Friday, October 22, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
I have been told that the taking of the indymedia drives was not based upon the Republican National Convention and the posting of private information about the delegates (such as what hotel they were staying at during the convention or home numbers). The reason the drives were taken and returned "originated in concerns about revealing the identity of Swiss undercover police".
I do not know why the drives were taken (then returned).
The Houston indymedia center has a recording from Rackspace which states that Rackspace acted under a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which outlines the process and grants powers between the treaty members to obtain evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country.
It further goes on that the subpoena was issued under United States Code Title 28 section 1782 "Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals" in an investigation that did not arise from the United States.
My point is that there is a balance between free speech and the effects of having free speech. The key is justice. There are various areas where this comes into play: Copyright laws -- if speech is free, why can't we plagiarize another's work?; What about someone harming another by their speech (defamation, slander, and libel)?
Another area is privacy. There are arguments for indymedia, the Swiss police, and the delegates that can be made. In the end, isn't it about protecting the individual (whether that individual is a police officer, a delegate, or a voter?).
Something to think about...
I do not know why the drives were taken (then returned).
The Houston indymedia center has a recording from Rackspace which states that Rackspace acted under a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) which outlines the process and grants powers between the treaty members to obtain evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country.
It further goes on that the subpoena was issued under United States Code Title 28 section 1782 "Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals" in an investigation that did not arise from the United States.
My point is that there is a balance between free speech and the effects of having free speech. The key is justice. There are various areas where this comes into play: Copyright laws -- if speech is free, why can't we plagiarize another's work?; What about someone harming another by their speech (defamation, slander, and libel)?
Another area is privacy. There are arguments for indymedia, the Swiss police, and the delegates that can be made. In the end, isn't it about protecting the individual (whether that individual is a police officer, a delegate, or a voter?).
Something to think about...
Friday, October 15, 2004
Replies to my post
I received a couple of replies to my UN post
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003652.html).
One has been translated into French
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003653.html)
and the other
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003656.html).
I responded here
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003661.html).
sil (Short for son in law, what my (mil) mother in law calls me. I am Dale
Chalfant).
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003652.html).
One has been translated into French
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003653.html)
and the other
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003656.html).
I responded here
(http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2004-October/003661.html).
sil (Short for son in law, what my (mil) mother in law calls me. I am Dale
Chalfant).
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
There is a lot of chatter going on related to the indymedia servers that were confiscated (and later returned). I have not been sure what to post, as this seems to be more of a police matter than a privacy issue. I have been thinking on this, and I have found what it is that I want to say...
As I understand it, the servers were used to contain and collect information about the Republican National Convention (RNC) that should have been held private (information about who the delegates are, where the delegates stayed, etc...). I also understand that there was encouragement and magnification of a call to cause problems for the delegates and interfere with the order of the day.
The people close to the servers are using this as an opportunity to speak against anti-piracy legislation such as the 4077 or Induce. I am firmly convinced that is not the case. I believe that the servers were confiscated quickly to help determine who was behind the attempted RNC convention obfuscation.
I happen to concur with that action, if that was what happened.
I am for free speech. The Constitution of the United States (and I am sure there are other documents, I just am not aware of their names at this point in my life) guarantees the right.
This right is balanced, however.
I do not think any reasonable person would think it okay for another to yell; "Fire!" in a crowded theater, any more than a reasonable person would think it okay for someone to lie about another in order to gain victory by the other's defeat (although politics seems to allow for this, I do not think "we", the individuals, care for those tactics or consider the tactics fair).
The individual is paramount! (3) Individual rights should be protected by the whole.
That includes Delegates...
To the people who "yelled fire" as it were...
I understand you may be frustrated by events as you see them, but beware of going "the wrong way" in order to put something towards what you see is "the right way". This goes down to the old adage, two wrongs do not make a right. Some may prefer a utilitarian approach where ends justify means, but it truly depends on what those "means" happen to be.
The Constitution of the United States of America was built on principles and forces which are outside of the document. These principles and forces formed the document itself to protect certain unalienable rights. The Magna Charta (which predates the constitution) names these rights as life, liberty, and property. (1)
The power of the whole is derived from the "ones" of the many (that is, the whole inherits the individual thoughts, expressions, wants, ideas, dreams, and passions of the individuals) (2). And, this power is multiplied through principles of synergy.
Let us multiply the good.
---
1) The Constitution names the third right as pursuit of happiness (which is derived from life, liberty, and property)
2) Thanks to my buddy Joe for this one. Joe taught me that the organization inherits the attributes of its members (and in turn, the members inherit the attributes of the organization).
3) The Ultimate Precept: Man as the Individual (General Systems Theory principle)
We may, however, conceive of a scientific understanding of human society and its laws in a somewhat different and more modest way. Such knowledge can teach us not only what human behavior and society have in common with other organizations, but also what is their uniqueness. Here the main tenet will be: Man is not only a political animal; he is, before and above all, an individual. The real values of humanity are not those which it shares with biological entities, the function of an organism or a community of animals, but those which stem from the individual mind. Human society is not a community of ants or termites, governed by inherited instinct and controlled by the laws of the superordinate whole; it is based upon the achievements of the individual and is doomed if the individual is made a cog in the social machine. This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom.
Reprinted without permission based on my understanding of fair use (see also copyright.gov) which fancy enough is Also a free speech issue...
s:>
sil
As I understand it, the servers were used to contain and collect information about the Republican National Convention (RNC) that should have been held private (information about who the delegates are, where the delegates stayed, etc...). I also understand that there was encouragement and magnification of a call to cause problems for the delegates and interfere with the order of the day.
The people close to the servers are using this as an opportunity to speak against anti-piracy legislation such as the 4077 or Induce. I am firmly convinced that is not the case. I believe that the servers were confiscated quickly to help determine who was behind the attempted RNC convention obfuscation.
I happen to concur with that action, if that was what happened.
I am for free speech. The Constitution of the United States (and I am sure there are other documents, I just am not aware of their names at this point in my life) guarantees the right.
This right is balanced, however.
I do not think any reasonable person would think it okay for another to yell; "Fire!" in a crowded theater, any more than a reasonable person would think it okay for someone to lie about another in order to gain victory by the other's defeat (although politics seems to allow for this, I do not think "we", the individuals, care for those tactics or consider the tactics fair).
The individual is paramount! (3) Individual rights should be protected by the whole.
That includes Delegates...
To the people who "yelled fire" as it were...
I understand you may be frustrated by events as you see them, but beware of going "the wrong way" in order to put something towards what you see is "the right way". This goes down to the old adage, two wrongs do not make a right. Some may prefer a utilitarian approach where ends justify means, but it truly depends on what those "means" happen to be.
The Constitution of the United States of America was built on principles and forces which are outside of the document. These principles and forces formed the document itself to protect certain unalienable rights. The Magna Charta (which predates the constitution) names these rights as life, liberty, and property. (1)
The power of the whole is derived from the "ones" of the many (that is, the whole inherits the individual thoughts, expressions, wants, ideas, dreams, and passions of the individuals) (2). And, this power is multiplied through principles of synergy.
Let us multiply the good.
---
1) The Constitution names the third right as pursuit of happiness (which is derived from life, liberty, and property)
2) Thanks to my buddy Joe for this one. Joe taught me that the organization inherits the attributes of its members (and in turn, the members inherit the attributes of the organization).
3) The Ultimate Precept: Man as the Individual (General Systems Theory principle)
We may, however, conceive of a scientific understanding of human society and its laws in a somewhat different and more modest way. Such knowledge can teach us not only what human behavior and society have in common with other organizations, but also what is their uniqueness. Here the main tenet will be: Man is not only a political animal; he is, before and above all, an individual. The real values of humanity are not those which it shares with biological entities, the function of an organism or a community of animals, but those which stem from the individual mind. Human society is not a community of ants or termites, governed by inherited instinct and controlled by the laws of the superordinate whole; it is based upon the achievements of the individual and is doomed if the individual is made a cog in the social machine. This, I believe, is the ultimate precept a theory of organization can give: not a manual for dictators of any denomination more efficiently to subjugate human beings by the scientific application of Iron Laws, but a warning that the Leviathan of organization must not swallow the individual without sealing its own inevitable doom.
Reprinted without permission based on my understanding of fair use (see also copyright.gov) which fancy enough is Also a free speech issue...
s:>
sil
Another article here: Technology Review: Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Issue of Internet Privacy
Supreme Court decided to pass on verizon v RIAA
verizon v RIAA:Here is opposition: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2003-1722.resp.pdf
Cross response: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2003-1722.resp.pdf
I think they did because legislation is currently in the works (Induce and HR 4077). Although the media firms were not able to get far with getting information out of the ISPs, Induce and HR 4077 anti piracy may allow for that.
verizon v RIAA:Here is opposition: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2003-1722.resp.pdf
Cross response: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2003-1722.resp.pdf
I think they did because legislation is currently in the works (Induce and HR 4077). Although the media firms were not able to get far with getting information out of the ISPs, Induce and HR 4077 anti piracy may allow for that.
There is a lot of activity with regards to P2P networks and file sharing copywritten content. The ABA is offering a course later this month: This ABA course ABA-CLE Developments in Copyright Law.
It is all about P2P networks, copyrights, file sharing issues, issues with ISP's, new laws...
It is all about P2P networks, copyrights, file sharing issues, issues with ISP's, new laws...
Monday, October 11, 2004
I wonder what happens when two bills become law and these bills modify the same existing legislation in different ways.
The Family Movie Act of 2004 as I read it (there's the lawyer) allows an individual to eliminate content that individual finds offensive (by a computer program or other means).
The other is HR4077, Piracy Deterrence in Education. In section 112, there is an exemption from infringement for skipping audio and video content in motion pictures. This seems similar to HR670 above, but it has differences such as removal of comercials from content.
I wonder what happens if both pass.
How are they integrated?
The Family Movie Act of 2004 as I read it (there's the lawyer) allows an individual to eliminate content that individual finds offensive (by a computer program or other means).
The other is HR4077, Piracy Deterrence in Education. In section 112, there is an exemption from infringement for skipping audio and video content in motion pictures. This seems similar to HR670 above, but it has differences such as removal of comercials from content.
I wonder what happens if both pass.
How are they integrated?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Some rumbling in the software IP arena. Will the pendulum swing in the other direction? Will patents of process and software not be as strong as they currently are, or will the DMCA and perhaps a consolidation of the case law into a topic map provide strength to future cases due to stare decisis (let the decision stand) or would the organization of the cases show non-consistency which would put a tear into the fabric of the tort law leading to codification and legislative made laws so that there is consistency garnered?
Or?
Or?
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
This article from MIT Enterprise Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com) points to good application of Where ware.
For example: http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/ speaks to 911 for mobile phones. And some of the cellular makers has some neat stuff going.
It makes me wonder whether I should copyright my image or patent my genes (no wait... Levys did that (1) and probably put in the RFID tags as well :>).
1) it is funny what happens when you put in certain search words to google.com ;>
For example: http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/ speaks to 911 for mobile phones. And some of the cellular makers has some neat stuff going.
It makes me wonder whether I should copyright my image or patent my genes (no wait... Levys did that (1) and probably put in the RFID tags as well :>).
1) it is funny what happens when you put in certain search words to google.com ;>
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Another source of information regarding IP is Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP- publication. As I understand it, Bruce Lehman, the Chairman of this firm is known as the "father of the digital copyright".
The American Library Association has a neat site I just came across (I received a google alert based on some key words that interest me). The site covers The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Digital Rights Management (DRM), Anti-Piracy Legislation, as well as other Intellectual Property (IP)-based topics.
