Re: RIAA escalates attack on music piracy, wants "broadcast flag"
---- > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-944640.html?tag=politech > > RIAA talks tough on Web radio copying By Declan McCullagh > July 17, 2002, 4:50 PM PT > > WASHINGTON--The Recording Industry Association of America > said Wednesday that it has begun pressing for anti-copying > technology in future digital radio standards. > > [...] new federal laws likely would be necessary to compel > software and hardware manufacturers to abide by the > broadcast-only designation. To repeat for those who came in late. To stop such copying requires a ban on general purpose computers, and the licensing of engineers. Presumably existing computers would not at first be criminalized, but new computers would require a special license, that would be available only to the specially privileged. The hardware implementation of a crippled computers for the masses would be identical to palladium -- except that the palladium component, instead of merely truthfully reporting whether the computer is running unauthorized software, would prevent any unauthorized software from running. The trouble with palladium is that though it is not quite what the RIAA wants, it is alarmingly close. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG zKBfvcYlR1oo8QGr0lJ2ca0tunK5kW6i9f1ZF7Hh 2xN5FTB2GfWsWZ7G82KGpz4KBWuPxKUmFlrIzaP++
Re: Which universe are we in? (tossing tennis balls into spinning props)
On n Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 11:02 Tim May wrote:
>On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, at 10:39 AM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>> Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states. I didn't think I would
>> have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but perhaps it was a bit
>> too subtle. Google "Bell" and "inequalities", and go from there.
> I disagree. Bell's Inequality is not dependent on QM...it's a
> mathematical statement about the outcomes of measurements where
> stochastic processes play a role. The fact that QM is strongly
> believed to involve stochastic processes is why Bell's inequality
> shows up prominently in QM. However, we cannot then use B.I. to
> prove things about QM.
It's a statement about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and the
violation of bell's inequality rest on the inseparability of a quantum
state. Typically, that means a test using an epr pair, i.e. a pair of
S = 1 photons with total J = 0, so that the pair behaves as a single
object with J = 0. The pair MUST be originate from the same quantum
process, (e.g., a single \pi_{0} decay), not as two arbitrarily selected
photons from a stochastic process (e.g., 2 photons selected at random
from the 4 produced in the decay of two pions). In short, quantum mechanics
is not stat mech.
> A more persuasive proof of why hidden variables are not viable in QM is
>the work done on extending some theorems about Hilbert spaces. Namely,
>Gleason's theorem from the mid-50s, later extended by Kochen and Specker
>in the 1960s. The Kochen-Specker Theorem is accepted as the "no go"
>proof that hidden variables is not viable.
While K-S is an improvement, it's fundamentally the same idea as bell's
but eliminates a loop-hole:
From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
"This is the easiest argument against the possibility of an HV
interpretation afforded by Gleason's theorem. Bell (1966: 6-8) offers a
variant with a particular twist which later is repeated as the crucial
step in the KS theorem. (This explains why some authors (like Mermin
1990b) call the KS theorem the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem; they think
that the decisive idea of the KS theorem is due to Bell.[3]) He proves
that the mapping dictates that two vectors and mapped into 1 and 0
cannot be arbitrarily close, but must have a minimal angular separation,
while the HV mapping, on the other hand, requires that they must be
arbitrarily close."
In any case, quantum mechanics is well established by a lot of convincing
arguments, even without any of the above to rely upon.
Gilmore Sues on FAA ID
John Gilmore initiated a federal suit today in CA Northern District against Ashcroft, et al, challenging the air travel ID requirement: http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm
Phone companies to violate your privacy more.
Do you have a 'reduced expectation of privacy'? Well, FCC Chairman Michael Powell thinks you do, and that this justifies letting the telcos sell your detailed call information (whom you call, when, and for how long) to 'affiliates', without bothering to ask you first. It's explicitly an opt-out system. Expect a densely worded insert in ant type in your next phone bill, which, if you hire a lawyer to decode, will tell you how to opt out. See: http://slashdot.org/articles/02/07/18/1245202.shtml?tid=158 Peter Trei
Re: CNN.com - Hackers help counter Net censorship - July 15, 2002 (fwd)
Previous message got lost in the ether (I think). Does anyone know what happened to this site? After all the buildup it seem unaccessiblej j On 15 Jul 2002 at 16:36, Jim Choate wrote: > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/07/15/censorship.reut/index.html > > > -- > > > When I die, I would like to be born again as me. > > Hugh Hefner > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org > > > >
Re: Another restriction on technology - cell and cordless scanning now a felony
How is this legal? How is it legal to outlaw reception of radio transmissions under the FCC act of 1934? I have never understood this. I keep expecting at some point, someone will somehow come up with a good reason to take a monitoring claim to the US supreme court and get all these laws tossed aside. But I guess I am expecting too much. For all of it's faults, the fcc act of '34 established in law that the air waves are public property, that broadcasters operate under license and don't own jack shit, and that broadcasters must act in "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." Even during war time in the 40's it was established that anyone could "monitor" as the air waves are public property. However, it was further established that one could not act upon reception of certain broadcasts with malicious intent and blah blah blah. How in the hell have all these anti-monitoring laws gotten passed? Do any of our lawmakers have any clue how the law works at all? This is sickening. *WE THE PEOPLE* own the airwaves. PERIOD. Sony doesn't own them, Verizon doesn't own them, for heavens sake, CNN certainly doesn't own them, and as far as sat tv goes, neither does the Playboy channel. WE own them.
Re: Another restriction on technology - cell and cordless scanning now a felony
On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 08:00 AM, cubic-dog wrote: > How is this legal? > > How is it legal to outlaw reception of radio > transmissions under the FCC act of 1934? > > I have never understood this. I keep expecting at > some point, someone will somehow come up with a > good reason to take a monitoring claim to the > US supreme court and get all these laws tossed > aside. But I guess I am expecting too much. I thought everyone knew that the U.S. Constitution was secretly suspended by the Emergency Secrecy Order of 1862, with the suspension renewed and expanded by the Double Secret Emergency Order of 1913, establishing the Federal Reserve and imposing personal income reporting orders. And in the 1930s the Communists in power imposed more secret orders than I can hope to list. One of these was the That Which Cannot be Written Down secret order on radio and newspaper distribution. Since then, both fascist and communist regimes have expanded the list of secret orders. The fact that many regulations contradict each other is seen a a feature rather than as a bug. --Tim May "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." --John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
We don't need no stinking keys...
if you'll just leave your back door ajar. I could suggest some alternate meanings for "empowered". Sorry for the imagery. Mike http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/07/18/computer.security.ap/index.html /* Tools of empowerment Clarke said the recommendations -- which currently number 77 but could change before the official announcement -- will include government-provided software and other tools to make them easier to implement. He declined to say what the specific recommendations are. "It's designed to not just say (they) have a responsibility, but to empower them by giving them the tools," Clarke said. */
Re: DRM will not be legislated
Read a great article on Slashdot about the recent DRM workshop, http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/18/1219257, by "al3x": As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping. And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval. Reading this and the other comments on the meeting, a few facts come through: that the content companies are much more worried about closing the "analog hole" than mandating traditional DRM software systems; that the prospects for any legislation on these issues are uncertain given the tremendous consumer opposition; and that extremist consumer activists are hurting their cause by conjuring up farfetched scenarios that expose them as kooks. (That last point certainly applies to those here who continue to predict that the government will take away general purpose computing capabilities, allow only "approved" software to run, and ban the use of Perl and Python without a license. Try visiting the real world sometime!) It is also good to see that the voices of sanity are being more and more recognized, like the Listen.com executive above. The cyber liberty community must come out strongly against piracy of content and support experiments which encourage people to pay for what they download. It is no longer tenable to claim that intellectual property is obsolete or evil, or to point to the complaints of a few musicians as justification for ignoring the creative rights of an entire industry. There is still a very good chance that we can have a future where people will happily pay for legal content instead of making do with bootleg pirate recordings, and that this can happen without legislation and without hurting consumer choice. Such an outcome would be the best for all concerned: for consumers, for tech companies, for artists and for content licensees. Anything else will be a disaster for one or more of these groups, which will ultimately hurt everyone. Let's hope the EFF is listening to the kinds of clear-sighted commentary quoted above.
