UCITA By the Back Door 174
InfoWorld's Gripelog airs a subject that should interest this community — involved as we were with efforts against UCITA back in the day. One main aim of the derailed UCITA initiative was to give software manufacturers and content owners a degree of control over users' computers. Gripelog's Ed Foster informs us that UCITA is sneaking back in, under the cover of an anti-spyware bill, S. 1625, now making its way through the US Senate. One clause in this draft bill would legalize what the BSA calls "electronic self help" — i.e., the ability for commercial entities to cripple or disable software or networks on your computer if they believe you are violating their property rights.
business opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
"(10) detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of software fraudulent or other illegal activities."
When I hear of something like this, the first thing that occurs to me is how valuable the keys or mechanism or whatever that actually does the "preventing", how badly the criminal element would want to get hold of that information, and the inevitability that this will happen when the right price is found for whomever holds the keys.
In other words, this kind of thing will eventually, inevitably, be used for nefarious purposes.
Re:business opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like by the government or the corporations? This is not potential abuse, it is abuse on its face. Stop with the "criminals might get access", it's criminals that have the access right now!
Keeping the balance (Score:2)
Don't you think that all this anti-terrorism legislation should be balanced with at least a bit of pro-terrorism legislation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:business opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so sure. As I read the bill, there is nothing that requires the intruder to be correct in its belief that someone is using unlicensed proprietary software. Under the bill, even though I run GNU/Linux and do not use any Microsoft products, what's to prevent Microsoft or some other vendor from breaking into my system and screwing with it, whether as a result of legitimate error or intentionally, for the purpose of protecting their software?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it did would you expect it to be any stronger than with the DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the naive, optimistic view. The cynical, pessimistic view is that the people who are pushing for this truly awful law consider any use of F/OSS to be equivalent to piracy ("You're using software you didn't pay for, therefore you must be a pirate!") and they'll be able to find prosecutors, judges, and juries who can be duped into accepting this view.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never veered from telling someone they could go across the street and get it cheaper if they asked. I may not have volunteered it, but honesty is my policy. The fun thing is that because I answered truthfully they almost always bought the item from me - because they felt they could trust me and my recommendations. (I can only recall one inci
Re: (Score:2)
And it's actually this kind of nonsense that keeps otherwise great software from being used on government systems. Large, boring processes are in effect in lots of places that look for phone-home or open ports created by software. Once such a beast is found in any revision of a program, all future releases are tainted and no one is allowed to use them.
Of course, I say that, but XMLSpy and WGA do this and they still let it get used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Led Zep Back Door Man (Score:4, Funny)
'Electronic Self-Help' (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a flip side? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is there a flip side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose people who violate the GPL wouldn't know how to do this. If you are good at coding you respect other people's code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However people choose to simply copy entire portions, because they are lazy and think no one will know.
Never underestimate laziness.
Re: (Score:2)
If they distribute the unmodified binary, how are you to know that the copy you're disabling is in use or was distributed by the offending individual or corporation?
Proprietary software: DRM gateway (Score:2)
Self-Help & Much To-Do About Nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
For quite enlightened reasons (and the more cynical would say selfish ones too), courts tend not to favor resolutions that encourage self-help. Courts are not going to interpret the phrase "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of software fraudulent or other illegal activities" to allow for deprivations of or interference with the enjoyment of personal property without due process. This law can't be interpreted in any manner to set up a due process satisfying procedure, so it's pretty much unconstitutional if interpreted to allow remote disabling or (suspected) pirated property.
Assuming that the above language even means to imply the "software fraudulent" is a meaningful term, given that it appears nowhere else in the US Code, and there's no definitions section for the bill. The sentence makes a lot more sense if "...software for fraudulent..." was their intended language.
In that context, it seems less like a backdoor attempt to insert remote disabling into law and more like a phrase in line with preventing malware. UCITA was dangerous because it allowed people to contract away their protection against this sort of thing, which is less constitutionally suspect than just writing into law at large.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aaaand... that means what, exactly?
Call it the CAN SPY Act. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is wishful thinking:
Like they kept NBC and Vista from blocking recording of TV shows? People holding the appropriate offices at the DOJ were probably cheering the censorship potential of that and they are rooting for even better illegal wiretaps.
It w
Re: (Score:2)
See Sony v. Universal (Score:3, Interesting)
People can't be punished for time shifting [virtualrecordings.com]. Society did not consider time shifting a publication and does not prevent it to enforce the created right of copyright. Recent rulings on the broadcast flag all reached the same conclusion so both their broadcast and listening for and obeying the broadcast flag are voluntary - ie a pointless competitive disadvantage that outrages customers.
In time, encrypted works will not be considered publications and lose copyright protection. Encrypted works may never ent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While there are rulings saying time shifting is not illegal, those rulings do not place vendors under a requirement to ensure you have the ability to carry out a
Re:Self-Help & Much To-Do About Nothing. (Score:4, Interesting)
But that's the thing. The vendors do not consider said software your personal property. They consider it to be their property that you have a license to use and they would no doubt argue that all the way to the SCOTUS.
Read it with the DMCA anti circumvention clause (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you're an organization that needs a license for 50 copies of whatever you'd get
Re: (Score:2)
Can O Worms (Score:5, Insightful)
So if an entity (any virus writer, for example), incorporates, then it's legal for them to mess with your computer? All they need to do is claim that they have evidence that you are infringing some property rights of theirs?
Is Congress insane?
The real answer is that they don't tend to think of consequences. Rather they are more interested in rewarding their friends and financiers.
Close (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Screw 'em I say! (Score:5, Insightful)
It will frankly create a situation ripe for software-license blackmail and extortion.
If they're so intent on shooting themselves in the foot, all the better for the rest of the world. Enough is enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Screw 'em I say! (Score:5, Insightful)
The data restoration couldn't begin until the vendor fixed the license issue, which took ~45 minutes. Since we had a 12 hour recovery limit that was a long time. We worked with the vendor to make sure that our DR process wouldn't be affected by this issue, and it never happened again.
Ergo, many companies in their right minds trust their vendors, just like they trust their banks not to steal their money. The difference between Very Big Companies and you is that each VBC is worth millions of dollars to the vendor, and screwing one VBC can cause many other VBCs to defect to vendors they can trust. You, OTOH, are worth about $59.99 and if they screw you most of their other customers will never know about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It will frankly create a situation ripe for software-license blackmail and extortion.
Had that problem with AutoDesk a while back. One of our remote sites wanted to transfer an AutoCAD licence from one PC to another and decided the way to do this was without informing the IT Department.
Uninstalled it from PC #1, installed it on PC #2 and got stuck trying to "activate" it. The portable licence transfer utility got removed in the process, so we couldn't do the licence transfer ourselves. Email AutoDesk and not only would they not help us out, they demanded we give them proof of purchase fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You did forget one group of people. The Simple End Users. Companies that would choose this type of behavior will screw these people over ridiculously fast. I don't think the receipt will make it into their pockets before they are bent over with a funny expression on their face. However, that is what hard c
Does it mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any time I see stories like this, or making it legal for copyright holders to break into/destroy/etc. people's computers I tend to think that while it may help some big players in the short run a nice Akido type move is lurking in the background for the very small players as well.
Incorporate, create some software (or some music) and leak it to the net. Now, anyone is a possible target for you because it is possible that they coul
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, would you please open the ports?
According to this bill (Score:5, Insightful)
and "(10) detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of software fraudulent or other illegal activities."
Well clearly, as per the article they are slipping in "any enforcement we choose" actions regarding the ability of the BSA (etc) to pry into your computer with spyware like tools...
But worse, the spyware perpetrators themselves gain free immunity to all their spyware actions if they can proved they are "a provider of an information service" which, in fact, they are. They provide my information to their paying customers.
Now not only is spyware made penalty free (by accident) but Auditing Trojans that "accidentally" destroy all your data while "trying to detect" whether you have stolen Barbie's Big Adventure
The corporations, both legal and illegal, now own your computer in every way that matters.
Ta Da!
Re:According to this bill (Score:5, Interesting)
If worse comes to worse you could start buying your software from Canada, or it might be as easy as ticking Canada as your country during the installation process...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And given that the average government, no matter where, is quite favorable towards companies that sell thin air (i.e. content), since it doesn't require the import of a lot of resources while allowing the export of
contempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Congratulations, you people just created another pirate.
Re:contempt (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep saying that - its a self-fulfilling prophecy.
the more unjust laws that lobbyists create, the more anger and disillusionment the customer (!) base will become.
they have created more pissed-off customers than they realize. so any laws just become ignored by those in the current generation.
I wonder where this will end? where will it extrapolate to? will the media industry ever 'get it'? this is an arms race and its not heading toward any kind of stability and in fact its heading quite out of control.
our politicians are creating favorable laws for themselves and their lobbyist contributors. big business is having a cream-fest with all the new laws that have been passed in the last several years, to their benefit and to the detriment of the consumer.
I encourage people to decide for themselves if they should follow UNJUST LAWS or not. for a long time, slavery was allowed and perfectly legal and laws supported it. it was bad to follow such laws back then and similarly, when you find bad laws its your patriotic duty to ignore them.
we can't seem to change the laws - the power base is not ours. so, what we have left is to nullify the laws by challenging them and refusing to follow them.
LONG LIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Re: (Score:2)
When the definition of a "good person" changes from "someone who doesn't break the law" to "someone who breaks unjust laws", because if you didn't the term "good person" could not be applied anymore, something is horribly wrong with the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No law should ever go unquestioned. Ever. Some of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind were only possible because people failed to question their laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By writing themselves into the law as "above the law", I no longer feel particularly feel any moral obligation to obey the law. The only principle that guides my behavior now when it comes to dealing with the RIAA/MPAA is "don't get caught".
Yes, laws like these should be disobeyed at all opportunities. But do you know what would really make RIAA/MPAA mad?
Don't listen to their music or watch their movies AT ALL.
By consuming their products (whether you pay for it or not), you let them maintain their cultural influence and dominance—and things like that can be used to make money, if not by direct sale. Drive them into irrelevance and obscurity by refusing to listen to or watch anything made by those who would make slaves of the general pop
UCITA isn't dead (Score:3, Informative)
Some exceptions are necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, maybe they could come up with a lot more specifics, thus making the law a lot more unreadable and drawn out, and potentially causing headaches for any circumstances that were left out. But I'm afraid there will probably have to be some sort of exceptions made along the lines of "unathorized software" and/or "fraudulent use" that are potentially over-generalized.
Re:Some exceptions are necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like WoW is more important than due process rights.
(Not that that's what the bill actually does, but I'm kind of horrified to see someone supporting what the article purports that it to.)
Re: (Score:2)
Because your lobbyist doesn't contribute as much to the appropriate candidates' election campaigns?
Re:Some exceptions are necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
ie, a work machine (or even many discrete ones), a home machine, a machine that can be task-related and shared, a machine that is ONLY private stuff and no commercial software, etc etc.
so if there has to be 'crap' installed on some box, don't let it invade on ALL your boxes. partition the systems so that you limit exposure or damage potential. contain the 'viruses', so to speak.
there was a slash story about nokia and their 'bright lines' between GPL and private code. same basic idea here but translated to keeping info on separate boxes and limiting what kind of programs get installed on each 'type' of box.
PITA to have to think in those terms, though!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been quite a run, yes. The average thought that enters my mind when I read about a new law is usually "ok, how're they gonna screw me over this time?". Somehow I think it shouldn't be that way. Laws should be to the benefit of the general population. I might not agree with all of them. I might not benefit from all of them. But I
Re: (Score:2)
people here (as a group) are fed up and don't trust ANY of the decisions by the current bunch of clowns that have been running our government.
just like you, when I hear about some new law that is being proposed, I just *know* that its not being passed to fix a real problem and I know its not being proposed by anyone with a good clue-factor. its there for some interest group and its been paid for, with 100% ce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is a world-wide trend in the collapse of individual freedom.
there's nowhere to run or hide to. ALL governments are starting to like the taste of net.monitoring and data collection on a grand scale.
(what the other gov's may not know is that the US gov (who t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a rat's ass about Blizzard or any other company trying to protect their precious game, if they infect my machine "just in case I might install" some of their crapware, I'll answer with a sensible DDoS. Let's see how much bandwidth those servers can really swallow.
I would be open to this, *IF* (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't read this legislation. But UCITA most certainly did not do that; it placed control completely in the hands of the software vendor (copyright holder). I think this type of DRM could fly with a real adjudication process that's fair and fully public.
Does the government know? (Score:2)
This could also do very bad things to businesses under similar circumstances. And before any claims "but your users shouldn't be
Trojan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Today seems to be a good day for people wanting to cause grief on the net.
Boy, I hope that Google makes a violation claim against Microsoft. Let the battle begin!
Back Doors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd start by tapping into your economy. Lots of Windows machines, lots of standard software, lots of computer illiterates with a lot of interesting information and even more power (read: bankers, brokers, accountants and auditors).
Why not make some important bank sell all their stock for a company you want to take over cheaply?
Publicity is key (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, people don't remember, even if they knew. Mr. Hesse (the Sony PR guy at that time) had it right. Why should people be bothered by our rootkit, most don't even know what it is. And that's pretty much how it is. People still buy Sony crap, people still even buy Sony content, no fallout at all from this.
What would happen if some company decided to use this new "feature"? Why am I writing in subjunctive, what will happen when some company decides to use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contact your Senators! (Score:3, Informative)
Please contact your senators!
Re:Contact your Senators! (Score:4, Informative)
If any of you have recognizable credentials in the field, please try to contact your senator or congressperson and offer your assistance in these matters. I've received a very grateful response from my senator for this offer, and I've been called by his office before with questions about issues.
Here's a chance to have more than your "fair share" of influence in certain matters.
Take advantage of it.
Dumbasses, twice (Score:5, Insightful)
Point the first: If they think this won't get hacked, they're out of their freaking minds. You think spyware is bad now, just leave a huge hole in your OS where other people can come in and change stuff. This proposal will make the problem worse, day one. Or should I say 0-day.
Point the second: Accountability. Assuming this could get implemented and be magically unhackable, what all are they actually allowed to do, and who will oversee this?
Put another way, let's say I release an email client that is legal to use for non-commercial purposes. May I read all of your email to see that you're sticking to the EULA? May I delete the ones that are commercial?
How far can this go, and what checks and balances do they propose?
Constittutional (Score:2)
We have to destroy property in order to save it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised(but not too surprised) that this sort of thing doesn't get more attention from the free enterprise and private property crowd; it is, after all, a much greater threat than any of the pitiful remnants of Communism that still survive. If this sort of stuff persists, it will, in effect, be illegal to own almost any computerized device(sure, you'll own the actual hardware; but the software and firmware will be licenced-revocable-at-will from dozens of different firms, all with the authority to poke at your device whenever they want). I'm sure that some of the true believers will comfort themselves with the fact that it isn't the State that is to blame; but private property will be just as dead as if it were.
I encourage BSA members "losing" money (Score:4, Informative)
I encourage the use of BSA-profit-depriving alternatives such as:
* Linux rather than Windows
* The OpenOffice.org and OxygenOffice suites rather than Microsoft Office
* Thunderbird or Evolution+Lightning rather than Outlook
* Moon Secure rather than the buggy, resource-hogging Symantec antivirus
* Scalix, Zimbra, or even good old Postfix rather than Exchange
* Mozilla Firefox rather than the insecure MSIE
* Spybot S&D rather than commercial (OK this one is freeware not F/OSS but proprietary/free as in beer is great when the payware solutions suck!)
* ASSP rather than Symantec's crappy spam filter - which after an automatic update deleted every single email attachment in my Exchange Info Store years ago, which prompted my moving almost everything at the office back to Linux. ASSP blocks more spam, incurs fewer false positives, plus it's FREE/OSS! I implement ASSP for clients running both Windows and Linux mail servers.
That isn't to say I am opposed to buying software, nor is open source software a solution for everyone. I pay for my Linux distributions, I buy Crossover Office and Zend Studio, and I just bought a Windows game. There is an intern at one of my clients wanting to get everyone on open source across the board, and was asking me why I didn't do it. I pointed him to the fact that QCAD is 2D-only, PythonCAD is weak, other CAD solutions on Linux are immature, incomplete, incompatible (no LISP), or in planning stages, plus there would be HUGE training issues. Also, they NEED M$ office for some of the programs they need to run, and several engineering programs they use "might" run under wine, but there is no way the execs would approve of the training cost. We're planning a Linux server for them for some time sheet/project billing software, but there is no realistic way they can dump Windows. As it is, I have OOo.org, Firefox, PDF Creator (no more "pirating" Distiller), 7 Zip (no more "pirating" Winzip!), Filezilla (No more "pirating" WS_FTP), and various other F/OSS and freeware programs deployed there. When I pointed that all out he saw the reality of it: F/OSS is not the BFH that works for every solution, but when it can be used, it should be.
In the architecture industry there are few alternatives to AutoCAD or DesignCAD, both of which require Windows.
Also, for syncing up PDAs, smartphones, etc. nothing beats Windows and Exchange+Outlook.
There isn't a good affordable alternative to Quickbooks - and none that I know of that run on Linux.
You're a gamer? CVS Cedega, Cedega, and Crossover Games may play a lot of games, but not all. Like Microsoft Live games? Linux is probably not the best solution for you.
I recommend F/OSS solutions whenever possible, because it's best for the client, it's best for the F/OSS community (exposure), and it helps keep the market forces (read: Microsoft) keep their prices in check.
No, I'm not going to look it up (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems odd since the nature of the numerous comments is very alarming, however none of the comments mention what the initialism stands for.
My maill to Miss Hutchison (Score:2)
This bill should not be passed in the state that it is in because it includes exemptions for "telecommunications carriers, cable operators, computer hardware and software providers, financial institutions or providers of information service or interactive computer services..." that could be decremental to consumers. These exemptions grant immunity to such companies and groups to impose on personal privacy for the followin
Congress Abdicates in Favor of Vigilantes (Score:2)
What do we pay those people to do, anyway? Ruin us? We can get that for free.
Re: (Score:2)
We wouldn't have these problems (Score:2)
These problems would all go away if we just abolished copyright altogether.
From last weeks Ed Foster column, about Barracuda (Score:2)
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2008/6/3/0529/41400 [gripe2ed.com]
It's unclear from that statement whether
Re: (Score:2)
This statement will NEVER hold in a court of law.
And in addition, if i twist the MPAA president's speech: If i buy a chair, i can sit on it or pee on it, or sell it. If xyz Corp chose to remove the legs of the chair because my wife is sitting on it instead of me, they can expect a product liability suit, wire fraud suit, OSHA investigation (under Obama), and Damage to Private Property criminal cases.
It will be long day before the CEO gets out of prison.
Stuff and nonsense! (Score:2)
Thought UCITA was inherently through the back door (Score:4, Funny)
tm
Re:Thought UCITA was inherently through the back d (Score:2)
Ah Slashdot, the Great Communicator.
May not be as bad as it sounds. (Score:2)
From my reading of the article it sounds like the bill adds additional "protections" to current law. Additionally the exemptions sound like they apply solely to this bill. That's fine because as the article notes, all of these things are already banned. If this bill replaces current laws restricting unauthorized access to comp
self-help? (Score:2)
"electronic self help" -- Oh, how nice (Score:2)
Then I have the right to disable their corporation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft has tried this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember Sony? The guys with the rootkit? And? PS3s sell well, BluRay won the HD war and they're having a record high in profits.
Oh, you mean not enough media coverage, it was a far too geeky topic? Ok, another example: Nokia in Germany. In a nutshell, they cashed in the bribe, fulfilled just the necessary contract and then laid off their workers and moved to Rumania. Now THAT had media coverage! A national outcry, politicians trashing their Nokia cells in front of cameras and calling people to do just the same to "stick it to them"...
Nokia recovered instantly from the week long "boycott". Hey, you get one of those cells free with your next 2 year contract, how can you lose?
People have the long term memory of a gold fish and their eyes on their wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm still not buying Sony, if that helps. They've demonstrated themselves as not to be trusted. If they'll do that to a bloody audio cd, who knows what might lurk in their firmware. That means no Vaio machines anywhere where I have input into the corporate IT strategy, and no PS3 Linux boxes. They've cast serious doubts about their equipment being fit for purpose - so much so that I can't begin to imagine how they'd recover the damage to their reputati