ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
Induce Act update
more, um, *ugh*
as noted on Joi Ito's Web:
http://joi.ito.com/
June 28, 2004
Orlowski on Induce Act and hacker activism
11:35 JST Activism - Intellectual Property - US Policy and Politics
In an update on the new Induce Act that I blogged about earlier, Orlowski
makes an interesting observation about why the IT lobby lost Hatch who is
leading this bill and who used to be "on our side."
////
The Register Internet and Law Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/26/hatch_induce_act/
Dirty rotten inducers - the law the IT world deserves?
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Published Saturday 26th June 2004 09:34 GMT
It may soon be possible to carry around an AK-47 assault rifle and an iPod
with you down the street - and be arrested for carrying the iPod.
That's according to critics of a Senate amendment to the copyright code
proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch this week called the 'Induce Act'. He wants
to make the 'intentional inducement of copyright infringement' an offense,
and this will extend liability to any manufacturer of a device which plays
infringed material, or a shop that sells such a device, they say.
Hatch's terse amendment states that "the term 'intentionally induces'
means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures; and intent may be
shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce
infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then
reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies
on infringement for its commercial viability," in which caser the inducer
becomes an infringer.
However, the amendment also says that "nothing in this subsection shall
enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability
for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or
impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement." And it's
contributory liability that the RIAA want to see changed.
In his floor speech introducing the measure, Hatch said that once people
are given PCs, they are bound to infringe. (Many would agree with him
there). So he frames his bill as a protection. Hatch said people weren't
aware that they were breaking the law by running P2P software, (citing
work by Harvard's Berkman Center, which says the Senator quoted them out
of context) and therefore running "piracy machines" that had been designed
to mislead their users. Therefore, his argument goes, the users are in
need of protection from 'inducement'.
No exceptions
The problem is that 'fair use' isn't on the statute books. It arose from
case law, and specifically the Sony vs. Betamax case in 1984 in which the
entertainment industry failed to prevent the video recorder being sold.
Hatch rather gleefully points this out. "Congress codified no exceptions
for 'substantial non-criminal uses'."
The act does nothing to address two key issues. The bill insists that only
by criminalizing millions of people can we ensure artists get paid, which
is supposed to be our common goal. And it fails to recognize that people
are always going to exchange music.
This is odd, because four years ago Senator Hatch subscribed to both these
points of view. He threatened the RIAA that he would introduce flat fee
legislation, effectively decriminalizing what he now calls "piracy", if it
didn't clean up its act. (See Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany"
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)
and Senator Hatch rides to Napster's rescue
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)).
Despite the contributory infringement clause, the opposition is adamant
that this will threaten the manufacture, promotion or sale of devices
which play infringing material.
"No one will invest in, or invent new innovative technologies if the mere
fact that they can be used unlawfully is enough to make both the investors
and the inventors liable," said Public Knowledge's Mike Godwin.
Mitch Bainwol, The RIAA's chief executive ,has denied that manufacturers
are the target - "this is not about going after the device makers," he
told the New York Times, and instead is directed at the P2P networks.
Hatch himself said the law had purposefully been crafted to avoid
bothering manufacturers.
"It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors
without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both
consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices -
even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for unlawful
purposes," he said.
Payback time?
It remains to be seen if this eventually criminalizes the iPod. However,
it is incontestable that the debate - as now framed by Senator Hatch long
- has left the gravitational pull of commonsense. Take two notions: that
artists should be compensated, and that we should be free to exchange
culture, and you soon find an abundance of different options. That the
debate should have been driven down such a cul-de-sac, is, when you think
about it, quite extraordinary.
And largely it's the technology community's own fault. They've made it
very easy for the MPAA and the RIAA to draft such legislation. Rather than
making themselves a nuisance in Washington DC, worrying politicians, and
bringing attractive alternatives to the public's attention,
technology-literate advocates simply dived out of the way.
Why is this so? Many IT people don't like getting involved in
demonstrating or lobbying, providing the group with vital inertia to begin
with. But that's a symptom, not a cause? Non-IT people like to think IT
people are uniquely bad at social relations, and only seem to be talk
persuasively to other like-minded IT people. The Internet seems to have
exacerbated this fragmentation. There may be some truth to this: the
Howard Dean bubble demonstrated how very intense computer-based activists
can easily get an exaggerated idea of their own numbers and eventual
impact. Or perhaps tech people simply aren't interested in social
relations at all: slogans such as "Software freedom!" are baffling to
someone whose CD won't play in their car stereo.
This week dissent against Hatch's bill has been confined to the Internet,
which means it's safely out of sight for most people. Concerned citizens
looking for NRA-style talking points will instead find migraine-inducing
"rebuttals" such as this one
(http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html), written for the
primary benefit of the author. (A double pity, as this is a guy who knows
his stuff).
Well, perhaps it's a combination of all these factors. Perhaps too, the
brief flood of speculative capital into the technology industry in the
1980s and 1990s convinced IT people they didn't have an exalted place in
society. For a time, they did, and even now many seem to think so. And
underneath, there's the hunch that the market will sort everything out, or
the belief that every problem can be solved with technology. Whatever the
reasons, the fightback against the RIAA and the MPAA has been as effective
as the proverbial one-legged man in a backsid- kicking competition. The
entertainment industry should be thankful it has opponents so inept.
Opportunity knocked
We mention this only because the good Senator Hatch personifies the missed
opportunity. He once shared the view of many involved in the technology
sector today that the RIAA could not be trusted to clean up its act, and
that alternative compensation systems that ended "piracy" could prove to
be very popular. That was in 2000.
At around the same time, the EFF was campaigning for Napster to be
legalized, without offering any suggestions as to how the artists might be
paid - thus surrendering its moral authority on the issue. Meanwhile, the
RIAA was courting and flattering Senator Hatch.
At a special gala awards dinner early in 2001 hosted by the National
Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero Award"
and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his
songs, "I Am Not Alone", Joe Menn reported in his book about Napster, All
The Rave [Reg review
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/napsters_back_what_did_silicon/)]
If turning a Senator is this easy, why couldn't the techies do it?
There is hope. The coalition announced earlier this week brought industry
into the battle. And the decision by the New York Times this week to
publish two op-ed articles on alternative compensation systems (one of
which is by William Fisher, whose ideas we explored here
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)). This
should help to take the flat-fee discussion firmly into the mainstream,
where it needs to be. r
Related links
INDUCE Amendment, from the Senator's Hatch
(http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id83&suppresslayouts=true)
NY Times - Fisher
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
Related stories
Why wireless will end piracy and doom DRM and TCPA - Jim Griffin
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/why_wireless_will_end_piracy/)
Music biz should shift to flat-fee, P2P model - exec
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/)
Free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We
explain how
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)
Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/ms_apple_snub_boucher/) MPAA,
RIAA seek permanent antitrust exemption
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/mpaa_riaa_seek_permanent_antitrust/)
House bill would cast FBI as copyright Pinkertons
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/23/house_bill_would_cast_fbi/)
US Senator pauses on PC destruct button
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/19/us_senator_pauses_on_pc/)
US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator_would_destroy_mp3/)
Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/23/senator_hatchs_napster_epiphany/)
Copyright 2004
as noted on Joi Ito's Web:
http://joi.ito.com/
June 28, 2004
Orlowski on Induce Act and hacker activism
11:35 JST Activism - Intellectual Property - US Policy and Politics
In an update on the new Induce Act that I blogged about earlier, Orlowski
makes an interesting observation about why the IT lobby lost Hatch who is
leading this bill and who used to be "on our side."
////
The Register Internet and Law Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs
Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/26/hatch_induce_act/
Dirty rotten inducers - the law the IT world deserves?
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Published Saturday 26th June 2004 09:34 GMT
It may soon be possible to carry around an AK-47 assault rifle and an iPod
with you down the street - and be arrested for carrying the iPod.
That's according to critics of a Senate amendment to the copyright code
proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch this week called the 'Induce Act'. He wants
to make the 'intentional inducement of copyright infringement' an offense,
and this will extend liability to any manufacturer of a device which plays
infringed material, or a shop that sells such a device, they say.
Hatch's terse amendment states that "the term 'intentionally induces'
means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures; and intent may be
shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce
infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then
reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies
on infringement for its commercial viability," in which caser the inducer
becomes an infringer.
However, the amendment also says that "nothing in this subsection shall
enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability
for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or
impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement." And it's
contributory liability that the RIAA want to see changed.
In his floor speech introducing the measure, Hatch said that once people
are given PCs, they are bound to infringe. (Many would agree with him
there). So he frames his bill as a protection. Hatch said people weren't
aware that they were breaking the law by running P2P software, (citing
work by Harvard's Berkman Center, which says the Senator quoted them out
of context) and therefore running "piracy machines" that had been designed
to mislead their users. Therefore, his argument goes, the users are in
need of protection from 'inducement'.
No exceptions
The problem is that 'fair use' isn't on the statute books. It arose from
case law, and specifically the Sony vs. Betamax case in 1984 in which the
entertainment industry failed to prevent the video recorder being sold.
Hatch rather gleefully points this out. "Congress codified no exceptions
for 'substantial non-criminal uses'."
The act does nothing to address two key issues. The bill insists that only
by criminalizing millions of people can we ensure artists get paid, which
is supposed to be our common goal. And it fails to recognize that people
are always going to exchange music.
This is odd, because four years ago Senator Hatch subscribed to both these
points of view. He threatened the RIAA that he would introduce flat fee
legislation, effectively decriminalizing what he now calls "piracy", if it
didn't clean up its act. (See Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany"
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)
and Senator Hatch rides to Napster's rescue
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)).
Despite the contributory infringement clause, the opposition is adamant
that this will threaten the manufacture, promotion or sale of devices
which play infringing material.
"No one will invest in, or invent new innovative technologies if the mere
fact that they can be used unlawfully is enough to make both the investors
and the inventors liable," said Public Knowledge's Mike Godwin.
Mitch Bainwol, The RIAA's chief executive ,has denied that manufacturers
are the target - "this is not about going after the device makers," he
told the New York Times, and instead is directed at the P2P networks.
Hatch himself said the law had purposefully been crafted to avoid
bothering manufacturers.
"It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors
without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both
consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices -
even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for unlawful
purposes," he said.
Payback time?
It remains to be seen if this eventually criminalizes the iPod. However,
it is incontestable that the debate - as now framed by Senator Hatch long
- has left the gravitational pull of commonsense. Take two notions: that
artists should be compensated, and that we should be free to exchange
culture, and you soon find an abundance of different options. That the
debate should have been driven down such a cul-de-sac, is, when you think
about it, quite extraordinary.
And largely it's the technology community's own fault. They've made it
very easy for the MPAA and the RIAA to draft such legislation. Rather than
making themselves a nuisance in Washington DC, worrying politicians, and
bringing attractive alternatives to the public's attention,
technology-literate advocates simply dived out of the way.
Why is this so? Many IT people don't like getting involved in
demonstrating or lobbying, providing the group with vital inertia to begin
with. But that's a symptom, not a cause? Non-IT people like to think IT
people are uniquely bad at social relations, and only seem to be talk
persuasively to other like-minded IT people. The Internet seems to have
exacerbated this fragmentation. There may be some truth to this: the
Howard Dean bubble demonstrated how very intense computer-based activists
can easily get an exaggerated idea of their own numbers and eventual
impact. Or perhaps tech people simply aren't interested in social
relations at all: slogans such as "Software freedom!" are baffling to
someone whose CD won't play in their car stereo.
This week dissent against Hatch's bill has been confined to the Internet,
which means it's safely out of sight for most people. Concerned citizens
looking for NRA-style talking points will instead find migraine-inducing
"rebuttals" such as this one
(http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html), written for the
primary benefit of the author. (A double pity, as this is a guy who knows
his stuff).
Well, perhaps it's a combination of all these factors. Perhaps too, the
brief flood of speculative capital into the technology industry in the
1980s and 1990s convinced IT people they didn't have an exalted place in
society. For a time, they did, and even now many seem to think so. And
underneath, there's the hunch that the market will sort everything out, or
the belief that every problem can be solved with technology. Whatever the
reasons, the fightback against the RIAA and the MPAA has been as effective
as the proverbial one-legged man in a backsid- kicking competition. The
entertainment industry should be thankful it has opponents so inept.
Opportunity knocked
We mention this only because the good Senator Hatch personifies the missed
opportunity. He once shared the view of many involved in the technology
sector today that the RIAA could not be trusted to clean up its act, and
that alternative compensation systems that ended "piracy" could prove to
be very popular. That was in 2000.
At around the same time, the EFF was campaigning for Napster to be
legalized, without offering any suggestions as to how the artists might be
paid - thus surrendering its moral authority on the issue. Meanwhile, the
RIAA was courting and flattering Senator Hatch.
At a special gala awards dinner early in 2001 hosted by the National
Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero Award"
and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his
songs, "I Am Not Alone", Joe Menn reported in his book about Napster, All
The Rave [Reg review
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/napsters_back_what_did_silicon/)]
If turning a Senator is this easy, why couldn't the techies do it?
There is hope. The coalition announced earlier this week brought industry
into the battle. And the decision by the New York Times this week to
publish two op-ed articles on alternative compensation systems (one of
which is by William Fisher, whose ideas we explored here
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)). This
should help to take the flat-fee discussion firmly into the mainstream,
where it needs to be. r
Related links
INDUCE Amendment, from the Senator's Hatch
(http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id83&suppresslayouts=true)
NY Times - Fisher
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
Related stories
Why wireless will end piracy and doom DRM and TCPA - Jim Griffin
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/why_wireless_will_end_piracy/)
Music biz should shift to flat-fee, P2P model - exec
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/)
Free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We
explain how
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)
Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/ms_apple_snub_boucher/) MPAA,
RIAA seek permanent antitrust exemption
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/mpaa_riaa_seek_permanent_antitrust/)
House bill would cast FBI as copyright Pinkertons
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/23/house_bill_would_cast_fbi/)
US Senator pauses on PC destruct button
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/19/us_senator_pauses_on_pc/)
US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator_would_destroy_mp3/)
Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/23/senator_hatchs_napster_epiphany/)
Copyright 2004
Senate Passes Piracy Act
ugh.
as furd blogs it:
http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/
> "So much for all the whistling past the graveyard, claiming that
Congress had too much real work (like passing a budget) to mess with the
copyright fights. Now my tax dollars will go to helping maintain the
RIAA/MPAA business model, unless the House shows more sense -- good use
for the Department of Justice with a summer of high alert coming my way"
check out the article for links...
///
Senate OKs antipiracy plan
Last modified: June 25, 2004, 2:09 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/Senate%20OKs%20antipiracy%20plan/2100-1027_3-5248333.html
The U.S. Senate on Friday overwhelmingly approved a controversial proposal
that would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected
copyright infringers, with fines reaching tens or even hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
The so-called Pirate Act has raised alarms among copyright lawyers and
lobbyists for peer-to-peer companies, who have been eyeing the recording
industry's lawsuits against thousands of peer-to-peer users with
trepidation. They worry that the Department of Justice could be even more
ambitious.
Senate leaders scheduled Friday's vote under a procedure that required the
unanimous consent of all members present. Now the Pirate Act, along with a
related bill that criminalizes using camcorders in movie theaters, will be
forwarded to the House of Representatives for approval.
"These acts will provide federal prosecutors with the flexibility and
discretion to bring copyright infringement cases that best correspond to
the nature of the crime and will assure that valuable works that are
pirated before their public release date are protected," said Mitch
Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Counting a new round of lawsuits filed this week, the RIAA has sued 3,429
people so far.
Friday's unanimous vote represents a key legislative victory for the
entertainment industry, which has been lobbying fiercely for ways to halt
the ever-growing popularity of file-swapping networks. Their reasoning: If
civil lawsuits brought by the music industry haven't been enough of a
deterrence, perhaps federal suits brought by the Justice Department will
be.
One influential backer of the Pirate Act has been urging an avalanche of
civil suits. "Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions
might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a
Utah Republican, said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt
that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority
to pursue such a campaign."
"This turns the Department of Justice into a civil law firm for the
industry's benefit," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P
United. Its members include BearShare, Blubster, Grokster, Morpehus and
eDonkey.
+
-
as furd blogs it:
http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/
> "So much for all the whistling past the graveyard, claiming that
Congress had too much real work (like passing a budget) to mess with the
copyright fights. Now my tax dollars will go to helping maintain the
RIAA/MPAA business model, unless the House shows more sense -- good use
for the Department of Justice with a summer of high alert coming my way"
check out the article for links...
///
Senate OKs antipiracy plan
Last modified: June 25, 2004, 2:09 PM PDT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/Senate%20OKs%20antipiracy%20plan/2100-1027_3-5248333.html
The U.S. Senate on Friday overwhelmingly approved a controversial proposal
that would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected
copyright infringers, with fines reaching tens or even hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
The so-called Pirate Act has raised alarms among copyright lawyers and
lobbyists for peer-to-peer companies, who have been eyeing the recording
industry's lawsuits against thousands of peer-to-peer users with
trepidation. They worry that the Department of Justice could be even more
ambitious.
Senate leaders scheduled Friday's vote under a procedure that required the
unanimous consent of all members present. Now the Pirate Act, along with a
related bill that criminalizes using camcorders in movie theaters, will be
forwarded to the House of Representatives for approval.
"These acts will provide federal prosecutors with the flexibility and
discretion to bring copyright infringement cases that best correspond to
the nature of the crime and will assure that valuable works that are
pirated before their public release date are protected," said Mitch
Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Counting a new round of lawsuits filed this week, the RIAA has sued 3,429
people so far.
Friday's unanimous vote represents a key legislative victory for the
entertainment industry, which has been lobbying fiercely for ways to halt
the ever-growing popularity of file-swapping networks. Their reasoning: If
civil lawsuits brought by the music industry haven't been enough of a
deterrence, perhaps federal suits brought by the Justice Department will
be.
One influential backer of the Pirate Act has been urging an avalanche of
civil suits. "Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions
might be needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a
Utah Republican, said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt
that any nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority
to pursue such a campaign."
"This turns the Department of Justice into a civil law firm for the
industry's benefit," said Adam Eisgrau, the executive director of P2P
United. Its members include BearShare, Blubster, Grokster, Morpehus and
eDonkey.
+
-
NEWSgrist: Population 1000!!!1! (June posts #2)
NEWSgrist: Population 1000!!!1! (June posts #2)
============================
============================
NEWSgrist
where spin is art
for resources + pics + links to full articles go to:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
free e-subscriptions {subscribe // unsubscribe}
http://www.newsgrist.net/subscribe.html
============================
Vol.5, no.11 (June 28, 2004)
============================
*Underbelly*
post your own news, press releases, urls:
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum
============================
============================
NEWSgrist
where spin is art
for resources + pics + links to full articles go to:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
free e-subscriptions {subscribe // unsubscribe}
http://www.newsgrist.net/subscribe.html
============================
Vol.5, no.11 (June 28, 2004)
============================
*Underbelly*
post your own news, press releases, urls:
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum
beta testing: *I'm Voting Bush OUT*
I had a meeting last night with some designers, activists, friends etc.
and we're initiating a series of online/offline decentralized actions. So
far we're trying to get a logo together, a blog, etc. This is an
unofficial heads-up -- the blog is still under construction here:
I'm Voting Bush OUT
http://www.imvoting.com/
and I thought it might be a good thing to invite other bloggers, tactical
hacktivists, members of rhizome, et al. to hook-up/link-up. As I say,
we've so far only had one meeting. It looks like August is going to be
really crazy in NYC.
send me your ideas, comments, brain storms. more soon.
Joy
and we're initiating a series of online/offline decentralized actions. So
far we're trying to get a logo together, a blog, etc. This is an
unofficial heads-up -- the blog is still under construction here:
I'm Voting Bush OUT
http://www.imvoting.com/
and I thought it might be a good thing to invite other bloggers, tactical
hacktivists, members of rhizome, et al. to hook-up/link-up. As I say,
we've so far only had one meeting. It looks like August is going to be
really crazy in NYC.
send me your ideas, comments, brain storms. more soon.
Joy
EFFector 17.23: How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Effector List <alerts@action.eff.org>
To: joyeria@walrus.com
Subject: EFFector 17.23: How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
EFFector Vol. 17, No. 23 June 23, 2004 donna@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In the 295th Issue of EFFector:
* How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
* EFF Joins Coalition in Fight for Legal Uses of Digital
Media
* EFF Stands Up for Election Integrity in California E-Voting
Lawsuit
* RIAA Asks FCC to Lock Down Digital Radio Broadcasts
* Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT 218 - "Foreign Intelligence
Information"
* EFF Seeks Dynamic, Motivated Membership Coordinator
* MiniLinks (8): Induce Act = Hollings II?
* Staff Calendar: 06.24.04 - Wendy Seltzer speaks at Supernova
2004, Santa Clara, CA; 06.28.04 - Cory Doctorow speaks at
Tech Active, London, UK
* Administrivia
For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>
To join EFF or make an additional donation:
<https://secure.eff.org/>
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
EFF European Affairs Coordinator Cory Doctorow visited Microsoft
last week to ask the tech giant to stand up to the entertainment
industry and make a media player that will play all the media you
want it to.
In his speech, Doctorow made five main arguments against investing
in digital rights management (DRM) systems:
1. DRM systems don't work.
2. DRM systems are bad for society.
3. DRM systems are bad for business.
4. DRM systems are bad for artists.
5. DRM is a bad business move for Microsoft.
Follow the links below to read the speech, which was dedicated to
the public domain with a Creative Commons license and has already
been republished in a variety of forms, including a Wiki
and an audio file:
<http://junk.haughey.com/doctorow-drm-ms.html>
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001636.php>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Joins Coalition in Fight for Legal Uses of Digital Media
EFF has joined with a diverse coalition of organizations and
companies called the Personal Technology Freedom Coalition
(PTFC). Alongside corporations such as Sun, Intel, and SBC,
and groups like Public Knowledge and the Consumer Electronics
Association, EFF is pushing for Congress to ensure that
consumers can make legal use of digital media they have
purchased. The coalition supports the rights of researchers
to improve upon technology already on the market, and the
rights of consumers to make fair use backups of CDs and DVDs
they own.
On Tuesday, the PTFC held a press conference in Washington, DC
with Representatives Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rick Boucher (D-VA)
to raise awareness about the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act
(H.R. 107). H.R. 107 amends the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) to allow people to circumvent copy protection on
their digital media if they aren't doing it to infringe copyright.
Thanks to the efforts of PTFC members, as well as concerned
citizens, it is also the first DMCA reform bill to make it
this far in Congress. Currently, H.R. 107 is awaiting markups
in the House Energy Committee. Representative Barton said
Tuesday that he hopes for a markup by July, and Boucher
added that the bill is close to reaching the Congress floor.
EFF one-pager: "The DMCA Revisited: What's Fair?"
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/dmcarevisited.pdf>
CNET article: "Tech Heavies Support Challenge to Copyright Law"
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!3>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Stands Up for Election Integrity in California E-Voting Lawsuit
San Francisco, CA - At the request of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, EFF filed an
additional brief in the lawsuit challenging the recent orders
by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley that require
additional security measures for electronic voting machines
used in the November elections, including the requirement that
every California voter have the option of casting a paper
ballot.
In the case, called Benavidez v. Shelley, EFF argued that the
long record of problems with electronic voting machines more
than justifies the Secretary's decision. EFF also responded to
the plaintiffs' claims that voter-verifiable paper ballots would
not increase voting security, noting that these systems
"utilize one of the most longstanding and common-sense
principles of general data security: two sets of books are
better than one."
EFF was joined in the brief by VerifiedVoting.org, the California
Voter Foundation, and VotersUnite!
EFF sur-reply in Benavidez v. Shelley:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!1>
(EFF; PDF)
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* RIAA Asks FCC to Lock Down Digital Radio Broadcasts
EFF, Brennan Center Argue Against Restrictions on Future Technologies
San Francisco, CA, and New York, NY - If the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) gets its way, consumers will not be
permitted to listen to digital radio broadcasts unless they use an
industry-approved device. The RIAA is particularly hostile to
any TiVo-like recording device for digital radio. EFF and the
Brennan Center for Justice have filed comments with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in an effort to stop the RIAA's
plan to regulate digital radio technologies of the future.
In a letter to the FCC, the RIAA argued that the commission should
force broadcasters to encrypt their digital radio signals so
that only approved devices can descramble and play digital
broadcasts. This is only the latest chapter in a decades-long
campaign by the RIAA to stop home recording of radio broadcasts.
But as EFF and the Brennan Center point out in their comments,
it is perfectly legal for people to make home recordings of
radio broadcasts under current copyright laws. In essence, the
RIAA is urging the FCC to override home recording rights
guaranteed to the public by copyright law.
"Having failed in their congressional efforts to restrict home
taping, the recording industry is now asking the FCC to go beyond
copyright law to interfere with the public's right to make
recordings of radio broadcasts for home use," said Marjorie Heins,
founder of the Brennan Center's Free Expression Policy Project.
"This would be a perversion of the FCC's role, and home recording
poses no threat to corporate copyright interests that could
conceivably justify it."
"The RIAA is trying to halt the development of next-generation
digital technologies, like a TiVo for radio - technologies that
are perfectly legal under copyright law," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "This is about restricting personal
home taping off the radio, something that Congress has said is
legal and that millions of Americans have been doing for decades."
For this press release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_06.php#001629>
EFF/Brennan Center comments in FCC docket 99-325:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/20040616_EFF-BC_DAB_comments.pdf>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 218: "Foreign Intelligence
Information"
Most Americans would be surprised to know that there is a secret
federal court that authorizes the FBI to spy on the phone and
Internet communications of alleged spies and suspected terrorists.
They might be even more surprised to know that because of the
USA PATRIOT Act, the lower legal standards of this secret court
can now be applied against them in the context of regular
criminal investigations.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 established
the FISA court and gave it the power to issue secret spying orders
under standards much lower than the "probable cause" standard used
in the criminal justice system. But there was a key limit to this
power: the Act required that the purpose of FISA-authorized
surveillance be to gather foreign intelligence. This was to
ensure that investigators in ordinary criminal investigations
could not abuse the lower legal standards of FISA surveillance,
doing an end-run around criminal suspects' Fourth Amendment
rights.
Section 218 of PATRIOT changed all of that. Now, foreign
intelligence gathering need only be "a *significant* purpose"
of FISA-authorized surveillance. This means that PATRIOT
essentially handed to criminal investigators secret spying
authority previously reserved only for federal intelligence
agents. As a result, ordinary law enforcement now has
extraordinary power - power originally justified on the
basis of the President's special authority to deal with
foreign intelligence threats.
And the bad news only gets worse: federal agents are using these
unprecedented powers at increasing rates. Based on the latest
government reports, it appears that there is now more surveillance
being secretly authorized by the FISA court than by all the other
federal courts combined. (See
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57859-2004Apr30.html>.)
It's time to put the brakes on FISA before it completely replaces
the traditional law enforcement surveillance regime as limited by
the Fourth Amendment. Section 218 is scheduled to expire, or
"sunset," at the end of 2005, but new legislation has been
introduced to make the provision permanent. EFF strongly opposes
its renewal, and we urge you to do the same. Visit the EFF
Action Center today to stand up against this unjustified corrosion
of your most fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen:
<http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item)07>
For the expanded analysis of Section 218:
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/218.php>
Previous analyses:
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Seeks Dynamic, Motivated Membership Coordinator
EFF is seeking a full time Membership Coordinator to start immediately
and work out of EFF's San Francisco (Mission District) office.
The Membership Coordinator reports to the Director of Development
and is a key part of EFF's fundraising team. The MC is responsible
for managing all contact with EFF's 12,000+ members, helping to
develop strategies to grow the membership, processing all donations
to EFF, mailing regular "thank-yous" and renewal notices to donors,
ensuring an efficient donation system, managing the donation pages
of the website, and responding to any issues donors may have.
The MC also manages all aspects of EFF's online shop, including
order fulfillment. Additional responsibilities include various
marketing projects, including oversight of the design and printing
of t-shirts, hats, stickers, brochures, and other materials.
The MC also attends a number of commercial conferences each year,
managing the EFF booth presence and speaking informally with
conference attendees.
The position requires enthusiasm and a flexible, can-do attitude.
Having the initiative to sniff out and solve problems independently
is essential, as is the dedication to perform daily tasks with
minimal oversight. Nonprofit fundraising experience, particularly
managing a growing membership department, is required.
Experience managing a large contact database is also required.
A marketing background and knowledge of digital civil liberties
issues are especially helpful.
Salary is at nonprofit scale and includes benefits package.
This is a job for someone who wants to affect positive social
change in the world. To apply, send a cover letter and your
resume to memjob@eff.org no later than July 2, 2004. We request
that you send these materials in a non-proprietary format,
such as an ASCII text file. No phone calls please!
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* miniLinks
miniLinks features noteworthy news items from around the Internet.
~ Beastie Boys Put Use-Restrictions on New Album
The irreverent trio's long-awaited CD slips computers a DRM-mickey:
<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/20/0034203>
~ RIAA's Broken Record Plays On
More new lawsuits that aren't newsworthy unless your beat is
"stubborn industries banging their heads against the wall":
<http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5243587.html>
~ Papers, Please
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Nevada law that makes
it a crime to remain silent if a police officer asks for
your identity:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!2>
(San Francisco Chronicle)
~ Technology Policy Is an Election Issue
Michael Geist's most recent column rates the political parties
in Canada on copyright, spam, and other tech issues, as
preparation for next week's election:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID 9>
(Toronto Star)
~ Induce Act = Hollings II?
The senator who suggested that people suspected of copyright
infringement should have their computers "remotely destroyed"
is back with yet another *cough* bright idea:
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/18/1449217>
~ Online Movie Downloads Highlight Appeal of Infringement
One user thinks that Hollywood's approach to the Internet is
enough to drive people to piracy:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2102504/>
~ Tim Berners-Lee Awarded Large Wad of Cash
Oh, and the Millennium Technology Prize, which recognizes
technologists who've dramatically improved the quality of life.
This article points out that much of the Web-inventor's impact
stems from his decision to forego patent protection on his
ideas:
<http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34537.html>
~ FTC Says No to "Do Not Email" List
Pennywise spammers across the globe were disappointed to hear
that the large, public database of valid email addresses would
not be ready for the holidays:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!0>
(CNET)
~ Election Officials Who Choose Frying Pan Over Fire
Running elections can wear an official out, so it must be nice
that cushy jobs at voting equipment companies are often available
to former public servants. Plus, they can start pitching their
new employer's wares before they're off the government payroll.
Brilliant!
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/8925946.htm?1c>
(Registration unfortunately required.)
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with
locations and times), please visit:
<http://www.eff.org/calendar/>
~ June 24 -
Wendy Seltzer speaks at Supernova 2004
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
"IP vs. IP: Intellectual Property Meets the Internet Protocol"
Santa Clara, CA
<http://www.pulver.com/supernova>
~ June 28
Cory Doctorow speaks at Tech Active
3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
"Nerd Determinism, Nerd Fatalism, and the Copyfight"
Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research
London, UK
<http://www.stanhopecentre.org/>
. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Administrivia
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/
Editor:
Donna Wentworth, Web Writer/Activist
donna@eff.org
To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
<https://secure.eff.org/>
Membership & donation queries:
membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
ask@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is
encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the
views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please
contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases
and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually
at will.
To change your address or other information, please visit:
<http://action.eff.org/subscribe/>
If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center, please
visit:
<http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp>
To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to
alerts@action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject.
(Please ask donna@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if
this does not work for some reason.)
Back issues are available at:
<http://www.eff.org/effector>
You can also get the latest issue of EFFector via the Web at:
<http://www.eff.org/effector/current.php>
++++++++++++++++++++++++
You received this message because joyeria@walrus.com is a member
of the mailing list originating from alerts@action.eff.org. To
unsubscribe from all mailing lists originating from
alerts@action.eff.org, send an email from joyeria@walrus.com to
alerts@action.eff.org with 'Remove' as the only text in the subject
line.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Effector List <alerts@action.eff.org>
To: joyeria@walrus.com
Subject: EFFector 17.23: How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
EFFector Vol. 17, No. 23 June 23, 2004 donna@eff.org
A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424
In the 295th Issue of EFFector:
* How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
* EFF Joins Coalition in Fight for Legal Uses of Digital
Media
* EFF Stands Up for Election Integrity in California E-Voting
Lawsuit
* RIAA Asks FCC to Lock Down Digital Radio Broadcasts
* Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT 218 - "Foreign Intelligence
Information"
* EFF Seeks Dynamic, Motivated Membership Coordinator
* MiniLinks (8): Induce Act = Hollings II?
* Staff Calendar: 06.24.04 - Wendy Seltzer speaks at Supernova
2004, Santa Clara, CA; 06.28.04 - Cory Doctorow speaks at
Tech Active, London, UK
* Administrivia
For more information on EFF activities & alerts:
<http://www.eff.org/>
To join EFF or make an additional donation:
<https://secure.eff.org/>
EFF is a member-supported nonprofit. Please sign up as a member today!
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* How Doesn't DRM Work? Let Us Count the Ways
EFF European Affairs Coordinator Cory Doctorow visited Microsoft
last week to ask the tech giant to stand up to the entertainment
industry and make a media player that will play all the media you
want it to.
In his speech, Doctorow made five main arguments against investing
in digital rights management (DRM) systems:
1. DRM systems don't work.
2. DRM systems are bad for society.
3. DRM systems are bad for business.
4. DRM systems are bad for artists.
5. DRM is a bad business move for Microsoft.
Follow the links below to read the speech, which was dedicated to
the public domain with a Creative Commons license and has already
been republished in a variety of forms, including a Wiki
and an audio file:
<http://junk.haughey.com/doctorow-drm-ms.html>
<http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001636.php>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Joins Coalition in Fight for Legal Uses of Digital Media
EFF has joined with a diverse coalition of organizations and
companies called the Personal Technology Freedom Coalition
(PTFC). Alongside corporations such as Sun, Intel, and SBC,
and groups like Public Knowledge and the Consumer Electronics
Association, EFF is pushing for Congress to ensure that
consumers can make legal use of digital media they have
purchased. The coalition supports the rights of researchers
to improve upon technology already on the market, and the
rights of consumers to make fair use backups of CDs and DVDs
they own.
On Tuesday, the PTFC held a press conference in Washington, DC
with Representatives Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rick Boucher (D-VA)
to raise awareness about the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act
(H.R. 107). H.R. 107 amends the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) to allow people to circumvent copy protection on
their digital media if they aren't doing it to infringe copyright.
Thanks to the efforts of PTFC members, as well as concerned
citizens, it is also the first DMCA reform bill to make it
this far in Congress. Currently, H.R. 107 is awaiting markups
in the House Energy Committee. Representative Barton said
Tuesday that he hopes for a markup by July, and Boucher
added that the bill is close to reaching the Congress floor.
EFF one-pager: "The DMCA Revisited: What's Fair?"
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/dmcarevisited.pdf>
CNET article: "Tech Heavies Support Challenge to Copyright Law"
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!3>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Stands Up for Election Integrity in California E-Voting Lawsuit
San Francisco, CA - At the request of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, EFF filed an
additional brief in the lawsuit challenging the recent orders
by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley that require
additional security measures for electronic voting machines
used in the November elections, including the requirement that
every California voter have the option of casting a paper
ballot.
In the case, called Benavidez v. Shelley, EFF argued that the
long record of problems with electronic voting machines more
than justifies the Secretary's decision. EFF also responded to
the plaintiffs' claims that voter-verifiable paper ballots would
not increase voting security, noting that these systems
"utilize one of the most longstanding and common-sense
principles of general data security: two sets of books are
better than one."
EFF was joined in the brief by VerifiedVoting.org, the California
Voter Foundation, and VotersUnite!
EFF sur-reply in Benavidez v. Shelley:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!1>
(EFF; PDF)
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* RIAA Asks FCC to Lock Down Digital Radio Broadcasts
EFF, Brennan Center Argue Against Restrictions on Future Technologies
San Francisco, CA, and New York, NY - If the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) gets its way, consumers will not be
permitted to listen to digital radio broadcasts unless they use an
industry-approved device. The RIAA is particularly hostile to
any TiVo-like recording device for digital radio. EFF and the
Brennan Center for Justice have filed comments with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in an effort to stop the RIAA's
plan to regulate digital radio technologies of the future.
In a letter to the FCC, the RIAA argued that the commission should
force broadcasters to encrypt their digital radio signals so
that only approved devices can descramble and play digital
broadcasts. This is only the latest chapter in a decades-long
campaign by the RIAA to stop home recording of radio broadcasts.
But as EFF and the Brennan Center point out in their comments,
it is perfectly legal for people to make home recordings of
radio broadcasts under current copyright laws. In essence, the
RIAA is urging the FCC to override home recording rights
guaranteed to the public by copyright law.
"Having failed in their congressional efforts to restrict home
taping, the recording industry is now asking the FCC to go beyond
copyright law to interfere with the public's right to make
recordings of radio broadcasts for home use," said Marjorie Heins,
founder of the Brennan Center's Free Expression Policy Project.
"This would be a perversion of the FCC's role, and home recording
poses no threat to corporate copyright interests that could
conceivably justify it."
"The RIAA is trying to halt the development of next-generation
digital technologies, like a TiVo for radio - technologies that
are perfectly legal under copyright law," said EFF Senior Staff
Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "This is about restricting personal
home taping off the radio, something that Congress has said is
legal and that millions of Americans have been doing for decades."
For this press release:
<http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_06.php#001629>
EFF/Brennan Center comments in FCC docket 99-325:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/20040616_EFF-BC_DAB_comments.pdf>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 218: "Foreign Intelligence
Information"
Most Americans would be surprised to know that there is a secret
federal court that authorizes the FBI to spy on the phone and
Internet communications of alleged spies and suspected terrorists.
They might be even more surprised to know that because of the
USA PATRIOT Act, the lower legal standards of this secret court
can now be applied against them in the context of regular
criminal investigations.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 established
the FISA court and gave it the power to issue secret spying orders
under standards much lower than the "probable cause" standard used
in the criminal justice system. But there was a key limit to this
power: the Act required that the purpose of FISA-authorized
surveillance be to gather foreign intelligence. This was to
ensure that investigators in ordinary criminal investigations
could not abuse the lower legal standards of FISA surveillance,
doing an end-run around criminal suspects' Fourth Amendment
rights.
Section 218 of PATRIOT changed all of that. Now, foreign
intelligence gathering need only be "a *significant* purpose"
of FISA-authorized surveillance. This means that PATRIOT
essentially handed to criminal investigators secret spying
authority previously reserved only for federal intelligence
agents. As a result, ordinary law enforcement now has
extraordinary power - power originally justified on the
basis of the President's special authority to deal with
foreign intelligence threats.
And the bad news only gets worse: federal agents are using these
unprecedented powers at increasing rates. Based on the latest
government reports, it appears that there is now more surveillance
being secretly authorized by the FISA court than by all the other
federal courts combined. (See
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57859-2004Apr30.html>.)
It's time to put the brakes on FISA before it completely replaces
the traditional law enforcement surveillance regime as limited by
the Fourth Amendment. Section 218 is scheduled to expire, or
"sunset," at the end of 2005, but new legislation has been
introduced to make the provision permanent. EFF strongly opposes
its renewal, and we urge you to do the same. Visit the EFF
Action Center today to stand up against this unjustified corrosion
of your most fundamental rights as a U.S. citizen:
<http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item)07>
For the expanded analysis of Section 218:
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/218.php>
Previous analyses:
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/>
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* EFF Seeks Dynamic, Motivated Membership Coordinator
EFF is seeking a full time Membership Coordinator to start immediately
and work out of EFF's San Francisco (Mission District) office.
The Membership Coordinator reports to the Director of Development
and is a key part of EFF's fundraising team. The MC is responsible
for managing all contact with EFF's 12,000+ members, helping to
develop strategies to grow the membership, processing all donations
to EFF, mailing regular "thank-yous" and renewal notices to donors,
ensuring an efficient donation system, managing the donation pages
of the website, and responding to any issues donors may have.
The MC also manages all aspects of EFF's online shop, including
order fulfillment. Additional responsibilities include various
marketing projects, including oversight of the design and printing
of t-shirts, hats, stickers, brochures, and other materials.
The MC also attends a number of commercial conferences each year,
managing the EFF booth presence and speaking informally with
conference attendees.
The position requires enthusiasm and a flexible, can-do attitude.
Having the initiative to sniff out and solve problems independently
is essential, as is the dedication to perform daily tasks with
minimal oversight. Nonprofit fundraising experience, particularly
managing a growing membership department, is required.
Experience managing a large contact database is also required.
A marketing background and knowledge of digital civil liberties
issues are especially helpful.
Salary is at nonprofit scale and includes benefits package.
This is a job for someone who wants to affect positive social
change in the world. To apply, send a cover letter and your
resume to memjob@eff.org no later than July 2, 2004. We request
that you send these materials in a non-proprietary format,
such as an ASCII text file. No phone calls please!
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* miniLinks
miniLinks features noteworthy news items from around the Internet.
~ Beastie Boys Put Use-Restrictions on New Album
The irreverent trio's long-awaited CD slips computers a DRM-mickey:
<http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/20/0034203>
~ RIAA's Broken Record Plays On
More new lawsuits that aren't newsworthy unless your beat is
"stubborn industries banging their heads against the wall":
<http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5243587.html>
~ Papers, Please
The Supreme Court recently upheld a Nevada law that makes
it a crime to remain silent if a police officer asks for
your identity:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!2>
(San Francisco Chronicle)
~ Technology Policy Is an Election Issue
Michael Geist's most recent column rates the political parties
in Canada on copyright, spam, and other tech issues, as
preparation for next week's election:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID 9>
(Toronto Star)
~ Induce Act = Hollings II?
The senator who suggested that people suspected of copyright
infringement should have their computers "remotely destroyed"
is back with yet another *cough* bright idea:
<http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/06/18/1449217>
~ Online Movie Downloads Highlight Appeal of Infringement
One user thinks that Hollywood's approach to the Internet is
enough to drive people to piracy:
<http://slate.msn.com/id/2102504/>
~ Tim Berners-Lee Awarded Large Wad of Cash
Oh, and the Millennium Technology Prize, which recognizes
technologists who've dramatically improved the quality of life.
This article points out that much of the Web-inventor's impact
stems from his decision to forego patent protection on his
ideas:
<http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34537.html>
~ FTC Says No to "Do Not Email" List
Pennywise spammers across the globe were disappointed to hear
that the large, public database of valid email addresses would
not be ready for the holidays:
<http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID!0>
(CNET)
~ Election Officials Who Choose Frying Pan Over Fire
Running elections can wear an official out, so it must be nice
that cushy jobs at voting equipment companies are often available
to former public servants. Plus, they can start pitching their
new employer's wares before they're off the government payroll.
Brilliant!
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/8925946.htm?1c>
(Registration unfortunately required.)
: . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Staff Calendar
For a complete listing of EFF speaking engagements (with
locations and times), please visit:
<http://www.eff.org/calendar/>
~ June 24 -
Wendy Seltzer speaks at Supernova 2004
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
"IP vs. IP: Intellectual Property Meets the Internet Protocol"
Santa Clara, CA
<http://www.pulver.com/supernova>
~ June 28
Cory Doctorow speaks at Tech Active
3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
"Nerd Determinism, Nerd Fatalism, and the Copyfight"
Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research
London, UK
<http://www.stanhopecentre.org/>
. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .
* Administrivia
EFFector is published by:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco CA 94110-1914 USA
+1 415 436 9333 (voice)
+1 415 436 9993 (fax)
http://www.eff.org/
Editor:
Donna Wentworth, Web Writer/Activist
donna@eff.org
To Join EFF online, or make an additional donation, go to:
<https://secure.eff.org/>
Membership & donation queries:
membership@eff.org
General EFF, legal, policy or online resources queries:
ask@eff.org
Reproduction of this publication in electronic media is
encouraged. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the
views of EFF. To reproduce signed articles individually, please
contact the authors for their express permission. Press releases
and EFF announcements & articles may be reproduced individually
at will.
To change your address or other information, please visit:
<http://action.eff.org/subscribe/>
If you have already subscribed to the EFF Action Center, please
visit:
<http://action.eff.org/action/login.asp>
To unsubscribe from the EFFector mailing list, send an email to
alerts@action.eff.org with the word "Remove" in the subject.
(Please ask donna@eff.org to manually remove you from the list if
this does not work for some reason.)
Back issues are available at:
<http://www.eff.org/effector>
You can also get the latest issue of EFFector via the Web at:
<http://www.eff.org/effector/current.php>
++++++++++++++++++++++++
You received this message because joyeria@walrus.com is a member
of the mailing list originating from alerts@action.eff.org. To
unsubscribe from all mailing lists originating from
alerts@action.eff.org, send an email from joyeria@walrus.com to
alerts@action.eff.org with 'Remove' as the only text in the subject
line.