---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 12:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ethan Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Robot-for-President] Re: Computer Speech and First Amendment
Protection: Will it apply to fully robotic conversational programming when
it is available?
Hello Ethan:
I have put this matter out to several law lists as well. The
matter of "robot rights" seems humorous or frivolous at first. But a
scientist from BT wrote in the last issue of The Futurist that he expects
to see robots given something akin to human rights (in some degree) by the
next decade. If the programmer has First Amendment rights, why not an
autonomous robot programmer (when the technology gets to that
stage)? Kurzweil (1999) says he expects to see conversational programming
which will "pass the Turing test" in about 20 years. Just something to put
on the back burner for now. Thanks for your interest.
FWP.
http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex/Machine-Psychology.htm
On Thu, 4 May 2000, Ethan Preston wrote:
> I'm not sure I fully understand the question.
>
> If you're asking about whether robots' speech will have First
> Amendment protection, I think the answer is no, but that the programs
> that would operate and create the robots' speech would.
>
> That is:
> Robots would not have First Amendment protection, this is probably a
> functional aspect of the underlying program, despite the
> manifestation.
> The robots' programs and programmers would have First Amendment
> protection.
>
> On Wed, 03 May 2000, you wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 22:45:18 -0400
> > From: Ethan Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Washington Update v. 4.3 (May 2, 2000)
> >
> > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> > ACM WASHINGTON UPDATE
> > U.S. Office of Public Policy of the Association for Computing Machinery
> >
> > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> >
> > May 2, 2000 Volume 4.3
> >
> > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > CONTENTS
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > POLICY BRIEFS:
> > Junger Wins In Appellate Court
> > Topical Legislation
> > UCITA Update
> > DNSO Recommends New gTLDs
> >
> > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > INTRODUCTION
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> >
> > The Association for Computing Machinery is an international
> > professional society whose 80,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.)
> > represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education,
> > industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting
> > dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers
> > and the general public. The WASHINGTON UPDATE reports on activities
> > in Washington, which may be of interest to those in the computing and
> > information policy communities and will highlight USACM's involvement
> > in many of these issues.
> >
> > To subscribe to the ACM WASHINGTON UPDATE send an e-mail to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "subscribe WASHINGTON-UPDATE" (no quotes) in the
> > body of the message. Back issues are available at:
> > http://www.acm.org/usacm
> >
> > For information about joining the Association for Computing Machinery,
> > see: http://www.acm.org/membership/join.html
> >
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> > POLICY BRIEFS
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> > JUNGER WINS IN APPELLATE COURT
> >
> > On April 4th, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the trial
> > court in Junger v. Daley had erred when it failed to find computer
> > speech sufficiently expressive for First Amendment protection. The
> > effect of the decision may have a far wider impact than the encryption
> > deregulation. The court found that although source code was
> > functional it had expressive aspects, regardless of the fact that
> > source code is unintelligible to nonprogrammers. The court ruled that
> > the First Amendment had protection extended to other functional
> > expression like musical works.
> >
> > The Court of Appeals decision is available at:
> > http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00a0117p.06
> >
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > TOPICAL LEGISLATION
> >
> > Flanking the controversy of UCITA at the state level, Congress has
> > been considering uniform national standards for click-wrap
> > contracts. The proposed Electronic Signatures in Global and National
> > Commerce Act (H.R. 1714) would affirm the validity of online
> > contracts, records and notice with few exceptions. For instance, the
> > law would permit companies to increase interest rates on electronic
> > car-loan paper because it does not require secure electronic
> > documents.
> >
> > The House version of Electronic Signatures in Global and National
> > Commerce Act is available at:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c106MUlg9q::
> >
> > The Senate version of Electronic Signatures in Global and National
> > Commerce Act is available at:
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:4:./temp/~c106OcU9mM::
> >
> > Introduced April 12, the Cyber Security Information Act of 2000 is
> > designed to alleviate the legal and proprietary concerns of
> > companies associated with giving information about security flaws.
> > The Cyber Security Information Act of 2000 provides another FOIA
> > exemption and would prevent information that was shared on government
> > request from being used in any civil lawsuits against the provider of
> > the information. This law would shield software manufacturers from
> > plaintiff attempts to use provided information provided to the
> > government as evidence in a lawsuit.
> >
> > Although H.R. 4246 has not been entered into the THOMAS database,
> > the Congressional Record has an excerpt of its introduction.
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r106:E12AP0-155:
> >
> > The Federation of American Scientists version of the CSIA is available at:
> > http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/cybersec.html
> >
> > Criticism of the CSIA is available at:
> > http://www.privacyplace.com/viewpoint/smith5.html
> >
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > UCITA UPDATE
> >
> > Maryland Governor Glendening signed UCITA into law on April 26. The
> > law has been introduced in Iowa, Delaware and Washington, DC and has
> > passed in Virginia and Maryland. However, Iowa passed a
> > UCITA-shield law that prevents the application of UCITA laws on Iowa
> > residents.
> >
> > A scorecard for the progression of UCITA through the states is available at:
> > http://www.UCITAnews.com
> >
> > A list state information about UCITA is available at:
> > http://www.UCITAnews.com/resources.htm
> >
> > The ACM's page on UCITA is available at:
> > http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright
> >
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > DNSO RECOMMENDS NEW gTLDS
> >
> > Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization issued a
> > recommendation to the DNSO to expand the number of new generic top
> > level domain names. Working Group C, with a broad mix of individuals
> > and representatives of commercial and noncommercial organizations,
> > specifically recommended the introduction of at least 6-10 new gTLDs
> > during a "testbed" period of the initial roll-out. On April 19 in
> > its teleconference meeting, the DNSO Names Council reviewed the
> > Working Group C Report, but failed to adopt its consensus points in
> > full. While the Names Council agreed to support new gTLDs, its
> > resolution only calls only for the "measured and responsible"
> > introduction of new gTLDs -- generally viewed by the ICANN community
> > to mean one or two new gTLDs -- not the 6-10 gTLDs recommended by
> > the Working Group C.
> >
> > Given the pent-up demand for new gTLDs in both the commercial and
> > noncommercial communities expressed at the Cairo ICANN meeting, the
> > rejection of the Working Group C recommendation is viewed with
> > surprise and concern by many seeking introduction of new gTLDs for
> > personal, political and other forms of noncommercial speech.
> >
> > The Names Council also put out for public notice the report of
> > Working Group B, which rejected the proposed Famous Marks list
> > recommended by the World Intellectual Property Organization, and
> > instead introduced a period for "preregistration for all trademark
> > owners" for new commercial gTLDs. The Names Council announced
> > that it will provide supplemental recommendations to the ICANN Board
> > during the week of May 15, 2000, and invites the public to submit
> > comments on the report until May 10.
> >
> > The Names Council report is available at:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCwgb-comments.html
> >
> > ICANN's report on Working Group C's recommendations are available at:
> > http://www.icann.org/dnso/gtld-topic-20apr00.htm
> >
> > The ACM's page on Internet Governance and ICANN is available at:
> > http://www.acm.org/serving/IG.html
> >
> > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> > Washington Update is a biweekly publication of the U.S. Public Policy
> > Office of the Association for Computing. http://www.acm.org/usacm.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/culturex/The-Question-Nobody-Will-Answer.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** The Era of Total Automation is Now ***
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
