Is property damage an act of violence? How about virtual trespassing? That’s what the mainstream media and the United States government would have us believe. In the so-called “land of the free, home of the
brave,” courageous protestors and hacktivists are finding that their available avenues for protest are fewer and farther between.

During the “Battle of Seattle,” 50,000 peaceful protesters (and dozens of locals) found themselves tear-gassed, sprayed with rubber bullets, and showered with concussion grenades for ‘failing to disperse.’
But ask the average American who watched mainstream media reports of the protests, and he or she will likely respond similarly to a Seattle friend (who shall remain anonymous), who commented, “It’s unfortunate that the Seattle police were forced to crack down on all the activists because of a handful of violent protesters.”

Never mind the fact that many peaceful protesters say they were gassed hours before any windows were broken. And wait a minute. Who’s calling whom violent?

The so-called ‘violent activists’ were accused of such because they broke windows andcaused general property damage to carefully selected stores -- namely The Gap, Starbucks, Nike and Planet Hollywood -- according to David Graeber, an anthropology teacher at Yale University who wrote about the protests for In These Times http://www.inthesetimes.com/graeber2403.html. “Extreme care was taken not to do anything that might hurt someone; the only fires set were far from buildings; windows were smashed only when no one would be in the way of broken glass. All this was in dramatic contrast with the police, whose use of force was almost exclusively aimed at hurting people,” he pointed out.

Referring to property damage as ‘violence’ may make for sensational headlines, but it ignores the fact that breaking glass and breaking bones are two distinctly different actions. According to the Reverend Sharon Delgado, a Seattle protester who was arrested, “The police were very rough, especially with those who refused to walk. They carried people face down, their hands cuffed behind them, then dropped them hard on their faces… I also saw two women whose noses had been broken by police.”
http://www.co-intelligence.org/WTOminister.html

When protestors broke glass, the media labeled them ‘violent’. When police officers peppered peaceful protesters with plastic bullets, sprayed pepper spray directly into their faces, and broke arrestees’ noses, they were just keeping order.

Through selective use of images, the media were able to paint a picture of chaos. But according to Delgado and many other protesters, that picture was inaccurate: “We were… dismayed that the thousands of peaceful protestors got so little coverage, while scenes of the same few windows being broken were shown again and again.”

The media’s choice of language was also inflammatory. By using the language of aggression, the entire protest was framed in a metaphor of war. “Listen to the rhetoric. The Battle of Seattle. The war being waged by the global corporate and financial institutions. These are fighting words,” wrote Vicki Robin, co-author of the bestseller Your Money or Your Life, in an article entitled “A multidimensional view of WTO”
http://www.co-intelligence.org/WTOVickiRobin.html

WTO protesters aren’t the only activists described in war-like terms. Hacker Kevin Mitnick was described in the US media as the world's most notorious and dangerous cyberterrorist. The US Justice Department called him a “computer terrorist.” Though Mitnick never shared or sold the information he stole, and he never physically harmed a single person, he served a five year sentence for copying computer and cell-phone code from Motorola, Nokia and Sun.

“People are getting the kind of prison terms that we normally see associated with… crimes of violence,” said San Francisco defense attorney Jennifer Granick in a February 29, 2000 All Things Considered (NPR) report http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=70989

In a statement <http://www.kevinmitnick.com/news-release.html> read upon his January 21, 2000 release
from Lompoc Federal Prison, Mitnick explained, “For those of you who are new to this case, I was held in pre-trial detention, without a bail hearing and without bail, for four years. During those four years, I was never permitted to see the evidence against me, because the prosecutors obstructed our efforts to obtain discovery, and the judge in this case refused to order them to produce the evidence against me for that entire time. I was repeatedly coerced into waiving my right to a speedy trial because my attorney could not
prepare for trial without being able to review the evidence against me.”

Under the terms of his recent release, Mitnick is not allowed to use a computer or cell phone for three years, which precludes him from just about any job he might be qualified to perform. “The requirements mandating I can't touch a computer or cell or cordless phone are akin to telling a forger not to use a pen or paper. There is no way I can earn a living when I get out. I couldn't even work at McDonald's. All I could do is something like gardening,” he told Forbes magazine’s Adam Penenberg in an April 1999 interview
http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/99/apr/0405/feat.htm

Mitnick is not the only hacker to suffer the wrath of the media’s semantics. The denial of service (DOS) interruptions against Etrade, ZDNet, eBay and other online giants were described in a February 9, 2000 All Things Considered (NPR) report http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=70168 as a “…coordinated series of assaults by computer hackers.” The victimized corporations, whose sites were compromised or shut down for a few minutes to several hours, reported that they had “…fallen prey to hackers,” according to Jim Zarroli’s All Things Considered story.

Though US Attorney General Janet Reno stated that the “…motive of the attackers remains a mystery,” many hackers and observers now contend that the DOS ‘attacks’ were an act of ‘hacktivism’ launched to protest the ‘strip-malling of the Internet.’ Supposedly, in an attempt to get between customers and the cash register, hackers orchestrated an act of vandalism. For that, Reno insisted that the perpetrators would be tracked down and brought to justice.

Obviously, hacktivists are considered America’s Public Enemy Number One as of late. According to NPR
http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=70989, US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has
introduced a bill that would make first hacking offenses punishable by up to ten years in federal prison, based on the principle that it does damage to people’s business opportunities.

But Kevin Poulsen http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~s9715660/3.htm, who received the longest sentence
ever for hacking, sees it differently http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnps05fm.cfm?SegID=70989. “I think it’s all about… preserving the appearance of the Internet being safe and reliable for e-commerce – making the Internet appear to be sturdy enough to support the entire new economy. And if you can’t actually make the Internet secure, the next best thing is to be able to crack down hard on the people who point
out that it’s insecure.”

So, both sides admit it’s all about money. And hackers’ sentences are often based on the dollar amount of damages claimed by the corporations that were hacked.

Kevin Mitnick’s sentence was based partially on the monetary damage claims by Motorola, Nokia and Sun. But a May 22, 1999 Wired News article http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19820.html
questioned the validity of Sun’s damage claim of $80 million, considering the fact that the Solaris source code stolen by Mitnick was subsequently given away to preapproved educational institutions and sold to other qualified developers for $100. Furthermore, the hacked companies, which collectively claimed damages of nearly $300 million, did not report these losses to their shareholders or to the IRS
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19488.html.

And so it goes with protests against mega-corporations and their power, whether performed online or on the streets of Seattle. With the media framing these issues in terms of war, the US Justice Department and FBI using taxpayer-funded resources to protect US businesses against activist citizens, and the US judicial system imposing sentences on hackers that are usually reserved for violent perpetrators, today’s activists have heard the message loud and clear: there is no room in the land of the free for dissenters of capitalism.
=====================

   This brief essay explains why we should oppose the push for new laws allowing companies to intrude into our homes, organizations and offices via our computer equipment.

   Microsoft and other software firms want governments to make the terms companies set on the use of their computer products legally binding - even though most consumers would not know what those conditions were until after they had spent their money and read the fine print. Nearly all consumer rights would be lost due to this including the basic right to ask for a refund.

   The proposed set of rules, called the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), would allow companies to reach into a customer's computer and repossess a product if the purchaser had fallen behind on payments. And the law would permit them to send legal notices about new restrictions by e-mail without any proof that the e-mail had reached its destination. Maryland and Virginia may become the first states in the US to approve these new rules, under the false front of protection for electronic commerce.

   Microsoft is also crossing the line with Windows 2,000, by including a new registration key. The package you buy will disable itself if you don't contact Microsoft and register via e-mail, fax or phone. This new security feature comes in disguised as a measure to fight piracy. But it really is Microsoft intruding and forcing its customers to subscribe to its data base.

   To make it uglier Microsoft will be featuring new fingerprint security with Windows 2000, so in the future we can all look forward to being treated like criminals in the workplace - only being able to log in with a fingerprint.

   THE LINE IN THE SAND is the social contract we have been living under. Software packages come with a number or key to unlock them and you can choose whether to formally register at the developer's head office. The software merchants can't intrude into our homes, businesses or organizations without our permission.

   If there is an unwanted intrusion, from our perspective it doesn't matter whether the intruder is a rogue, a rogue government, a rogue religion or a rogue corporation. An uninvited bum is a bum and probably a thief.

   Our Line in the Sand at home is usually a property line. Don't cross it into my house. Yet Microsoft and politicians through use of UCITA are bullies who are crossing that line. They get in the door and get in control of our computers.

   It's a small thing, they say. And it helps protect e-commerce and it aids in the fight against piracy. So based on that we are expected to let the Bully in. And once we do we have drawn a new line in our living room.

   What comes next?  Will the digital TV broadcast warnings about paying the bill? How about that new web-enabled fridge we bought to order groceries via the Internet - does it suddenly lock us out because we haven't paid the bill . . . or maybe the family car gets repossessed via satellite . . . or the company that sold us the tax software helps the government bust us for cheating by forwarding files from our home and office computers.

   Now we see that it isn't just a tiny intrusion. If we let them cross that first line in the sand, they keep pushing us across more lines . . . and in the end we get pushed into the toilet and flushed.

   These new intrusions of the software industry really have to do with bully corporations doing what they do best. And that is bullying and buying politicians.

   I think it's time citizens did some bullying of their own, and kicked sand back into Microsoft's face.

By Gary Morton
--------

Richard Stallman -- Why We Must Fight UCITA
Feb 6, 2000, 21:39 UTC (68 Talkbacks) (Other stories by Richard Stallman)
By Richard Stallman

UCITA is a proposed law, designed by the proprietary software developers, who are now asking all 50 states of the US to adopt it. If UCITA is adopted, it will threaten the free software community(1) with disaster. To understand why, please read on.

We generally believe that big companies ought to be held to a strict standard of liability to their customers, because they can afford it and because it will keep them honest. On the other hand, individuals, amateurs, and good samaritans should be treated more favorably.

UCITA does exactly the opposite. It makes individuals, amateurs, and good samaritans liable, but not big companies.

You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.

What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not work.

UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long term -- it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This would make it easy for them to establish secret file formats and protocols, which there would be no lawful way for us to figure out.

That could be a disastrous obstacle for development of free software that can serve users' practical needs, because communicating with users of non-free software is one of those needs. Many users today feel that they must run Windows, simply so they can read and write files in Word format. Microsoft's "Halloween documents" announced a plan to use secret formats and protocols as a weapon to obstruct the development of the GNU/Linux system(2).

Precisely this kind of restriction is now being used in Norway to prosecute 16-year-old Jon Johansen, who figured out the format of DVDs to make it possible to write free software to play them on free operating systems. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation is helping with his defense; see http://www.eff.org/ for further information.)

Some friends of free software have argued that UCITA would benefit our community, by making non-free software intolerably restrictive, and thus driving users to us. Realistically speaking, this is unlikely, because it assumes that proprietary software developers will act against their own interests. They may be greedy and ruthless, but they are not stupid.

Proprietary software developers intend to use the additional power UCITA would give them to increase their profits. Rather than using this power at full throttle all the time, they will make an effort to find the most profitable way to use it. Those applications of UCITA power that make users stop buying will be abandoned; those that most users tolerate will become the norm. UCITA will not help us.

UCITA does not apply only to software. It applies to any sort of computer-readable information. Even if you use only free software, you are likely to read articles on your computer, and access data bases. UCITA will allow the publishers to impose the most outrageous restrictions on you. They could change the license retroactively at any time, and force you to delete the material if you don't accept the change. They could even prohibit you from describing what you see as flaws in the material.

This is too outrageous an injustice to wish on anyone, even if it would indirectly benefit a good cause. As ethical beings, we must not favor the infliction of hardship and injustice on others on the grounds that it will drive them to join our cause. We must not be Machiavellian. The point of free software is concern for each other.

Our only smart plan, our only ethical plan, is...to defeat UCITA!

If you want to help the fight against UCITA, by meeting with state legislators in your state, send mail to Skip Lockwood dfc@dfc.org. He can tell you how to contriute effectively.

Volunteers are needed most urgently in Virgina and Maryland, but California and Oklahoma are coming soon. There will probably be a battle in every state sooner or later.

For more information about UCITA, see www.4cite.org and www.badsoftware.com. InfoWorld magazine is also helping to fight against UCITA; see http://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/ features/990531ucita_home.htm

Copyright 2000 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying, distribution and display of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
-----------------

Privacy - The Disappearing Web (Consumer and Internet Privacy Should be Addressed in Canada's Bill C-6)
Letter to the Prime Minister and all Members of Parliament

   Bill C-6 will do some good things to protect privacy in Canada, but many people are saying that it fails to address the new invasions of privacy taking place on the Internet.

   Double Click, the multi-billion dollar web banner-ad company includes cookies in its gif graphics to gather information on you when you visit web sites. They do not ask you for permission, nor do you know that your surfing habits are being recorded. Double Click is also marrying this info with the data bases of Abacus Online Alliance which it just acquired.

   The Electronic Privacy Information Center  http://www.epic.org/ has filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission over the matter. Governments have to provide good reason for gathering and cross linking data bases, yet Double Click's excuse is that web sites need the ad dollars it pays so they can provide consumers with free service. Double Click even put up a propaganda site at http://www.privacychoices.org to push this line.

   Probably the best solution to Double Click would be to change the gif standard so the info-gathering cookies could not be included. Since that likely won't happen, Bill C-6 should include something to prohibit gathering such data on Canadians. This wouldn't hurt the ad business at all as it is competitive. If Double Click wants to pull out others will jump in and they will provide respect for consumer privacy. Protection is also needed because privacy issues can't be left to the market alone. The desire of corporations to gather and mine data has become a new addiction. They can't get off that needle without help.

   Another new danger is the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) - a proposed law, designed by proprietary software developers. Writer Richard Stallman has covered the topic. Here are a few things he says.
--- UCITA will allow the publishers to impose the most outrageous restrictions on you. They could change the license retroactively at any time, and force you to delete the material if you don't accept the change. They could even prohibit you from describing what you see as flaws in the material.
    UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free software development in the long term -- it gives proprietary software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This would make it easy for them to establish secret file formats and protocols, which there would be no lawful way for us to figure out. ---

   Richard Stallman focuses on how UCITA would be used to destroy the Free Software movement which has produced things like GNU/Linux. Yet there seems to be more if you read between the lines. Pseudo hackers have been at work on the web lately, and I think they'll be busier if a bunch of secret file formats and protocols come about. The open nature of the web and its security will be at risk. Plus consumer rights will be pretty much gone. UCITA would allow companies to reach into a customer's computer and repossess a product if the purchaser had fallen behind on payments. And the law would permit them to send legal notices about new restrictions by e-mail without any proof that the e-mail had reached its destination. Maryland and Virginia are the first states in the US adopting UCITA.

   In Canada we should avoid adopting UCITA-type laws. Restricting reverse engineering would impede the development of new products and corporations. Software publishers and others should be blocked through legislation when it comes to reaching into a person's home computer or software enabled devices to do a repossession, etc. They must also be prohibited from gathering data on the sly in that manner.

   And this brings us to Microsoft. They are altering privacy standards with Windows 2,000, by including a new registration key. The package you buy will disable itself if you don't contact Microsoft and register via the web, e-mail, fax or phone. Microsoft is in fact intruding and forcing its customers to subscribe to its data base.

   Opt-in, where the customer provides permission and registers by choice has been the standard in the software industry. You buy a package and it comes with the key. Legislation should specify that software publishers must provide the full key with the package, and leave registration forms optional. The consumer has the right to get the full package once he/she has paid and should not be forced through systems of fine print and red tape. Also - the temptation to build a backdoor into software, and scan a consumer's computer while he/she is registering via the Internet is too great a temptation. Software publishers won't be able to resist doing it.

   Just today another issue arose as US Health Care web sites are being investigated by the FTC over accusations that they shared personal data. Tomorrow it will probably be something else even worse. So let me say that the picture in regards to privacy, the Internet and computers is suddenly changing. Corporations say they need protection from hackers and pirates. Yet many of these corporations intrude on our rights and privacy and are a threat to us that hackers and pirates will never be. The hacker does serve a useful purpose in that he demonstrates to us all just how loud these corporations will scream when their privacy is intruded upon. Yet many of these same corporations don't care a hoot for the privacy of the citizens they deal with. Computers and the Internet should be of great benefit to humanity. Too many corporations are trying to use them as a doorway. They enter and become a monkey on our backs.

   In light of this situation I think parliament should do a new review with an all party committee of MPs and the Privacy Commissioner. Action should be taken. The Internet is growing yet our privacy is a disappearing web.

Gary Morton
Feb.18.2000
 

It's Time for Action Against Microsoft
Big Brother Ware is here with Windows 2000 - Feb.12.00

(The public must act to stop Microsoft's new intrusion on Privacy)

   GNU/Linux operating systems have moved into the number two spot in networked systems, so you have to wonder why Microsoft has just come out with an anti piracy strategy that will kill consumer privacy.

   The new Windows and Office 2000 Cds, have an edge-to-edge hologram and a new process requiring users to register their software. The etching process will make it really difficult and expensive for counterfeiters. The certificate of authenticity or registration tag, will be required on specific PCs where Windows or Office is installed.  When users boot up the software for the first time, the registration wizard will require them to contact Microsoft -- via the Internet, e-mail, phone, fax, or snail mail -- and get the second half of a registration key that matches their software certificate. If this registration process isn't completed, the software will stop working.

   The registration key will only allow users to install the software on two machines. Network managers will receive site license registration keys that allow them to install one copy on multiple machines.

   Microsoft's Windows 2000 anti-piracy effort has privacy advocates and ordinary people stating that the new registration process will put an end to user privacy in software use. This is because you are forced to dock with Microsoft via the net or fax to get an un-crippled version of the software working. It will also help Microsoft gain a tighter grip on markets they already dominate.

   Microsoft calls this an anti piracy feature, but here it should be mentioned that many people (including this writer) won't use Microsoft's free Internet Explorer 5 as its installation is directed from the Microsoft site to your home computer.

   Pirated versions of Microsoft's networking software are commonly used by students, who want to learn it for the  job market but can't afford it. So in this sense Microsoft is targeting poor students by forcing them to shell out for copies they'll only use for a few months.

   Austin Hill, president of Zero Knowledge says his concern is that all of a sudden this is moving toward a trend to use your OS.... That's a dangerous precedent. I tend to be skeptical of any easy solution that comes at the cost of personal privacy.

   Users should always be cautious about providing any personal information when they register software. Microsoft could use the registration process for many things such as collecting information about users' Web surfing habits without their knowledge.  The idea of Microsoft associating each license with a name and having a registration procedure to authenticate each time is frightening.

   We have gone from shareware to crippleware, and now to Microsoft's Big Brother Ware. Some people will tend to say, Let them do it and Linux will become king. Yet that isn't the correct answer. All the major software developers will follow the Microsoft lead, invading our privacy in our homes and offices and making it impossible to reload new systems with software in a reasonable amount of time.

   The time has come to take action against Microsoft - to plan anti Microsoft strategies before it is too late.

Please forward and repost.
Gary Morton
Citizensontheweb.com
--------

A Pirate's Treasure Chest- news clips - Jan.29.00
The Moral Mercenaries - war on free tunes an attack on the little guy and privacy.
     People like Dave Powell, managing director of England's Copyright Control Services, say that music piracy in MP3 format is rampant on the Net.  CCS tracks, documents, and shuts down Internet sites and communication channels containing illegal files. CCS claims to have shut down 5,000 sites in a year. Mostly CCS works for pro audio software companies that want to get so-called pirated copies of their applications off the Net. The company monitors things like Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels, Usenet discussion groups, the semi-underground Hotline server and file-transfer software.
     Part of the question here is why any group like CCS, that is not a legitimate police organization, should be allowed to invade privacy around the net. What guarantee does anyone have that they are not doing other sorts of surveillance?
     When they catch a so-called pirate, they then work to get that Internet account discontinued. In reality that means the big guy with one of his network computers connecting some MP3s via the napster program and a T3 line doesn't get touched. He can just move the files or tell CCS to screw off. It's only the little guy sharing a few files with his friends via IRC or a small web site that gets screwed and cut off the Net .
      Groups like RIAA sometimes try to sue ISPs, but generally any large organization giving out free web copies can escape them and still stay in business. If you can call giving files away for free a business. RIAA shuts down hundreds of sites a week and again it is just the little guy they get. You hear speech after speech from these people on how piracy is evil and  dishonest, yet these same people either represent monopolies protecting their profits or they are mercenaries doing it for profit.
     It is more important to protect the privacy and rights of citizens. Wiping out small time copying is not a matter of crucial importance. It's time to put blocks on the snoops. Government agents have to get warrants and show proof, yet all Internet snoop companies like CCS have to do is make allegations and ISPs will give them information.
     Web access is now a vital thing, and snoops who want to deprive people of privacy and access are our enemies, not our friends.
--------
The Big Guys want all the Bandwidth -  A U.S. judge has ordered iCraveTV.com to pull Services Offline. iCrave is a Canadian Internet-based television company that streams the programming of 17 Canadian and U.S. broadcast TV stations online, uncut and uninterrupted. The site was willing to pay royalties but American Broadcasters refused to negotiate and instead accused iCrave of a brazen theft of intellectual property.
     The truth of this is that the issue is monopoly not theft or piracy. The big broadcasters don't want web TV sites to develop as a new industry. They want complete control of secondary bandwidth. A U.S. coalition of broadcasters, cable and movie companies has already asked Congress to block Web firms from gaining rights to their content. It's all about a future devoid of competition and sites like iCrave.
--------
DoubleClick or the click of Jackboots - Harriet Judnick of California is suing DoubleClick - one of the Internet's largest advertising firms - for linking information users believed was anonymous with a vast database of names and consumer buying habits.
     DoubleClick is a $6.09 billion company based in New York. Last year it acquired the direct marketing company Abacus for $1.7 billion. Critics like Judnick believe DoubleClick is cross-referencing information obtained by Web cookie technology with consumer information from the Abacus database, and doing it without users' consent. Cookies can now be associated with your name and buying habits, and when you visit a web site cookies contained in gif advertising banners are downloaded to your machine. Often this means DoubleClick is tracking you though the individual web site is not. One simple solution would be to change the gif standard so that cookies could not be included.
     DoubleClick promises to keep your surfing habits anonymous, but the truth of the Internet is that anyone who gets information about you either uses it or sells it.
--------
AOL Mergers Recreate Piracy as a Citizens Fight-Back Tool - Jan.25.00 -  Now that AOL/Time Warner has swallowed EMI there are only four global music companies. America Online now owns the world's biggest music company and the purpose of this is to gain control of music content and profits on the Internet and elsewhere.
     Freedom of Expression is all but dead in music and related entertainment as artists cannot realistically anger or challenge this growing - One Big Corporate Beast.
     It is only a matter of time before rebels, activists and then ordinary citizens realize that they are buying music to further enrich the one big corporation. And in such a scenario piracy (which is what AOL calls giving away copies free) is reborn as something that is not only ethical, but a survival tool. People are going to fight back by simply spreading free MP3s. Not because they are pirates but because it is the only way to whack the wallet and bootstraps of AOL.
     The future becomes interesting as an open battle is going to take place between the corporate giant and the little  guy who values freedom and democracy.
     And if AOL wins it we are all doomed.
--------

French intelligence says US secret agents work at Microsoft - Feb.20.00
   PARIS, Feb 18 - A French intelligence report today accused US secret agents of working with computer giant Microsoft to develop software allowing Washington to spy on communications around the world.
   The report, drawn up by the Strategic Affairs Delegation (DAS), the intelligence arm of the French Defence Ministry, was quoted in today's edition of the news-letter Le Monde du Renseignement (Intelligence World).
   Written by a senior officer at the DAS, the report claims agents from the National Security Agency (NSA) helped install secret programmes on Microsoft software, currently in use in 90 per cent of computers.
   According to the report there was a 'strong suspicion' of a lack of security fed by insistent rumours about the existence of spy programs on Microsoft, and by the presence of NSA personnel in Bill Gates' development teams.
   The NSA protects communications for the US government, and also intercepts electronic messages for the Defence Department and other US intelligence agencies, the newsletter said.
   According to the report, 'it would seem that the creation of Microsoft was largely supported, not least financially, by the NSA, and that IBM was made to accept the (Microsoft) MS-DOS operating system by the same administration.'
   The report claimed the Pentagon was Microsoft's biggest client in the world.
--------

IEEE statement against UCITA
 

[UCITA, the bizarre set of proposed laws governing the sale of software in the United States, is still undead. It is about to be considered by the various state legislatures; if they approve it then it's a done deal. IEEE has taken a strong position against it (enclosed, heavily reformatted), and Slashdot has published a practical guide to lobbying against it: <http://slashdot.org/features/00/02/17/0038235.shtml>. You will recall that among UCITA's many alarming implications is the very real possibility that software companies can prevent anybody from ever publishing any critical reviews of their products.]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" option. For information about RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:26:47 -0500 From: "Raymond Paul" <r.paul@ieee.org>

[...]

http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POSITIONS/ucita.html

[...]

The IEEE-USA Board of Directors approved the following statement on UCITA at the meeting last Thursday.

[...]

Opposing Adoption of the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) By the States Approved By the IEEE-USA Board of Directors (Feb. 2000)

On behalf of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America (IEEE-USA) and its nearly 230,000 U.S. members who are electrical, electronics, computer and software engineers, we wish to reiterate to the state legislatures the concerns regarding the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (UCITA) that we previously expressed to the National Council of Commissioners on State Laws (NCCUSL).

We believe UCITA should be rejected by the states. UCITA would have a widespread, complex impact, including: (a) the provisions of the act itself; (b) its interaction with the existing statutes, principles, and interpretations of Federal intellectual property law; (c) the provisions currently found in "shrink wrap" and "click-through" software agreements -- many of them questionable or unenforceable under current law -- that UCITA seeks to make enforceable; and (d) UCITA's effect on existing business practices and reasonable purchaser expectations. Into the existing and evolving legal and business situation, UCITA would inject an ironclad statutory framework that is very easy to abuse to the serious detriment of consumers, large business users, and small business users of computer software, software developers, computer consultants and the general public.

Many organizations, including 24 state Attorneys General, the staffs of the Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Consumer Protection, and Policy Planning Office of the Federal Trade Commission, professional and trade associations, consumer groups, the American Law Institute (originally NCCUSL's partner in drafting UCITA), and others have expressed opposition or concern regarding UCITA In some cases the concerns of these organizations parallel ours, and in other cases they raise additional issues. Our concerns are in the following areas:

By changing what would otherwise be considered a sale into a licensing transaction, UCITA permits software publishers to enforce contract provisions that may be onerous, burdensome or unreasonable, and places on the purchaser the burden and cost of proving that these provisions are unconscionable or "against fundamental public policy". Examples of these provisions include prohibitions against public criticism of the software and limitations on purchasers' rights to sell or dispose of software. The first provision prohibits the reviews, comparisons, and benchmark testing that are critical for an informed, competitive marketplace. The second issue could legally complicate transactions including corporate mergers/acquisitions, sales of small businesses, the operation of businesses dealing in second-hand software, and even yard sales.

UCITA would undermine the protections provided by Federal intellectual property law and upset the carefully achieved balance between owners and purchasers of intellectual property. One major protection is that "fair use" case law and statutory copyright law permit "reverse engineering" for certain important purposes, such as development of compatible (interoperable) software products and information security testing. Reverse engineering is the examination of software to identify and analyze its internal elements. Current shrink-wrap agreements often contain strict provisions forbidding reverse engineering. By making these provisions enforceable, UCITA would stifle innovation and competition in the software industry, and would straightjacket efforts of users to provide information security protection for their systems.

UCITA allows software publishers to disclaim warranties and consequential damages even for software defects known to the publisher prior to sale, undisclosed to the buyer, and having damages that can be reasonably foreseen. For example, under UCITA a software publisher could not only prohibit publication of information on security vulnerabilities that users identify but could avoid responsibility for fixing these vulnerabilities. By legalizing the choices of law and forum often included in software agreements, UCITA would allow software publishers to make expensive and burdensome any efforts by purchasers to protect their rights. This includes issues that for a sale would be handled in local small-claims courts. The "self-help" provisions of UCITA would allow software publishers to embed security vulnerabilities and other functions in their software to facilitate "denial-of-service" attacks (remote disablement or destruction of the software) and to avoid liability for accidental triggering of the attacks or exploitation of these functions by malicious intruders. We urge the state legislatures to reject UCITA.

This statement was developed by the Committee on Communications and Information Policy and the Intellectual Property Committee of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America (IEEE-USA), and represents the considered judgment of a group of U.S. IEEE members with expertise in the subject field. The IEEE-USA promotes the careers and public-policy interests of the nearly 230,000 electrical, electronics, computer and software engineers who are U.S. members of the IEEE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Sources of Additional Information

General information:

http://www.4cite.org Encompasses coalition of organizations opposing adoption of UCITA.

http://www.badsoftware.com Includes or links to numerous opposition comments.

http://www.2bguide.com Includes both pro and con comments. "Whatsnew" page has extensive links to relevant UCITA and UCC-2B documents.

Specific:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/POLICY/1999/99july20.html July 1999 IEEE-USA letter to NCCUSL

http://www.2bguide.com/docs/citopp.html Memo by Steven Chow, dissenting member of UCITA drafting committee

http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990010.htm Letter by FTC staff to NCCUSL opposing UCITA

http://www.4cite.org/prinlng.html Memo describing adverse impacts of UCITA on businesses (prepared by Principal Financial Group)

http://www.2bguide.com/docs/50799dad.html Memo from former ALI members of drafting committee declining further participation

http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/usacm-ucita.html Letter from the President of ACM to NCCUSL opposing UCITA

[...]

Last Updated: 15 Feb. 2000 Staff Contact: Deborah Rudolph, d.rudolph@ieee.org

Copyright (c) 2000 The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Permission to copy granted for non-commercial uses with appropriate attribution.

Raymond Paul, Legislative Representative, Technology Policy, IEEE-USA, 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1202, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-530-8331, Fax: 202-785-0835,
====================================

Rocking with Big Brother
- July/99 -

   The Toronto Sun had an interesting article today on Wolfgang Spegg's music web site called http://www.musicmusicmusic.com, a service provided by http://www.radiomoi.com

   Also in the news was an article on the public offering of MP3.com and how that site is now inflated in value to be worth billions. MP3s are the file format for playing songs from computers. A format feared by the music industry as it is CD quality and allows the public to download songs, often unathorized copies from the web. Though MP3.com is really just a small site, it is one of the latest beneficiaries of web speculation. A huge killing is being made at present as speculators by up shares of web sites that go public. This increases the value of the sites astronomically. The value is generally not based on reality, as few of the sites will ever succeed in the long run. An example of lack of long-term success would be today's report that Amazon.com, the book site, again suffered a big loss in revenue.

   Getting back to Spegg and MusicMusicMusic. That site doesn't offer MP3s, but an altered format that is secure and can't be downloaded. You can hear samples and buy songs or buy a playlist. Meaning you can create a playlist from Spegg's 200,000 selections and have it play at any location you choose. This makes you the Deejay and the web your jukebox.

   The Canadian Recording Industry wouldn't approve this but the Recording Industry Association of America did so Spegg has offices on King/Dufferin in Toronto and servers located in Buffalo.

   Spegg and RIAA claim piracy (or what the establishment calls unauthorized copying) will by eliminated altogether once their system becomes the standard. The deal also assures that rights owners will get their portion of the profits.

   Sounds great doesn't it - but take a closer look and you see that Big Brother gets his share of the profits, too. Not a single song is sent out without it being tracked. Information on who it went to, what country, whether it was a male or female, what age group, what the income bracket is, what preferences are --- pretty well every damn thing you could imagine is shared with all of the business members of the Recording Industry Association of America. And whomever they pass it on to.

   This is part of a growing trend of electronic commerce as a Corporate Wire Tap into your personal life. When you consider that Andersen Consulting is now the leader in creating electronic commerce sites, you then realize how real this threat is. (Canadian readers are familiar with Andersen Consulting's computerized destruction of social services in Ontario.)

    In the world of Net books, music and software we've suffered from years of the bleating of a Moral Majority of Billionaire owners of rights and the means of production. They shout it out loud that piracy must be stopped and that the legitimate owners of intellectual property are being robbed. Yet it has become clear that they are worse than the alleged pirates are. In area after area they are trying to get us to accept a complete loss of privacy. As a reward for this we get to pour more money into their coffers.

   Is rocking with Big Brother the answer to unauthorized copying? I think not. And the correct answer may even be that a degree of what they call piracy is desirable. Most of the people who copy MP3s or software are just small operators. Often university students and kids are making no money. Money they earn is directly spent in local economies and provides direct benefits, while more dollars to Microsoft is just more money in the pockets of worthless global speculators. Then there are the benefits to the poor, who need computer skills. There are probably millions who have benefited and now earn wages because they were able to obtain and learn from illegally copied software.
--------
Pay per View - The Ugly Corporate Web - Mar.00
   Toronto -To coincide with Stephen King's release of his his new horror novella online as a pay per view/download E-book, I have released my newest horror tale online free.
The Brutality Zone

   Pay per View/Download is a totally negative approach to the Internet and it is sad to see large publishers and writers' unions embracing it. In doing so they are taking our greatest new resource and killing it.
   The web is a mixed market that includes the educational (.edu), national (.ca), commercial (com) as well as other domains. So many e-commerce sites are coming on line that that market will always be fragmented. Which is a good thing for writers if the web is used correctly.
   The wide variety of new sites should be encouraged to buy new fiction and to provide it free as a support for culture and a draw that brings the visitors who will purchase other materials online.
   Pay per Download/View is just an attempt to return to the past, establishing the dinosaur publishing establishment on the web. This establishment will bring its negative control of culture with it. A system where a few authors get rich through blockbusters while the rest starve.
   The web is really about culture being defined in a broader forum; we don't need the bad old days. In the .edu area, Copyright laws should be amended, especially in the USA, allowing work to enter the public domain sooner. Especially when it comes to net publication. The facts are that few people read older work on the commercial web. Far more people read my own newer stories at FrightLibrary.com. They tend to ignore the older public domain texts.
   On the E-book issue itself. The devices cost about 700 bucks and don't even load the free stuff available on the web in html and text. The format used is adobe acrobat, which is not open like html or text. Combined with Pay per View, E-books mean that the wealthy will have access to work while the rest of us don't. And there isn't any library system on the web similar to a public library where new books can be read.
   Small Transmeta computers and devices with a full operating system will be out soon. So in that regard Stephen King is promoting E-readers that are already obsolete. So keep in mind that even if you don't support my views on this issue, you'll likely lose your shirt if you invest in the E-book market right now.
-------
Fright Library Hello page
http://www.interlog.com/~command/library2.htm
Gary Morton
--------
Free News Web Site Design (only 50 K in size) - Need your own news web site. I have put up a copy of a nice looking 11 section free web site. Through simple editing with a text editor it can be turned into your own news or info site. The online copy is set up to look like an elections site. Simple instructions are on the site's front page.
View the Site
http://www.eol.ca/~command/paper/index.htmownload the zip file -(28k in size)
http://www.eol.ca/~command/paper/site.zip
--------