idea how long a road it is to get the rulings that protect free speech in the face of corporate greed. But I think now is certainly a good time to start down that road.
Breach of trust! (Score:5, Insightful)
In California, the process of revoking their license for their transgressions has already started. The software that ran on election day wasn't the software version that was "locked down" and approved. That's just a basic outright fraud, and not something that a company in a position of trust should be trying to cover up.
Game over. Their word is no good anymore... if your anywhere in your state these machines are scheduled to be used, write your state election officials. Even if you're not going to vote on one of those machines, errant tallies from elsewhere in the state could tip the balance in your state's popular vote because it's looking to be a very tight presidential election yet again this year.
Re:Breach of trust! (Score:2, Troll)
Perhaps you haven't heard... Diebold is a huge supporter of the Republican party, and I'm sure they have more than enough friends in office right now (including Dubya, to whom Diebold's CEO has promised to deliver the state of Ohio). I'd be surprised if anything actually comes of this in anywhere besides California (if anything even happens there).
The Republicans are SET on making sure that our votes are "counted" by goi
I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:2)
A common rule of legal ethics states that the appearance of a conflict of interest (like a judge going on a duck hunting trip w
Re:I think Diebold needs special treatment (Score:5, Informative)
Anyways...
Where did you see records of them donating to the democratic party?
This is a great thing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the bill of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. freedom of the press...just look at this story
2. the freedom to bear firearms...has been restricted.
3. the right to a speedy and public trial...citizens can now be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, and major trials are often closed.
4. property can now be seized without due process of law.
5. wiretaps, which used to require a warrant, now can be performed with no proof and just a hint of suspicion.
The examples go on and on, and I would argue that while it may be justified in some instances, the slope is a slippery one, and I believe that we, as US citizens must stand up and tell our government that this is *not* okay!
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:2)
I posted on this earlier, and got slammed for my stance against gun control/registration. Thank you for telling it like it is.
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The press has become so lopsided, so Democrat, that they are so eager to demean the current administration that they can't even bother to check [spaceref.com] the validity of the images of "Soldiers killed in Iraqi combat".
2. And the current administration is the strongest proponent of lifting those restrictions on gun control.
3. The counter-party is blocking the appointment [nytimes.com] of new judges to replace retiring officials. Sounds like being against speedy trials to me.
4. Thank you Clinton [capmag.com] for using e
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:2)
But in truth we need to replace all members of Congress. Remember any of the who have served more than 2 terms are working for those who line their pockets. Never forget that anyone who makes less than $135,000/year has no representation. They represent their own tax bracket and the ones they aspire to.
The founding fathers wanted a citizen legislature to come in do the job and go home to real jobs, not an overpaid permanet ruling class.
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:2)
The press is using images obtained by The Memory Hole [thememoryhole.org] under a Freedom of Information Act request.
The request was for any photos of soldiers killed in Iraq. The Department of Defense, in response to the request gave a CD of photos The Memory Hole.
The Memory Hole made those photos available to the
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the parents do. Let's ask Sue Niederer, mother of slain soldier Seth Dvorin (emphasis orthogonal's):
From "The image turning America against Bush" [independent.co.uk] by Andrew Buncombe, for The Independent (UK) [independent.co.uk]
By the way, if you think news shows showing coffins is "using" the fallen soldiers, what do you think of Bush campaign ads showing the remains of a fallen firefighter being removed from Ground Zero? Surely you'll agree that an advertisement showing mangled remains is worse than a news program showing a casket with an ironed and neatly folded American flag over it? Right? Right?
Re:Remember the bill of rights? (Score:4, Funny)
My experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Our voting machines are mainly of three different (internally) models: (a) the old ones, that use VirtuOS (*) as the OS, (b) the new ones, that use WinCE as the OS, and (c) the newest and deprecated ones that have the second printer to print your vote, show it to you inside a clear acrilic case, and mix it with others inside the machine.
Externally, all of them look roughly the same: a box similar to the old "portables" of the eighties, with a 5-6" diagonal LCD and a big numerical keypad in the right side of the screen, that has, besides 0-9 keys, "confirma" (ok), "erro" (cancel), and "branco" (white).
The electoral process (from the point of view of the voter) begins
In the election day, you scan the newspapers (or the Superior Electoral Court website), search for the address of your section, and go there. No, there is no transit vote, you can only vote at that address. If you can't get there, you'll have to "justify" your absence.
At the section, you will present your voter id to one the "mesários", and if you don't have it on you, you can still vote (you can show other valid id), but will be delayed. The mesário will search for your name in the vote-ticket sheet, and annex it to your id while you vote. You will sign a receipt in a sheet, and proceed to the voting "booth". Another "mesário" will type your voter id # in a remotely connected keypad, setting the machine in the "ready to vote" mode.
The voting "booth" is really a desk with the voting machine over it, facing nobody else in the room, and sometimes with a cardboard "cover" around it. You will "dial" the numbers of the candidates, in order. when you dial all the digits of one candidate, a star-trek-like chime rings, his/her face will show up in the screen, and if you digited it right, you hit "ok". otherwise, you hit "cancel" and start over. After typing all the candidates, you hit "ok" one last time, the machine chimes again, and goes to "stand by" mode. You have voted. If you don't want to vote for nobody, you can hit "white" instead of the candidate ## (accounted as a "white vote", or "none of the above" -- this is the equivalent of putting your paper ballot in the box without marking anything), or if you really want to protest you can type 9999 or other non-existent-candidate-#, and your vote will be accounted as a "null vote", or "I'm really pissed of" (the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing "improper expletives" in a paper ballot)
Then, you get your id back, your ticket (keep it together with your voter id!!), and you go home. Ah, bars do not open (theoretically) in the election day, so hope you have bought your beer in the day before).
From the point of view of election officials, things are more complicated. The machines arrive to the Electoral Judge (yes, a Judge of Law) pre-prepared one to two months
Re:My experience (Score:2)
So... do this on a paper ballot, and its a protest of your rights being trampled. But do it on slashdot, Modded -1, troll.
Well, at least this post has no link to http://goat.cx/...
Asserting attorney-client privilege (Score:2)
What a joke, if the Federal government can violate attorney-client privilege by listening in on the phone calls of accused persons with their attorney, the Tribune can publish internal memos. All gloves are off, so to speak.
Just my 2 cents.
Is This the America I Love? (Score:4, Insightful)
Trusted Computing (Score:2)
Technology Dependance (Score:5, Interesting)
There are times when it is worth the (ahem) "extra cost" of not using computers. I think this is one of them, and you have to know when to put the foot down. Insert appropriate Monty Python imagery here.
I don't think I'm alone when I say that managers (and elected politicians are just that, popularly-chosen managers) tend to not be the sharpest bricks in the bag of hammers when it comes to technology.
Diebold PHB's == EVIL what about the developers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets hear from you -
Since I am from San Diego I know for certain you were not working on your software.
I am assuming that you must have been reading
I find it hard to believe that everyone including the developers are evil at that company. I can only assume the PHB's are not writing the code so if something dishonest was happening I am sure we would hear from an honest developer. Besides you can always vote with paper by using a mail in ballot.
Don't lose sleep in this case... (Score:3, Funny)
The Best Of The Documents Posted Thus Far.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Included in the set of links at the Bev Harris story linked in the original post [scoop.co.nz] is a particularly damning memo
This One [scoop.co.nz]
Unfortunately you can't cut and paste the content out of these memos - it turns to garbage... but this one deals with advice to Diebold on how to deal with the State of California's request to produce documents.
It is more than clear from this document that Diebold's lawyers were doing all they could to obstruct this discovery process. The memo states among other things that they want to figure out what the state already has via the original FTP site screw up [scoop.co.nz] so as not to get caught out.
They also talk about the "smoking gun" request, opining that their client "may need to obtain emails, if possible, regarding state certification of uncertified software. We need to devise a plan to locate responsive documents to this request."
What do you reckon this means...
Trying to push the limit. (Score:2)
Trusted computing is M$ FUD.
The DMCA was written by technology and entertainment companies to protect a dying business model. Then enacted by a techonlogicaly illiterate Congress.
In short, none of these groups really know what they are doing. The Supreme Court will have to rule on the DMCA/Free press issue. Nothing can be settled till then.
Re:Trying to push the limit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Diebold screwed up, and they admit it.
It'd be very difficult for them to do anything else at this point.
Trusted computing is M$ FUD.
FUD != BS. FUD is spreading unfounded and vague worries about something. FUD is a very specific subset of BS. Trusted computing as an idea is not only pushed by MS, but by all those random little companies that keep popping up with ideas to control content that don't work. It's a useful tool to extract money from media companies.
Coming soon to a theater near you... (Score:2, Funny)
"DIE BOLD, with a Vengeance."
A Jerry Bruckhiemer Production
The US government is us.... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the Pres and Co. goes, how do you think he got elected. Any president at some point is merely a puppet to certain private powers that be.
Think about it, why do we even need Tort law? Why do we even need contract law? Why do we even need freedom of press laws? Because people as a whole have some pretty sick individuals. And, those individuals (enough of them) tend to gravitate towards positions of power. Once they get some power, then tend to amplify it without regard for who it hurts.
Another way to understand what is happening is to look at the slow poisoning of the planet. What other effect do you think dumping mercury and lead into the atmosphere and rivers could have? What other effect do you think smog could have? What other effect could adding a grossly increased amount of heat trapping gasses into our atmosphere have? The majority of people do not care. If it kills their grandchildren, they will lament, but they will not care until then.
The reason the freedoms are being eroded and that companies get away with what they do is that most people do not want to give up their TV or their computer games. Most people will sit right in the path of that freight train until they get hit (and then cry foul).
The alternative? Fighting back is expensive and counter to the normal persons goal of having a nice quiet life. Another article on /. today mentioned a memo at Microsoft talking about the reason so many people did not abandon MS's poor products was the "lock-in" of people unwilling to put forth the energy to go to a better product.
Most people are like water, they choose the path of least resistance to arrive at the lowest standard of life. Not to be confused with the highest standards of consumerism. Heck, even I do not exert enough energy in the direction of preserving freedoms. I am too busy trying to ensure food is on the table, and my kids have a chance at college. Until we get past some rather serious social issues, the part where we clean up government is not likely to happen, as those in power will be able to keep it by keeping us divided amongst ourselves.
Innereb
Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification (Score:3, Interesting)
This episode casts some doubts on BVQI's validity as a certification service. Their site has no indication that they've ever revoked a certification. Their pitch to companies has no indication that a company can be refused certification. They don't even seem to pull expired certificates.
The auto industry takes ISO 9000 certification of their suppliers seriously. See these standards. [aiag.org] Note all the discussion of "revocation", "probation", "non-compliance", and "re-audit". In that world, quality standards violations lose companies the ability to sell to auto companies.
Re:Revoking Diebold's ISO 9001:2000 certification (Score:3, Informative)
I thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
That in the case of a conflict between law and the constituion that the constitution over-rode law. So actually it would be the case that the DMCA would get declared unconstituional- or at least not applicable in 1st amendment issues.
So why are the EFF getting their knickers in a twist- sounds like an opportunity to me.
Re:FP (Score:2, Funny)
In the US, you vote for politicians. In Soviet Russia, poiticians vote for you?
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Re:FP (Score:5, Funny)
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Re:FP (Score:5, Interesting)
This story is merely a small example of the freedoms we are losing. During the last 55 years, americans have experienced the biggest disillusionment of all time. An extremely young country founded on the ideals of rebels who ran from the imperialist british to create a union of more-free people in less than 200 years has become more socialist and repressive than the british ever were.
The entire political structure of our government encourages only the megalomania-induced power-hungry to become president. There are no incentives to effect true progress. The president has four short years to make a difference. During the last two, the president will spend all of his time marketing himself to the populace for reelection while engaging in back office corporate pandering to keep the ever turning economy gears spinning. If reelection isn't going to happen, then there is no point in doing anything for the future. Look at our budget deficit, SSI shortfall and trade deficit. Each successive presidency has used their childrens money as a high interest credit card in the form of bonds and foreign debts.
Adam Smith, Jefferson, all the greatest financial and political minds of the time knew that the natural tendency of any government is to grow. Growth in many ways. The founding fathers of our country were just men. Everyone now looks at their intentions with respect to the constitution and what they would do(in regards to issues like equal protection for sexual preference and marriage).
Well, wake up people. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would rebel against us. This country hasn't been what they envisioned for a long fucking time. The legal framework was left for us to change our government at will, in accordance with the wishes of the population. The population is so disenchanted with the entire process that they have quit voting entirely.
The problem is self-sustaining though. Simply abstaining from the political process merely lets those in power continue to further their abuses of position. The only way to get people to care anymore is to piss them off.
Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, whatever. What the population doesn't realize is that the two parties down deep aren't that different. They are two parties, who on the surface have their own agendas, but in reality are very similar.
Put me in a room with the president. Tell me I can come out with impunity and I would walk out alone. That wouldn't really change anything. He would just be replaced by another look-alike self-interest only president. The entire system is broken. Does america need a revolution? Again? Yes. Who would do it? No one. They are all too apathetic. Most people I talk to don't seriously think that their vote counts, or that by voting anything will really change. In fact, most people I know that vote choose the lesser of all evils on the ballot.
Before you judge me, at least learn a few things about me.
I am an American.
I hate our government.
I love our country and what it stands for.
I'm patriotic.
And no, these aren't contradictory.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DMCA (Score:2)
IF I were ever made president, I would veto EVERY peice of legislation that I didn't feel was constitutional, such as the DMCA. If congress wanted override that, then fine, but I would have let my voice be known.
Clinton didn't veto it, and didn't express displeasure. If he had, the dems in the congress would have paid close attention.
Of course, the old wifey prolly didn't want that, since it would have hurt her relation
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one reason you won't ever be president. There hasn't ever been and never will be anyone in that office who doesn't owe somebody--the DMCA was downpayment on payback for years of bribes^W campaign contributions, and is only the beginning of things to come. Expect "trusted" computing to be mandatory by 2010, to "deny terrorists and spammers access to the advanced communication networks while preserving their usefulness for law-abiding Americans."