begin quoting Paul G. Allen as of Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:08:32PM -0700: > I like my DISH satellite TV service, as well as the customer service > they've always given me, but I didn't realize Echostar was making such > demands of consumer records (see third story below). > > PGA > > -------- Original Message -------- [chop] > EFFector Vol. 21, No. 29 August 22, 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [snip] > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > In our 482nd issue: > > * EFF SECURED A FREE SPEECH VICTORY FOR SECURITY > RESEARCHERS, successfully urging a federal judge to lift an > unconstitutional gag order that prevented three MIT > students from making a presentation about transit card > vulnerabilities at the DEFCON security conference. The > Massachusetts Bay Transportation Agency (MBTA) claimed in > the suit that the research presentation would violate the > federal computer crime law -- wrongly equating a > presentation at a security conference with some sort of > computer intrusion. However, the successful defeat of the > gag order is only the first part of the lawsuit -- the MBTA > is continuing to litigate, despite the students' offer to > cooperate with the MBTA in explaining the security problems > and working on solutions.
Um.... I thought the judge let the 10-day gag order expire, and didn't renew it for a longer term. That doesn't sound like "lifted", that sounds like a "reasonable judge" -- the MBTA had time to fix and deploy a solution, but apparently settled on a "permenant gag order" as a solution, which didn't sit well with the judge. > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/08/19 "The students met with the MBTA about a week before the conference and voluntarily provided a confidential vulnerability report to the transit agency." Okay, two-and-a-half weeks to fix and deploy a solution. > * TAKE NOTE WOULD-BE CENSORS AND DMCA ABUSERS -- IGNORE > FAIR USE AT YOUR PERIL! In a definitive win for fair use > and free speech, a federal judge ruled that content owners > must consider fair use before sending takedown notices > under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The case > arose when Universal Music Corporation sent a DMCA takedown > notice for a short YouTube video of a toddler dancing to > Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" emanating from a radio in the > kitchen. Universal tried to argue that it had no obligation > to consider whether the song in the video was a fair use > before sending the notice -- but the judge ruled otherwise, > confirming what the EFF No Downtime For Free Speech > Campaign has been saying all along: a copyright owner must > consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice that may > result in the unnecessary censorship of free speech. I wonder what's "Fair Use" for code? [snip] > * EFF URGED A COURT TO PROTECT CONSUMERS from Echostar, the > company behind the DISH satellite TV service. The company > is outrageously demanding the personal contact information > of consumers that bought "Coolsat" free-to-air satellite > receivers. Echostar claims that the Coolsat can be modified > to pirate DISH TV programming, but Echostar's demand seeks > all purchasers regardless of whether they actually pirated > DISH TV -- a gross violation of user privacy that would > leave innocent purchasers vulnerable to bogus legal > threats. Yet another reason not to send in those registration cards. [snip] > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > > EFF Updates > [snip] > * The Stakes in MBTA v. MIT Students > Before the ruling, EFF's Hugh D'Andrade answered key > questions for those interested in the issue but not deeply > familiar with computer security research and law. > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/mit-coders-free-speech-stake How much time *should* elapse between the the notification of a (potential) vulnerability and its public disclosure? A week? Fortnight? Month? -1 seconds? We should probably establish a reasonable guideline, reward those who discover and notify the owners of vulnerabilities, and remove this from the domain of "free speech" entirely. > * The FCC and Regulatory Capture > The FCC issued a good ruling against Comcast, but sharp > policy watchers see some risks ahead. > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-and-regulatory-capture The idea of "regulatory capture" is a good one to think about. There are two obvious (to me) solutions, both painful: (1) Employment in the FCC should disallow you employment in any industry that is regulated by the FCC, for, oh, ten years. And vice-versa, of course. Likewise gifts should be limited. (The guys at the bottom of the heap have a $10 or $15 limit on gifts they can accept; the higher up one goes, the more this is ignored.) (2) Make sure that Congress smacks down such agencies by dissolving the agency when it makes an egregiously influenced decision, and reforming a new agency with little to no overlap. Both of these can be gamed, of course, but would it be any worse than what we have now? > * What If the Kindle Succeeds? > As the sales of digital books grow, what questions should > the publishing industry be asking? > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/kindle That's a lot of books, just for the reader. Are we sure it isn't being bought just for the novelty value? > * DRM for Streaming Music Dies a Quiet Death > Two leading, legal on-demand streaming sites are not using > DRM on their audio streams, yet another example of why > there is no legitimate business case for DRM on music. > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/drm-quietly-dies-streaming-music The problem I have with a lot of this DRM+music stuff is that I saw so many folks engaged in blatant copyright violation in the Napster era. 10,000+ song libraries, not one of them paid for, nor any intent to ever do so. "It's free, I have it, why bother?" As much as I loathe and despise DRM, it's the populace the forced a renegoiation of the social contract. That being said, I have yet to purchase any music online, aside from ordering a CD from a website. > : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : > [snip] > ~ Watch-Listed Fliers Can Sue > An appeals court ruled that passengers can sue the > government to have their names removed from no-fly lists. > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/watch-listed--1.html This is indeed good news. Too bad we can't have a class-action suit and junk the whole thing. [chop] -- And that's my initial reaction. Stewart Stremler -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
