Patriot Act under fire

The NYT online [is reporting](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Patriot-Act-Libraries.html) that the house voted this morning to limit the scope of some of the Patriot Act’s provisions regarding access to library and bookstore records. Apparently, certain members of Congress are figuring out that using what people read against them, or investigating them based on what they read is an affront to the general notion of freedom, and probably several clauses of the First Amendment:

>”No question, this is a real shot in the arm for those of us who want to make changes to the USA Patriot Act,” said Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., sponsor of the provision that would curtail the government’s ability to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects. He said the vote would help ”rein in an administration intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation.”

Sounds good to me. Of course, internet logs, if kept, are still subject to pretty much unlimited scrutiny, even public library logs, under the Partiot Act, and there are still the Senate and President to contend with. In other words, I’m not holding my breath yet. But this *is* a real step in the right direction, and the ACLU agrees:

>”It bodes well that the first vote Congress has taken on the Patriot Act this year has been in favor of liberty and freedom,” said Gregory Nojeim, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union

The battle is far from over, though; dicussions on the Patriot Act renewal are just beginning, and it’s too early to tell what the end results will be, especially with Gerealissimo Gonzales in the thick of things. When asked in the debate over the current vote whether the government would consider just dropping the library provision from the requested act:

> Gonzales demurred. ”It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint,” he said.

Yep. It’s going to be a long, tough slog on this one.

I wonder if the EFF and friends will organize a lobbying blitz a la HR 550 at some point in the process? I hope so.

[[link](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Patriot-Act-Libraries.html)]

Swift Boat Veterans for the MPAA?

It’s official, the political spammers have found me. It was only a matter of time, I suppose.

In the last two days I’ve received comments to two of my previous posts [[1](http://www.engatiki.org/2005/05/20/32) [2](http://www.engatiki.org/2005/05/26/41)] from “readers” identifying themselves as “jake@yahoo.com” and “geist@yahoo.com” (no relation to [Michael](http://www.michaelgeist.ca), I presume) telling me that [Jorge Cortell](http://jorge.cortell.net/) has been completely discredited among Spanish bloggers and pointng me to the same [article](http://www.acam.es/noticias_detalle.php?id=858) from a Spanish recording industry group with the details.

There are a couple of interesting things about this.

1) jake and geist both seem to share the same cable connection from a Canadian ISP at [24.43.132.119](http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=24.43.132.119), leading one to believe that they might in fact be the same person, and,

2) [Spanish bloggers](http://www.error500.net/universidad_brantidge_jorge_cortell) and [on-line press](http://www.noticiasdot.com/publicaciones/2005/0505/2305/noticias/noticias_230505-14.htm) don’t seem to see it [quite that way](http://www.proyectoisla.com/mangasverdes/?p=845).

Man, I love the smell of troll in the morning.

My Spanish is a little rusty, but the root of the issue seems to be some inconsistencies in Cortell’s C.V. Specifically, his published C.V. says he went to Kellog College, rather than Kellogg Community College, although it does list the degree recieved as A.Sc., which is a pretty clear indication to any North American reader, at least. It also appears that at least one of his degrees came from a correspondence “diploma mill”.

There’s something dishonest at work here, no doubt. But the lies don’t seem to have been particularly heinous, and Jorge has provided the [original documents](http://homepage.mac.com/jorgecortell/blogwavestudio/LH20041021170027/LHA20050529142818/index.html) that show what really happened. I can’t approve of C.V. padding, but the inconsistencies aren’t really as bad as some people are making them out be, and padding is an unfortunately common practice in academics–as no doubt everywhere else.

Even so, if people wanted to call him a lying, cheating, disgrase on the whole profession, I wouldn’t complain nearly as loudly as I’m about to. This particular smear campaing really ticks me off, and here’s why:

None of the articles attacking Jorge have claimed that the incident never happened. None. They’ve claimed that he isn’t exactly who he said he was, and most importantly that he wasn’t a professor.

Pardon me while I pause for my rage to subside.

*pause*

*pause*

Fist of all, he never claimed to be a professor, he claimed to be an instructor, and he seems to have the pay stubs to prove it. He was reported in the press as a “professor,” and corrected commentors from the beginning.

Second, who the ["French" expunged] cares? As an occasional teaching fellow/adjunct/what have you myself, I bristle as the suggestion that all members of the university community, from presidents right on down to incoming Freshmen aren’t entitled to have their academic freedoms protected. And that range includes adjuncts and lecturers, thank you very much. The idea that someone’s academic rank should have any bearing on whether that person is allowed to speak about a topic is absurd. I don’t care if it turns out he was the [explative deleted] janitor, the administration shouldn’t have cancelled a lecture because someone didn’t like it. Academic freedom is just that: freedom. And we’re not talking about breaking into the chem lab in the middle of the night to teach people how to make crystal meth, here. We’re talking about a giving a publically announced lecture on a common technology at the invitation of the student union.

I’m not defending Jorge’s actions, here, or defending him as a person. But nothing he did or didn’t do affects the validity of the accusations acainst the recording industry, or mitigates the shameful behavior of the UPV administration. The fact is that the university succumbed to pressure from the industry, and it was willing to sacrifice its integrity to keep its friends. That fact remains inexcusable, whatever the circumstances.

[[link](http://www.engatiki.org/2005/05/20/32) to my original post on the subject.]

Blogging

I know it’s been a slow week around here, but I have an excuse: I’ve been invited to blog at [The Unofficial Apple Weblog](http://www.tuaw.com), and three posts a day over there is taking a lot more time and energy than I would have thought, at least while I’m getting settled in.

No worries, though, I’ll still be around here on a regular basis, and I hope to really be back in the swing of things next week–of at the latest when my Italian class ends; it’s a time suck, too. Until then, I’ll probably only be posting two or three times a week.

Oh, well, it’s Summer, right?

HR 550 Lobbying

For those who missed the announcement, the EFF has been [blogging](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/cat_evoting_lobby_days.php) a two-day lobbyathon in Washington, D.C., in support of HR550, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. Among other things, the bill would require paper trails that could be verified but voters and challengers. The event, which was organized by a colalition including the EFF, Common Cause, VerifiedVoting.org, VoteTrustUSA, Voters United, Rock the Vote, and Working Assets, assembled more than 200 volunteer lobbyists in an attempt to lobby every representative on the Hill.

There will be more information after the news conference organized by bill sponsor Rush Holt (D-NJ) sometime this afternoon, but some highlights so far:

Reps the EFF met with whose responses were “encouraging”:

* John Corzine (D-NJ)
* Dave Walden (R-OR)
* Dave Reichert’s (R-WA)

On the “less than encouraging” side:

* Robert Menendez (R-NJ)
* Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
* Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
* Jim Leach (R-IA) [[link](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003648.php)]

It seems the EFF spent a lot of time with the New Jersey delegation. Garrett in particular will see the bill passed over his dead body, stating that verified voting is unconstitutional. Howso? He won’t say. Ferguson has some legitimate concerns about adding another layer of complication to technology that isn’t stable. That makes sense. What what would me more sense is not trusting elections to technology that you think may break if you ask it for a printout, or that you think may already be broken.

OpenNTPD 3.7 Released

Just received from Henning Brauer on openbsd-announce:

>OpenNTPD 3.7 has just been released. It will be available from the mirrors listed at http://www.openntpd.org/ shortly. This is our third formal release.
>
> OpenNTPD is a FREE, easy to use implementation of the Network Time Protocol. It provides the ability to sync the local clock to remote NTP servers and can act as NTP server itself, redistributing the local clock.
>
> OpenNTPD is developed as part of the OpenBSD project

Education for sale to buyers other than the MPAA

From today’s Toronto Star:

> For the past several months, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd., one of the country’s largest publishers of university textbooks, has been quietly trying to coax companies into buying advertising space in their texts.
>
> “Reach a hard to get target group where they spend all their parents’ money,” says a McGraw-Hill brochure touting its planned ads. “Do you really think 18-24 year olds see those on-campus magazine ads? Do you really think they could miss an ad that is placed in a very well-respected textbook?”
>
> The Whitby-based publisher, which has made presentations about its prospective textbook ads to more than a dozen advertising agencies, says in its brochure that ads can be purchased nationally or regionally, and “can be so targeted, you can even buy a specific major. [[link](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1118095836116&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes)]

It’s not quite as bad as it sounds at first glance: the ads they’re referring to are the “tip-ins” that have been common in U.S. textbooks for a while, not on-page printed ads. But the predatory language is disgusting, as is the magazine vs. textbook turf war in classrooms.

(via [xeni](http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/07/ads_inside_textbooks.html))

Buy Unamerican; Buy Ford

I knew there had to be a reason I’ve always driven Fords. Well, actually the main reason is that growing up in Dearborn, MI–the homeotwn of–it was simply de riguer. [http://www.boycottford.com/](http://www.boycottford.com/), though, gives some pretty compelling reasons for continuing to do so. If Ford Motor Company is only half as evil as the AFA claims, they’ll still be on the top of my list if I can ever afford to replace my aging Cougar:

> If one looks for the company which has done the most to affirm and promote the homosexual lifestyle, he would be hard-pressed to find a company which has done more than Ford Motor Company. While this is hardly known to the general population, it is well known by numerous homosexual organizations. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign (a national homosexual organization whose goal is homosexual marriage) gave Ford a 100% corporate rating.
>
> Ford makes not only Ford, but also Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover.
>
> From redefining family to include homosexual marriage, to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to support homosexual groups and their agenda, to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality, to sponsoring a “commitment (marriage) ceremony”, to sponsoring Gay Pride Parades, Ford leads the way. [[link](http://www.boycottford.com/)]

Apparently, this is all supposed to be bad.

If you ask me, it’s an amazing turnaround for a company founded by a homophobic Nazi sympathizer. I guess the heirs are set on righting the sins of the father. Works for me. (via [dcdan](http://dcdan.blogspot.com/2005/05/if-there-was-ever-reason-to-buy-ford.html))

Smile! You’re on MPAAPD Camera!

Not sure how I missed this, but John Borland at c|net posted an article Tuesday about the MPAA’s plan to buy surveillance cameras for downtown LA. First they tried buying public schools, now they’re trying to buy the municipal police:

> The Motion Picture Association of America said Tuesday that it will fund the installation of 10 new surveillance cameras in downtown Los Angeles–ostensibly to help catch ne’er-do-wells who are selling counterfeit DVDs on the streets.
>
> But don’t worry, it will be the city police department watching the close-circuit screens, not Hollywood piracy enforcers. I presume that the resolution on the new cameras will be good enough to detect the subtle differences between actual counterfeits and used DVDs, which are legal to sell under the first sale doctrine. [[link](http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-5726874.html?part=rss&tag=5726874&subj=news)]

I’m speechless. Fortunately, my fingers don’t much care if my jaw is agape. There are a lot questions that need to be asked here. First there are the standard questions about cameras in public places, re privacy and presumption of innocence. I’m going to ignore those for the moment.

If the MPAA is funding the cameras, will they have a say in where the LAPD deploys them? I’m guessing yes. If I were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment like this, I’d probably refuse to “donate” it unless is was gonig someplace I approved of. This means that the MPAA will actually be able to dictate police policy. The cameras will go where they want. And officers will go where they want, in response to what’s on tape.

In other words, they’re getting a small, private police force for $180,000. Not a bad deal. It’s not as if they’ve bought the entire LAPD outright, but this is frightening amount of influence. (via [make:blog](http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/06/the_mpaa_to_fun.html))

DRM: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Part II

In a previous post, I suggested that people who don’t like DRM (or a particular DRM model) stop buying music with a DRM implementation they don’t like. I’d just like to reiterate that point. Whining alone isn’t going to win this battle. Even court battles aren’t going to help much if it’s fait accompli, and the music companies know it.

> BMG Music Entertainment announced that it has been testing a digital rights management (DRM) system called “sterile burning” and has already released 10 CD titles — about 1 million discs — with the copy protection. It did not say which ones they were.
>
>”Sterile burning” limits the number of copies a consumer can make from a purchased CD and prevents copies being made from copies.

> Although some worry that these measures will limit “fair use” or the ability of consumers to use purchased material legally, analysts disagree.
>
> “The fact is, except for a handful of crooks who really want to make a profit from pirated CD sales, the majority of consumers are innocent and the rights control prescribed by the DRM adequately satisfies their needs,” Harry Wang, research analyst, Parks Associates Latest News about Parks Associates, told TechNewsWorld. “If the control on CDs is reasonable and considerate of consumers’ usage patterns, with other incentives, such as bonus features or reduced pricing, I don’t believe consumers will continue to balk at it in the long run.” (empasis mine) [[link](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/security/43472.html)]

At the same time, the [Parks Associates](http://www.parksassociates.com/) survey reiterates what most of us have said for a long time: copying doesn’t hurt sales.

> Wang said he believes piracy and consumer copying are two separate issues. “Parks consumer data consistently show that among music listeners, about half have at least some portion of their CDs from a ripped source. The other half never ripped CDs. And heavy rippers at the same time are also heavy purchasers of CDs,” he said.

So there really is no good reason for DRM after all, other than to make execs sleep better at night because they’re combatting real piracy, while conveniently ignoring the truth that the real pirates aren’t going to pay too much attention to DRM. But, as long as no one makes too much noise, there’s no reason for the industry not to make a couple extra bucks by charging everyone extra for extra copies of works:

> While consumers are not thrilled with the idea of DRM, Parks Associates surveys show that they are adjusting to it.
>
> “If given a choice between a copy-protected CD and a normal CD with the same content, same features and same price, you would probably act like me and select the normal CD. People always want more freedom,” Wang said. “So the issue really is about the business models employed to induce consumers to get used to the copy-protected CDs. Online digital music from the start employed DRM to protect willful copying and redistribution of music. I didn’t see a significant amount of complaints from consumers about being unable to copy thousands of times.”

So let me reiterate this: DRM is a product and a marketing strategy. and as long as people are willing to buy it, record companies are going to continue to sell it. It doesn’t matter if it’s “right”. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense. It only matters that people are willing to put thier money on the counter (or the server, as the case may be).

A purchase from Napster or Music Unlimeted (or, unfortuntely iTMS, although I still hold out hope there) is a vote for DRM. A purchase of a DRM’d CD or DVD is a vote for DRM.

It’s as simple as that, really.

(via [linux insider](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/security/43472.html))

Waiting for whitehouse.xxx

Yesterday, [ICANN](http://www.icann.org) announced the [approval](http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01jun05.htm) of a new sTLD, .xxx. the .xxx TLD is being sponsored by the International Foundation for Online Responsibility [[IFFOR](http://www.iffor.org/)], and wil by adminstered by contract with [ICM Registry](http://icmregistry.com/).

This is an interesting reversal for ICANN, which rejected .xxx TLD proposals in 2000 and 2001.

No word yet on when the .xxx domains will actually go up for sale.