] A new nonprofit organization aimed at welding
] file-swapping and open-source computing advocates into a
] political force is launching online this week.
]
] Dubbed "Click The Vote," an allusion to the successful
] Rock the Vote efforts focused at the MTV generation, the
] group hopes to make digital copyright and computing
] matters an issue in the 2004 election campaigns.

Of interest...

Group seeks political power for P2P | CNET News.com

] A reader wrote to point out that weblog.infoworld.com is
] categorized by SurfControl as "Usenet News" and is,
] therefore, being blocked for people in organizations that
] deploy SurfControl's server-based filter.

If laws that require libraries to install internet filters require libraries to enable categories like "usenet news" for filtering, then those laws are trivially unconstitutional. By banning all viewpoints that are not delivered by established news media, the government would be employing at restriction on speech which is not content neutral and has nothing at all to do with "protecting minors from pornography." If you see a library banning access to weblogs, I'm sure the ACLU would be itching to take them to court.

Jon Udell: Surf Control Bans Blogs

] Last week a joint study committee of the Tennessee
] legislature held a formal hearing and formally asked for
] alternatives to the MPAA's legislation which prompted
] CERC and CEA to take the wraps off an alternative model
] bill.

Actual testimony is provided at this link. Is this the same hearing Flynn was telling us about?

I like this alternative proposal because:

1. Its simple.
2. It focuses on actual theft of communications services that the service provider charges money for instead of more vague ideas about the letter of service contracts.
3. It eliminates all of the free speech concerns. You can talk all you want. You simply cannot sell devices.
4. Its probably redundant, but in that sense it makes a point.

Some comments:
I would add the word "knowingly" to the assistance paragraph (A2)
I think the "staple of commerce" standard should be defined.

Alternative to SDMCA

] A nonprofit Internet Service Provider (ISP) and two
] Swarthmore College students are seeking a court order on
] Election Day tomorrow to stop electronic voting machine
] manufacturer Diebold Systems, Inc., from issuing specious
] legal threats. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
] and the Center for Internet and Society Cyberlaw Clinic
] at Stanford Law School are providing legal representation
] in this important case to prevent abusive copyright
] claims from silencing public debate about voting, the
] very foundation of our democratic process.

Thank you! I called for this in my talk at Phreaknic. I hope they are awarded punitive damages! We need a real deterrent here.

EFF: Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford Law Clinic Sue Electronic Voting Company

] She stated that the existing law only covers analog, not
] digital cable theft--giving the impression that, without
] this new bill, digital cable theft is legal.

Read about the obvious lies that various lobbying organizations told the Tennessee legislature yesterday.

U: If you really want to get your blood boiling wait until you get to the place where these mother fuckers tell the legislature that having wifi access points in your home helps terrorists!

10/28/2003 Joint Committee Hearing Notes - Tennessee Digital Freedom Network

] Global Internet,
] Once a spring of liberty,
] Autumn chill so near.

This is the founder of Autodesk on how the potential for freedom represented by the internet could be rolled back over the next few years.

The Digital Imprimatur

] Defending the right to link to controversial information
] about flaws in electronic voting systems, EFF announced
] today it will defend an Internet Service Provider (ISP)
] and a news website publisher against claims of indirect
] copyright infringement from the electronic voting
] machines' manufacturer.

EFF: ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website

] I am writing to voice my opposition to any FCC-mandated
] adoption of "broadcast flag" technology for digital
] television. As a consumer and citizen, I feel strongly
] that such a policy would be bad for innovation, consumer
] rights, and the ultimate adoption of DTV.

EFF - Take action on the broadcast flag

] On September 3, 2003 Sherman Austin surrendered himself
] to begin a one-year term in federal prison for the contents of a
] website that was authored by another boy and linked to Sherman's
] site, www.raisethefist.com, on a free-hosting area Sherman provided
] there. The other boy's site included a direct link to the "Reclaim Guide,
] a manual that provides crude instructions on how to build explosives.

Politech has been covering this story for quite some time, and I'm curious
what people on MemeStreams think about it. I've always been one step
away from memeing it.

This guy ran a left wing website on which he advocated violent action against corporations, government, etc... in response to globalization, and provided links to bomb making information. Diane Feinstein, for many years, has tried to make it illegal to post bomb making information on the internet. A few years ago she finally got one through, but only if you present it in a context where you intend that it be used to commit a violent crime. This guy was the first person to ever be prosecuted for it. The prosecution didn't ask for much in the way of sentencing. The judge, apparently, was appalled by that and gave the kid a year. Feinstein was also appalled at told the DOJ to use this law more often.

The reason I haven't memed this before is that this guy, regardless of what his friends are saying, really is guilty. I went through his website when this started. He was actually advocating violence and linking to bomb making information.

Should this be illegal? Well.... What if he was Osama Bin Lauden? OBL does the same stuff. He advocates violence for political reasons, and he provides information (and training camps) for people who answer his call. I think what OBL does ought to be illegal. Should what Sherman Austin did also be illegal? What is the difference?

Well, the most obvious difference is that OBL actually has people that listen to him and go through with his direction, whereas this raisethefist website was mostly the immature ramblings of an angsty teenager. No one has actually connected it with a real crime. Maybe its only illegal if people listen to you? Seems like a questionable distinction. Your actions and intents are the same. Should success be the measure of a criminal mind?

There is another difference. That is that OBL is involved in planning (and, furthermore, coordinating and funding) SPECIFIC actions, whereas Austin gives you a motive and some tools but leaves the details up to you. Is this where we should draw the line? It certainly seems like a place where you could draw one.

If you want to do that, then consider this website:
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/

This website is basically the same as Austin's in that it advocates violent (or is it just destructive?) action and provides tools. The LEGAL difference between this website and Austin's, in terms of t... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

The legalities of bomb making information on the internet....

] An Internet search company Thursday filed a $100 million
] antitrust lawsuit against VeriSign Inc., accusing the Web
] address provider of hijacking misspelled and unassigned
] Web addresses with a service it launched this week.

Push their asses to the wall!

But wait, check out this quote ::

] VeriSign spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy said he could not
] comment on the lawsuit because the company had not seen it
] and does not as a matter of policy comment on pending litigation.
]
] He defended the company's new service, saying it was helping
] people find Web sites instead of sending them down a digital "dead
] end."
]
] "Twenty million times a day on our network, people mistype domains
] and don't get what they're looking for," he said.

***OUR NETWORK*** Who's network!? My ISP isn't resolving domains to your service, so I guess its not your damn network then, is it? Bitch!

Forbes.com: VeriSign sued over controversial Web service