begin quoting Paul G. Allen as of Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:18:51PM -0700: > -------- Forwarded Message -------- [snip] > > EFFector Vol. 20, No. 29 July 24, 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Action Alert: Keep Copyright Holders' Hands Off of Campus > > Networks > > > > Major copyright holders are backing a legislative proposal > > to make colleges do their dirty work. The Higher Education > > Reauthorization Act is supposed to make going to college > > more affordable,
When did it not get affordable? Community colleges are *cheap*, last I looked. . . > > but a last-minute amendment threatens to > > force certain schools to divert funds away from education > > and toward policing corporate copyrighted content on their > > campus networks. Twenty-five schools annually will be > > singled out and required to provide evidence to the > > Secretary of Education about their efforts to stop file > > sharing, including use of "technology-based deterrents" > > (read: network surveillance technologies). Presumably, such technologies are already in place, as campus networks are almost ideally designed for the propagation of viruses and trojans. You have clever students doing juvenile-type things, and not-so-clever students doing unsafe things [with their computers] -- and then there's the faculty, who Just Want To Get Things Done and don't care about "appropriate precautions". > > This amendment is a moving target and may come up for a > > vote very soon, so it's critical that you call your > > Senators now and voice your opposition: > > http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=306 Point out that the /real/ problem is the presumption of guilt, and the irrelevence of this sort of thing to education. > > Schools are already being forced to expend significant > > resources in the face of the RIAA's lawsuit campaign > > against students. More enforcement won't stop file sharing, > > as students will simply migrate towards other readily > > accessible sharing tools that can't be easily monitored. How is this result a bad thing? > > But it will chill academic freedom, as legitimate uses of > > the network will inevitably be stifled. On the contrary, perhaps the load on the network will be decreased, so that legitimate use will no longer have to compete with illegitimate use. > > The federal government shouldn't be in charge of schools' > > network management decisions. Congress ought to reject this > > misguided proposal and take up real solutions that get > > artists paid and let students keep sharing. Please take > > action and call your Senators now: > > http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=306 I'm very unhappy about any proposed course of action that consists of "let the lawbreakers keep breaking the law". If it's a bad law, then change the law -- but copyright isn't considered *bad* by the EFF, surely. Just because you're up against evil bastards doesn't mean that they're always, inevitably, in the wrong.... [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Thursday Hearing on Secret Orders for Domestic Spying > > > > Justice Department Withholds Records on Electronic > > Surveillance > > > > Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, July 26, at 11 a.m., the > > Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will argue for the > > release of court orders that supposedly authorize the > > government's highly controversial electronic domestic > > surveillance program that intercepts and analyzes millions > > of Americans' communications. Yay! [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Ask.com Takes the Lead on Log Retention; Microsoft and > > Yahoo! Follow > > > > We've often regretted that the most popular search engines > > have been keeping a dossier of everything you search for -- > > forever. It's easy to forget just how intrusive this kind > > of record can be until something like the AOL search > > history leak occurs and confronts users with even a portion > > of the search logs that track their everyday on-line > > activities. This is why you should search for all manner of random things as a matter of course. > > Thus, it's exciting to hear that Ask.com plans to take a > > leap into the lead of search engine privacy by expressly > > allowing users to opt-out of tracking -- as the Associated > > Press and Ars Technica report, Ask has pledged to launch a > > service called AskEraser that allows users to decline to > > stop their search histories from being logged. Opt-out is always inferior to opt-in. > > And now, it looks like our hope that other search engines > > would follow Ask's lead is becoming a reality, and faster > > than we expected: Microsoft announced over the weekend that > > it is now intending to offer users the ability to opt out > > of having their searches automatically associated with a > > single identifier. Meanwhile, Yahoo! is reportedly > > shortening its retention period to 13 months, so far the > > shortest such period amongst the major search engines. There might well be useful information in those logs -- what are the downsides? Remember, it's not the search history that's the problem, it's the identification with a user. Ask why your browser provide so much information about you? Consider running an open free wireless access point. [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * In This Edition of Privacy Theater, Google's Cookie > > Monster > > > > Contrary to Google's recent statements, the company's new > > policy for issuing cookies won't meaningfully help protect > > users' privacy. Shorter cookie life spans can help limit a > > site's ability to track you, but Google's change doesn't > > amount to any practical difference. > > > > To its credit, Google did decide in March to delete key > > identifying information in its search logs, including > > cookie ID numbers, after 18 months. As we said at the time, > > this is a good first step towards protecting users' > > privacy, but more is needed. Unfortunately, Google's new > > policy for issuing cookies doesn't move the ball forward. > > > > If you actually want to limit how Google and other search > > engines can track you via cookies and other means, check > > out our white paper, Six Tips to Protect Your Online Search > > Privacy: > > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/search/searchtips.php My ISP already knows who I am, so not using my ISP's search engine is kind of silly -- if they wanted to know what I was searching for, they'd sniff my packet-stream to google. . . It counts as "not making it easy". [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * REAL ID Amendment Throws Good Money After Bad [snip] > > You should also use EFF's Action Center and tell Congress > > to repeal REAL ID entirely: > > http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=275 Yes. [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Innocent RIAA Defendant Fights Back, Wins $70,000 Fee > > Award > > > > After more than three years of litigation, a single mom who > > was improperly swept up in the RIAA's P2P litigation > > "driftnet" has finally been vindicated. An Oklahoma court > > has ordered the RIAA to pay nearly $70,000 in fees and > > costs to defendant Debra Foster. EFF, Public Citizen, the > > ACLU, and the American Association of Law Libraries filed > > an amicus brief in the case supporting Foster's motion for > > fees. > > > > Last Tuesday, Judge West brought Foster's epic to an end at > > last and granted her compensation. The ruling sends a > > message to both RIAA defendants and the RIAA itself that > > the music companies can be held accountable when they bring > > improper claims based on inadequate information. Yay! Invoking the courts is a dangerous game. Don't undertake it lightly. [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > [snip] > > > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Public Interest Groups Respond to NBC on Mandatory ISP > > Filtering > > > > A few weeks ago, NBC submitted comments to the FCC asking > > it to adopt new rules declaring that "broadband service > > providers have an obligation to use readily available > > means" to stop copyright infringement. Basically, NBC wants > > the FCC to force ISPs to police their users and play > > copyright cop. This is the downside of getting out of the Common Carrier game. If you're not neutral, you gotta take sides. . . > > Public Knowledge and a coalition of public interest groups > > -- including EFF -- have filed a response, pointing out that > > a policy of this sort would be bad for free speech, bad for > > innovation, and wildly outside the FCC's mandate. Baloney, baloney, and emphatically yes. > > Download the coalition response: > > http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-etal-fcc-07-52-20070716.pdf > > > > For this post and related links: > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005369.php > > > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > > > * Harry Potter and the Deathly Digital Fingerprints > > > > A few days before last Friday's release of Harry Potter and > > the Deathly Hallows, someone leaked a (genuine) copy of the > > book using file-sharing networks and photo-sharing web > > sites -- photographing every single page with a digital > > camera. The quality isn't great -- the leaker evidently > > didn't have a nifty Internet Archive Scribe station -- but > > the text is legible. Blatant copyright violation. > > Perhaps the leaker didn't realize that the digital camera > > he or she used -- a Canon Rebel 300D -- left digital > > fingerprints behind in every image. We downloaded a copy of > > the leak and took a look at the images with the open-source > > ExifTool, one of dozens of programs capable of reading the > > industry-standard EXIF digital photo metadata format. As > > the press reported, the camera's serial number is in there, > > along with over 100 other facts including the date and time > > that the photos were taken and an assortment of photo-geek > > details about focus and lighting conditions. So... record your camera's serial number. If someone steals your camera, start trolling the web looking for pictures from that camera... > > Read EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen's complete post and > > find out what we discovered: > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005371.php The problem is in user-awareness. Obviously, our tools ought to provide access to let us read this information. . . > > Find out if your color laser printer is spying on you: > > http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/ Hm... fun. I wonder if you could print yellow dots or suchlike on purpose? Great for steganography... > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > [snip] > > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > [snip] -- Initial Reaction. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
