Everyone Wants to 'Own' Your PC

I hope you know how to read this below and at wired news "between the lines."  It's sad too because it looks as though the computer consumer will forever be screwed.  And no one cares.  If they did care, where are they trying to help?  So far the laws protect the spammers, vendors, and large monopolies. etc.  meanwhile the consumer is ignored.

 

There's a battle raging on your computer right now -- one that pits you against worms and viruses, Trojans, spyware, automatic update features and digital rights management technologies. It's the battle to determine who owns your computer.

 

You own your computer, of course. You bought it. You paid for it. But how much control do you really have over what happens on your machine? Technically you might have bought the hardware and software, but you have less control over what it's doing behind the scenes.

Using the hacker sense of the term, your computer is "owned" by other people.

It used to be that only malicious hackers were trying to own your computers. Whether through worms, viruses, Trojans or other means, they would try to install some kind of remote-control program onto your system. Then they'd use your computers to sniff passwords, make fraudulent bank transactions, send spam, initiate phishing attacks and so on. Estimates are that somewhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of computers are members of remotely controlled "bot" networks. Owned.

 

Everyone Wants to 'Own' Your PC

Computer Spyware Protection Act - Million of Dollars in Fines, Surreptitious Computer Techniques a Whole New Can of Worms For the Consumer to Worry About.

" Get ready for Microsoft, cable and phone companies, and quite a few other people to know a lot more about what you do on your computer, thanks to House Bill 2083."

 

Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Ben Fenwick
Get ready for Microsoft, cable and phone companies, and quite a few other people to know a lot more about what you do on your computer

It's supposed to protect you from predators spying on your computer habits, but a bill Microsoft Corp. helped write for Oklahoma will open your personal information to warrantless searches, according to a computer privacy expert and a state representative.


Called the "Computer Spyware Protection Act," House Bill 2083 would create fines of up to a million dollars for anyone using viruses or surreptitious computer techniques to break on to someone's computer without that person's knowledge and acceptance, according to the bill's state Senate author, Clark Jolley.


"The bill has a clear prohibition on anything going in without your permission. You have to grant permission," said Jolley, R-Edmond. "You can look at your license agreement. It will say whether they have the ability to take that information or not."


But therein lies the catch.


If you click that "accept" button on the routine user's agreement, the proposed law would allow any company from whom you bought upgradable software the freedom to come onto your computer for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer software prescribed under this act."


That means that Microsoft (or another company with such software) can erase spyware or viruses. But if you have, say, a pirated copy of Excel - Microsoft (or companies with similar software) can erase it, or anything else they want to erase, and not be held liable for it. Additionally, that phrase "fraudulent or other illegal activities" means they can:

-Let the local district attorney know that you wrote a hot check last month.

-Let the attorney general know that you play online poker.

-Let the tax commission know you bought cartons of cigarettes and didn't pay the state tax on them.

-Read anything on your hard drive, such as your name, home address, personal identification code, passwords, Social Security number . etc., etc., etc.


"I think in broad terms that is still a form of spying," said Marc Rotenberg, attorney and executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "Some people say, 'Well, it's justified.' I'm not so clear that should be the case. Particularly if the reason you are passing legislation is to cover that activity."


The bill is scheduled to go back before the House for another vote. Will the Oklahoma House, on behalf of all computer users in the state of Oklahoma, click "accept"?


Where did you go yesterday?

Computer users first accepted updates when anti-virus makers, such as Symantec Corp. or McAfee, began back in the Nineties offering regular updates in an attempt to stay current with the alarming number of viruses introduced over the Internet. This was followed by Windows ME and 2000 allowing updates to their programs via downloads. By the time Windows XP came out, regular online updates became part of the product one purchased.


At around the same time, the Napster phenomenon pushed music corporations, courts and lawmakers into taking action against online file sharing of music. Hip, computer-savvy listeners traded pirated MP3 recordings beyond count, leading to action by the music industry to go on a search and destroy mission against the online music traders, even in Oklahoma. In 2000, Oklahoma State University police seized a student's computer containing thousands of downloaded songs after he was traced by a recording industry group.


Anti-spyware bill author Jolley said that's what people like the OSU student get for sharing their information online.

"You have to look at the other side of that issue," Jolley said. "When they agreed to put their files online, they literally agreed to allow people to come on their computers and search the files online. On a P-to-P (peer-to-peer) network, you are inviting other people to see what you have. That's a risk you run by participating in file share."


Jolley said his spyware bill is supposed to stop "phishers" from stealing one's identity off of one's computer, is supposed to stop "Trojan horse" viruses from being installed on the computer and is supposed to make illegal a host of other techniques for spying on a user's personal information.


"It prohibits them from taking things as basic as your home address, your first name, your first initial in combination with your last name, your passwords, any personal identification numbers you have, any biometric information, any Social Security, tax IDs, drivers licenses, account balances, overdraft histories - there is a clear prohibition on that," Jolley said.


Indeed, Sections 4 and 5 of the act specifically forbid anyone from doing so without the user's permission.


However, Section 6 of the act says such a prohibition "shall not apply" to "telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider or provider of information service" and won't apply to those companies in cases of "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities."


Which means software companies updating a user's software or the cable company monitoring that user's activities on a broadband modem hookup can turn over that user's history of writing hot checks to the district attorney if the company feels like it, said Rotenberg.

"You go back to the old-fashioned wiretap laws," Rotenberg said. "There was an exception to allow telephone companies to listen in on telephone calls. The theory was that it was necessary to make sure that the service was working. Part of what's going on here is to significantly expand that exemption to a whole range of companies that might have reason for looking on your computer. The statute will give them authority to do so. I think it's too broad. I think the users in the end need to be able to allow that themselves."


Jolley insists his proposed law would not allow Microsoft, Symantec or Cox Communications to become "Big Brother."


"The goal of this is not to allow any company to go through and scan your computer," Jolley said. "If they are, it has to be for a specific purpose. If you don't want them doing that, don't agree to (the user's agreement)."


Which means, when a user accepts Microsoft's Windows operating system on that new computer, or Norton AntiVirus, or Apple's operating system or a host of other online-upgradable programs, that user agrees to being watched by the company.


Who on Earth would write such a law? It wasn't Jolley, or anyone in Oklahoma.


To read more of "The Watchers," pick up a Gazette.


MOUTHING OFF

"Now we are talking about Microsoft having the freedom to check your computer for any sort of illegal or fraudulent activity you might be participating in. Without your knowledge or consent. It is giving up your rights to privacy."

-State Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, about House Bill 2083. The bill gives software or online access companies freedom, without liability, to erase spyware and pirated software from users' computers, in addition to monitoring for fraudulent or illegal activities. ""

EVEN MORE MOUTHING OFF

I don't doubt that right now someone out there has figured out a way to use this new law to benefit their scamming of the consumers.  This law is very vague because it doesn't set rules in place to say who has the REAL right to collect this information.  So Jane or John Doe of Kansas can claim to have a legit software business, and have a ball collecting information. They can do it legally thanks to this new law because everyone knows there are many who claim to be anyone.   Newbies will become very vulnerable.  All thanks to our nice Government.  Thank you Bushy. This could also open a can of worms called abuse.  The paranoid will want ALL your information which will lead Americans everywhere to cry fowl.  The lawsuits will start.  Because even though they want to protect the software makers, they forgot also to protect the public from abuse.  

 

Everyone knows that big business has done a lousy job at protecting our information.  If the consumer has any sense they wont let this fly by.  I suggest that the first batch that suffers from pitfalls from these new laws do all they can to create a class action law suit. There must be new laws for the consumer in place also.  Unless someone has the (ahem) to take it on now and try to get this settled before the consumer is hurt.  I don't believe for one minute that these new laws will stop anyone from using surreptitious computer techniques. Now a new law may be in place to help them in their efforts, and the consumer hasn't a ground to stand on. Another thing to consider is they can remove anything from your computer they deem necessary.  So who is to say they don't get ridiculous enough to start removing rival software then claim oops! sorry!  besides folks you will be accepting a EULA that states they are not liable.  The consumer is bound to their EULA that reads like a book,  and inside that EULA is a clause that you wont hold them liable if something like the accidental removal of legit software occurred you wont be holding them accountable period.  I am telling you folks sitting on your butt will not help you any longer.  You have to take action. If not to change these laws but to increase the protection of consumers against abuse.  You have just as much right to be protected as the software vendors, ISPs, etc.  

IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data

Well another piece of chit has hit the fan.  If they are allowed to sell us out then we are screwed.  I have a few questions though...

 

1.  Will tax prepares be allowed to include previous clients? 

 

2.  Will clients be able to opt out and really be safe?

 

3.  Will tax prepares have a limit to the info they are allowed to sell?

 

 

I don't know how you feel about this but I have to answer all of these questions as no. My reasons?  Because the Bush administration doesn't give a damn if our info is out there or not.  As a matter of fact judging on previous matters concerning our information I believe they want our information out there.  Plus they are doing everything possible to get our information out there. If they didn't want our information made public they wouldn't have all of these loop holes when it concerns our information.  So if you think that just because you opt out you are safe?  You haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.  The major thing to look for after the IRS is cut loose to do as they please with our info is a "ahem" security breech on a computer.  Our Social Security numbers are fixing to mean nothing.  Even though we have been told all of these years to protect them. It is fixing to be the end of them because this type of breech will hurt all Americans.  I am sure right now somebody has plans to hit these computers hard.  Plus the ones selling our information will find loopholes to go after our info with a vengeance.  We are truly screwed if this is allowed. 

 

I am curious as to why they even mentioned this in the first place?  See they passed some laws a time back to stop the spam, and give us a way to opt out of the phone calls etc.  Why would they pass laws to allow the IRS to sell us out like this when they know how this information will be used?  See how much our Government really cares for its citizens now?

 

IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data

 

 

 

Torn-up Credit Card Apps Not So Safe... Shredders are not either

First you have to read this: The Torn-Up Credit Card Application  Then you have to go here to see the results: TORN-UP CREDIT CARD APPLICATIONS AREN'T SAFE  But this here proves that a shredder is no better unless you take a second step that I came across online.  plus a few steps I outline below Read this: First three sentences of the fourth paragraph read:  

 

This was the situation up until November 1979 when Iranian students seized an entire archive of CIA and State Department documents, which represented one of the most extensive losses of secret data in the history of any modern intelligence service. Even though many of these documents were shredded into thin strips before the Embassy, and CIA base, was surrendered, the Iranians managed to piece them back together. They were then published in 1982 in 54 volumes under the title "Documents From the U.S. Espionage Den", and are sold in the United States for $246.50.

 

 

Today ...  The technology now exists to scan fragments of documents en-mass and piece them together semi-automatically in electronic format. Some human interaction is still required, but it is much faster and easier than the Iranian effort. It was said somewhere on the internet that the Iranian students laid out the shredded documents on the floor of gymnasiums and pieced the documents back together. The electronic way of doing this today is being done to restore ancient manuscripts but I'm sure it's being done in the covert and criminal fields as well with shredded documents.

 

So what is that step you can do to protect yourself a little better?   When you shred documents you have a tendency to shred all at once, and then discard all of the shredded docs at the same time in one or two bags.  Don't shred in this matter.  I say shred it at the same time but if you have some serious docs that if they got into the wrong hands it could be real trouble...  I say grab a few hand full's of the shredded material, and place these in a separate bag for disposal at a later date.  Or take a few hand full's of the shredded material, and mix it in with the next batch of shredded material, grabbing you a hand full from each batch.  You can always burn this material after shredding this.  But most people live in areas where you can't burn.  Unless you know where a local consumer incinerator is located, and can afford to use it, then you can't burn.  You could add a new step to the extra material like throwing scrap foods, or even cheap cleaners, or even bleach.  Any liquid other than water unless you plan to stir up a brew of paste out of the shredded material.  Just be creative with it.   Placing a small amount in each nights trash, is also a good idea, then discard what is left of the bag at a later date.  OH! Using the shredded material in kitty litter boxes, and kennels is also a wise choice. 

Project SERPO

Project SERPO has a website that claims that the USA is very much involved in ET research, and discovery.  So much involved to where the USA launched in a UFO 12 military personnel to go to their planet stay for 13 years then come back to earth.  Two of these personnel died on their planet.  Two did not return to earth.  Reasons were not given for them not returning.  Is this all myth? A story that a few concocted to get attention?  Or is this all for real? 

If it is for real.  I don't believe planet earth is in any danger.  If we was, we would of met that danger many years ago when the first UFO reports, and pictures hit the news stands, and book stores.  The postings on Serpo, are very intriguing.  You have many military personnel, and even some top dogs stating that they can account for certain parts of other post being true because either their dad was there, or they was there, and or they had seen first hand this evidence. Some it seems to have come out of the closet so to speak, to now recount certain stories their dads told them, or other family members about ETs, and UFOs, and the Serpo project.  

 

You have to visit  Serpo  and read through this.  If your thinking maybe that this is all ludicrous and not worth your time or effort.  Have a open mind.  All the evidence is there, you can do your own research and decide on your own if there is any truth to it. 

Below is a excerpt from American Chronicle Article

 THEN AND NOW

The Project SERPO information, whether accurate or inaccurate, might make us think about the brave and dedicated people in our military, intelligence and scientific communities.

If extraterrestrial craft did crash in New Mexico in 1947, it would have posed a tremendous shock and worry for our national security authorities. If they did establish positive diplomatic relations with these visitors and an exchange program, that was quite an accomplishment.

If any of this is true, many people wonder about what has happened in the decades since. The reports of the U.S. acquiring advanced technology make sense. The secrecy surrounding the situation also makes sense.

What other information and experiences were gained by Americans involved in these kinds of programs? Did we stay on a moral and spiritually sound path in dealing with visitors from another planet?

The information on the serpo.org Web site and from many other sources gives us a few clues on these and other questions. If Anonymous and his friends and associates continue to provide us with more information, we can continue to think further about these kinds of ideas and concepts.

Again, whether true, false or partially true, these accounts of an alleged program like Project SERPO can help us grow as human beings and help us gain a better perspective on the dangers of our own making that we face.

If the stories are true, we could also learn more about the way physics, time and Nature function. We might learn about possibilities for further human development, our place in the Universe, Heaven and the mysteries of a Great Spirit.

KFC Interactive Commercial Utilizes Tivo Features

Slashdot readers are not as dumb as KFC thinks.  For 99 cents KFC gets to spam you on the phone, snail mail, and e-mail.  Come on KFC if you get a bite from a customer then they truely are in the dark when it comes to their info.  The only thing you prove is just how vunerable consumers are. Shame on you KFC. 99 cents is not enough for me to turn over my info.  If other consumers fall for your prank they are just as ignorant as you are.  

 

Slashdot- KFC Interactive Commercial ploy

KATRINA Lessons Learned

While most sat and waited for the Government to come bail them out of their mess. A great many also didn't wait on Uncle Sam's help.  They dug in and helped themselves.  

 

I don't want you to get me wrong.  Many of the katrina victims had no means to help themselves.  They were dirt poor to start with, and many of them didn't even have transportation.  The select few that did, either left the area, or chose to stay not realizing what was fixing to happen.

 

I had talked to a victim of katrina, and there was no one telling them they had to leave.  A good majority that did stay behind were not forced to do much of anything to protect themselves.  It was like the whole State had no clue.

 

It was true that Katrina did not bring the levy's down.  The storm surge did, along with  the large amount of rain.  The flood created after the levy's broke did the damage. 

 

But, it was knowledge that all residents knew that the area they lived in was like a big bowl.  New Orleans was in this big bowl.  As everyone knows... that is a disaster fixing to happen. 

 

So now they came out with a report stating everything that went wrong, and the few things they did right. 

 

I wont sugar coat this.  I will just come out and say it.  The Government can try to get it right next time, and residents everywhere if you want to depend on them, that is your choice.  But next time the world crumbles around your feet, and your not ready for the aftermath.  I don't believe the world will be so sympathetic.  Don't wait on Uncle Sam.  Sit down and make your plans now.  Set aside money, and rations, so if you need them, you will not have to depend on anyone.  Even a weeks worth of rations, and a $100.00 cash is better than none at all.  As you can see.  Even with the report below, everyone is willing to put the blame on someone else.  But it need not be you next time they blame, and as much as everyone thinks it wont happen.  Next time the blame may be on the town, and its residents, instead of the Federal, and State Government. Don't get caught in the blame game.  Look out for you.  This is not just New Orleans either, this is every resident in the USA.  Because unlike anything else they may happen at home, you never know where the next disaster will happen.  It could be your town too suffer a Katrina.

 

KATRINA Lessons Learned

Forget Businesses, Houston Police Chief Wants Security Cameras In Your Home

Well It was proposed that all homes in the Houston area have security cameras.  I kind of believe that Chief in Houston has lost his marbles.  One could also say he has piss for brains.  Sorry folks this is totally wrong.  It's one thing to protect a business, but quite another when your home is invaded.  I see no purpose what so ever for this to be in the home.  It should be a voluntary effort instigated by the home owner that could quite possibly have a lot to loose. I am just curious also just where this Chief feels these cameras should be placed in the home?  Bad idea all around regardless.

 

On another note these cameras are being installed  in public places everywhere without your knowledge.  They apparently don't need your permission to install them in a public place.  Some areas have as many cameras as they do street lights.  (hint) 

 

I would like to point out one thing to the public.  Right now having these cameras looks like a good thing.  It supposedly increases security. In the past all things that start out sounding good, ended up a nightmare in some form or another.  First one camera, now thirty.  Then the home, and finally you find out you can't do nothing your privacy is totally gone.  It always starts small, then becomes a nightmare.  This technology sounds good.  It can help business, but wanting to place it in your home borders on privacy issues that right now you may or may not care about, but later you will.  Be careful what you wish for.  You don't want to be placed in the history books for the one that took one of our nations Constitutional rights away from us.  Generations to come will hate your family name.  People everywhere may spit on you, and call you names.  Plus the generation that allowed it to happen will be hated also.

 

Privacy is one of the things that Americans may not say out loud they care about. But let them loose it, or let that be threatened and see how quick they come out of the wood work. God help us all if the American public turn a blind eye to this.

 

Forget Businesses, Houston Police Chief Wants Security Cameras In Your Home

The News ...How far can they go?

While a good majority of people feel that reporters do a good job making sure we get the news on time, and that the news is honest, and newsworthy.  I tend to feel that in the works something may be taken away from news reports.  That is being able to report on stories, that could maybe incite a riot. Take for instance the report on the new evidence released that prisoners of war were being abused.  This is on new pictures etc that were released. 

 

Many are outraged that this was even going on.  Because this has already been addressed in the past.  Most took it as a lessen learned.  

 

Reporters found more abuse pictures.  Then reported the pictures. It has hit the papers, and 6 'o clock news again. Pictures so impaling, that even the worst of people would be shocked.  (More of the same stuff)

 

Is this going to far?  Would they have done better leaving out the camera shots, and just reported on just the facts?  Are the news reporters adding to our demise?  Do they need to have a heart on what the ramifications, or outcome too reporting such news can do to the public, and to a nation? 

 

Even better maybe getting their facts together, and going to the proper authorities and reporting the new abuse, or new pictures found from the same time period. 

 

A very fine line is among the evidence.  First if they had of just gone to the proper authorities, would they of gotten the abuse to stop?   Would the nation even of cared and did their best to hide the evidence?  I am not even sure anymore on how guilty the ones were that were caught in the abuse in the first place from back then.  It looks to me now this is being done not by the small none meaningless low level in-listed, but by the top brass.  I also think that the low level in-listed may of been used as a scape goat.  All of this new evidence was from 2003. Or so they say it is.  Rather if it is or not, does the public have a right to see them?  Do reporters have the right to publish them even if it can incite a riot?  before you even answer this, be sure of what you are saying.  Because your outcome can create one of two scenarios.  One it can create news that hinders freedom of speech.  Second if the news is not halted, then it can create even more war, and even riots.  Which is worse?

 

I myself feel that its a "Be damned if you do, and be damned if you don't scenario."

 

Comments?

 

 

 

US slams SBS for showing new Abu Ghraib photos

 

Iraqi government denounces Abu Ghraib abuse

Hold on to your socks! AOL Plan to charge businesses for e-mail triggers outcry

Plan to charge businesses for e-mail triggers outcry

 

Report: Marketers say AOL's effort to certify messages and reduce spam amounts to e-mail taxation.

February 6, 2006: 11:21 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - America Online's plan to start charging businesses to send commercial e-mail messages is creating an uproar among some marketers, according to a published report.

According to the newspaper, AOL is teaming up with technology firm Goodmail Systems to offer a certified e-mail system in a bid to reduce spam.

The optional plan, which is set to start in several weeks, is meant to ensure that messages that might normally be blocked due to the images or Web links they contain get past security defenses and reach AOL's subscribers, the report said. 

Some marketers argue AOL's certified e-mail system, which would charge advertisers $2 to $3 per 1,000 messages, is a form of e-mail taxation, USA Today said.

read more below.....

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/06/technology/yahoo_aol_email/index.htm

The Mile Wall

A shameless plug, but I thought this was just too cool to pass up, or ignore.  Be sure to click on banner, and at least check it out. 

 

 

The Internet is becoming harder to use for the handicapped

Yes folks it is.  You have seen them for yourself.  The ones that think using just flash to build their websites is so cool they make their whole websites in flash only.  They forget the ones using text to speech software.  Or... are they ignoring them?  Everyone spews of making the Internet more resourceful. Chock it full of content, and use lots of eye candy.  But no one I believe has even considered whom will loose the most if this happens.  If you use flash on your website, then you are crippling the blind, the ones that are paralyzed, the ones that have muscle diseases, and the ones that have severe nerve diseases. This is just naming a few of the ones you will hurt.

 

If the Internet keeps on the same path then one day these people will no longer have their outlet.  They will be forced off the Internet.  Not even the best of text to speech software will be able to help them.  As of right now there are 57,600,000 flash pages online when I did a search on Google.  I don't know the percentage of how many of these are full flash websites, or how many of these consist of just one page etc.  I do know that I have come across many websites that now are full flash, and they have no alternate link included for those that prefer nonflash.  Is your website one of these full flash websites? 

 

 The ones to really miss out the most are the blind.  They miss out because the text to speech can only read out loud what the page is about if your descriptive enough. This includes pictures that have alt text.  Yes these software are getting better at reading text, but they allocate so many dollars to be in a grant to go towards users that need this type software.  If there is no grants available, then they have to use a alternate method to read text online.  The software is very expensive.  The cheap or free ones only read you can't edit etc, I haven't come across one as of yet that was free or reduced price that would read pages and allow them to work online also on documents etc.  Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8 standard is $99.00 for the cd version limited because it only works with a very few software.  their Preferred version is $199.99 on cd and has a list of software it will work with.  The best way to find out how limited a handicapped person is online, is to try the software out.  Dragon NaturallySpeaking 8  You can install Lynx Browser Lynx Browser  this will give you some idea on what the blind have to face online.  But for every text to speech software there is, there are limitations depending on the version, rather if its a lite version or full, etc.  Why do they get the lite version? Because this software is not cheap.  same goes if the text to speech software is very old.  And Lynx can only be used as a example  for you to see what a text to speech will pic up.  If you don't see the page on Lynx, then they wont pick up the page on a few of the text to speech software for the blind.   Synapse list quite a few software for you to check out that is geared towards a person depending on their handicap. Some of this software has a trial version.  Actually most do. 

 

You should be setting up alternate WebPages not using flash or fancy script.  We have brilliant minds online struggling to get content. They may have less than a perfect body, but they deserve to have a Internet just as much as you do.  Lets please don't forget them. 

Jay Leno doesn't get it!

On tonight's broadcast of the Jay Leno Show. Jay Leno Show Jay was trying to make jokes and talk about the impending search that was bestowed against Google. What Jay leno said was "The FBI wants Google to send them 1,000,000 porn sites."  Sorry Jay, you don't get it.  It's not 1,000.000 porn sites, its 1,000,000 web searches that consumers are asking of Google to look up for them.  Incase you are wondering why they want them is to see if they are targeting porn or if the searches themselves are bringing up sites not related to Porn, or are porn, but being brought up in searches using key words not related to porn.  Or at least this is how I understand it.  Better luck next time Jay. 

 

RIAA and MPAA's attempts to freeze the progress of consumer electronics technology

"The EFF's Deeplinks section has a pretty alarming post about the RIAA and MPAA's attempts to freeze the progress of consumer electronics technology and then start turning back the clock on all of us. Fair use, meet your successor: "customary historic use."

The post points to broadcast flag draft legislation sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) that contains provisions which appear to limit digital broadcast media reception devices to "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks." In other words, if it does anything heretofore unheard of with the digital content that it receives, then it's illegal. And if it does anything "customary" that could also possibly lead to unauthorized redistribution, then it's also illegal. So all the bases are covered! .."

 

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060121-6025.html

 

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004340.php

 

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/dcp_act_2006.pdf

 

So, if you were planning to launch a startup and make millions off the coming digital broadcast media revolution by inventing the next iPod or by combining digital radio with Web 2.0 and VoIP and Skype and RSS and WiFi mesh networks, then forget about it. When digital broadcast nirvana finally arrives, the only people who'll be legally authorized to make money off of music and movies are the middlemen at the RIAA and the MPAA.

 

 

 

If the RIAA and MPAA's attempts to ban any new content for the software industry, and Techo gadget Industry.  It could put a tail spin on Technology that even Oliver Lodge (later Sir Oliver) wouldn't of been able to save if he was alive today.  Good bye to all new devices, news media devices, and good bye to even a few companies because their livelihood is built around this technology.  Apple will be non existent too.  Sony will loose, So will any new innovations trying to come on board. This website claims it wont be that bad.  But who is going to pay the bill for the ones that depend on this type  new Technology to stay running?  What they are doing, is stopping the technology all together to create a barrier so that new innovation no longer is a word used in the business.  They know it too. 

 

Now I ask the singers, and bands, and entertainment professionals that entertain everyone, and do a swell job of it too.  Now is your first clue to watch this bill if it gets passed if you have any sense in your head that God above gave you... you will use this law to benefit yourselves too.  After all most of you still barley get a paycheck while the record companies and the RIAA and  MPAA's are , swimming in YOUR money, laughing all the way to the bank.  If they pass this law they will have no excuse but to pay you better. 

 

Fears raised over digital rights

"A UK consumer watchdog has called for new laws to protect users' rights to use digital music and movies."

 

"Consumers face security risks to their equipment, limitations on their use of products, poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms"

 

I have said all along to myself that the consumer was getting a bum deal.  Plus it seems as though the EULAS were getting ridiculous.  I don't think they should end on just music and movies but also include software.  All digital content.  Grab all of them by the heels. Think how they are hurting everyone all because of their greed, and unfair use polices. The software industry is getting out of hand too.  There are no laws in place. They can pretty much say as they please in the EULAS and the consumer has to bite their upper lip, and deal with it, or not make the purchase.  What few laws that are in place for the purchase of Cds are being ignored by the manufacturers. After Sony's little stunt, you now can add to this security risk, and illegal downloading to a consumers computer. The software industry needs to be regulated. Consumers have rights too, and it just seems as though the consumer has taken a back seat when it comes to their music, movies, and software. It's all about the manufacturers, to hell with the consumers. Also I really do hope that the United States, or everywhere for that fact, also has the common decency to come up with their own "fair users rights" laws. 

 

Fears raised over digital rights

Consumers warned to avoid Brazilian diet pills

I am right up with the rest of the Americans wondering... "How will I purchase the medicine I need, and be able to eat too every month?"  This can't be sugar coated because this problem of medicine being too expensive has been going on for years now.  The Government is not helping us that much.  They are only turning a already problem into a nightmare. 

 

My heart is sad because I saw a lady on TV asking how will she get her medicine this month because her paperwork has not showed up as of yet, and the help she was receiving told her she was on her own now. 

 

I am in the same boat as she is in.  My paperwork has not arrived either.  I signed up for something that I have no clue to what or whom they are, and what to expect.  All I know is for now on my free samples will not be coming anymore, and signing up for the different drug companies is not a option that my doctor supports anymore.  At least its not supported if you are on Medicare.  I am about to sink here because I know I am up creak without a paddle.  There is no one I can go to keep from drowning.

 

If I had the money myself I would help the women I saw on TV, and other people like her.  Her meds are precious to her.  They keep her alive.  It's going to be a cold winter this year.  Many will freeze to death.  Those that don't freeze will die because their meds stopped coming.  

 

I just hope and pray they don't go to the internet to find their prescriptions, and end up in worse shape than what they are in.  Overseas the drug companies (or so I heard) are known to put additives in the drugs that can cause heart, kidney, and liver failure.   

 

So basically we're having to pick our poison wisely.  Those that do have a option should be thankful.  They are truly blessed.  The rest of us are screwed like usual.

 

CNN: Avoid Brazilian diet pills

A Felony?

 On Wednesday morning, Forchione filed a felony criminal charge of disrupting public services against Michael W. Stone,  age 18.   “Michael said it was a joke,” Forchione said. “We showed him how we deal with this kind of joke.”  It’s not the first time local officials have investigated situations where students are misusing computers. Forchione noted a 2005 case in which four Jackson High School students were charged with misdemeanors after being caught accessing the school computer system. Some grades were changed.

 

At Techdirt over 47 replies have hit the page on this subject.  Most are saying that this is a unfortunate event to happen to this boy, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  One poster says:

 

Re: dos is dos
by Samuel Walter on Saturday, January 7th, 2006

 

our assertion that the student's actions constitute an attempted Denial of Service (DoS) attack is ridiculous. The student simply posted a comment on a public blog, not operated by the school, requesting that others go to the site and refresh the content. Regardless of his intentions, all he did was tell people to visit the site. He didn't setup flood bot, he didn't coordinate a distributed attack, and he didn't take advantage of or even mention possible weaknesses to exploit. Again, all he did was ask people to visit the site and refresh the content. At the most, the boy's actions equate to harassment and could have been remedied by simply talking to him.

Charging this boy with a FELONY is reckless, and irresponsible, and illustrates incredible ignorance by the school, the police, and the prosecutor. Furthermore, the actions taken and comments made by the prosecutor demonstrate his own brazen arrogance, poor judgement, and malice. If convicted of the charge this boy, who is just beginning his life, will carry the burden of being a "convicted felon" until he dies or is absolved by a higher court. Here's a sample of the collateral consequences his conviction would bring:

Ineligible for student loans and other financial aid.

Ineligible for most jobs requiring licensing by state or federal government (i.e. teacher, doctor, architect, lawyer, electrician, real estate broker, stock broker).

Ineligible for governmental employment.

Prohibited for possessing firearms.

Must disclose "convicted felon" status on employment applications.

Loses the right to become an elector and cannot vote, hold public office, or run for public office.

Potential disqualification from applying for public housing and other social services.

Potential disqualification from applying to be a foster parent.

Potential disqualification from adoption applications.

Even if this boy is exonerated and the charges are dropped or dismissed, he will have been put through a process reserved for those accused of the highest order of crime defined by law. The prosecutor's rash decision to file felony charges without first consulting with a technology expert is reprehensible. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear he lacks the sound judgement and integrity that is necessary to competently represent the People of his municipality. He should resign from or be removed from his post, and be replaced by someone who will represent the People with the integrity and consideration they deserve.

Respectfully,

Samuel Walter
Network Engineer / Security Analyst

Thank you Samuel Walter for your post.  I agree totally here.  The police department is prosecuting a boy for a crime that not even the school, police department, or their so called tech savvy people have any knowledge of what they are doing.  Much less could tell any one of us exactly what this boy did that was wrong.  If they had of known exactly what this boy had done, then they never would of filed felony charges against him.  They would of filed mischief charges instead. As I posted a reply on this website below.  They all need to go back to kindergarten instead to brush up on computer skills.

 

Asking People To Hit Reload Is A Felony?

 

 

 

JFK assassination 'was Cuba plot'

A new documentary exploring the death of John F Kennedy claims his assassin was directed and paid by Cuba.

Rendezvous with Death, based on new evidence from Cuban, Russian and US sources, took three years to research.

One source, ex-Cuban agent Oscar Marino, said Havana had exploited Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested but shot dead before he could be tried...

 

Read the rest here: JFK Conspiracy Theories

Researchers discover how a high-fat diet causes type 2 diabetes

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers have discovered a molecular link between a high-fat, Western-style diet, and the onset of type 2 diabetes. In studies in mice, the scientists showed that a high-fat diet disrupts insulin production, resulting in the classic signs of type 2 diabetes....

 

read here: Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers

 

 

 

 

A presidential order allowing warrantless spying on American citizens goes far beyond even the Patriot Act

It's hard to say rather if the NSA has the right to take our constitutional liberties away from us.  For one thing you have to look at what they actually do. Who is the NSA? about the NSA   They stop wars, they stop threats against US soil, and they keep the bad guys from infiltrating our very government and taking over, or causing harm. NSA has some of the brightest minds in the world working there.  They have the people that all parents wish to brag about when mentioning their own children. Very few individuals make it into this elite group called the NSA. Lots of people wouldn't even make it through a résumé. NSA are the ones who's résumé reads like a book. Who's IQ is in the top percentile in the world.  They can make even top business people like Trump look like a idiot. 

 

Our constitutional liberties have been in force long before the NSA has been in power.  The NSA was born out of concern for protecting US government information systems and basically to spy on foreign intelligence information. Their home page is located here:  NSA   This is the ones that are stepping on our toes trying to take US citizens constitutional liberties away. 

 

We have to look at both sides of this issue to go one sided without consideration of the other would be just as bad.

 

First we have our  Constitutional Rights to consider.  The courts for years have been pretty good about our rights as citizens and they have stepped on quite a few toes in the past to protect our Constitutional Rights. So should they step on a few toes now? Ask yourself this...Do you as a citizen have the right to threaten our Nation?  Do you have the right as a US citizen to threaten the liberties that our Constitution has protected? There is a fine line in here to consider also. That fine line is free speech.  I am sure most are aware that even if you met a idiot on the street that said they was going to blow up your local Mall or worse.  You would first be asking yourself... "Would or could this person do it?" Or are they just blowing off steam? 

 

Our Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required that agencies receive warrants from a special court staffed by judges with top secret clearance before spying on U.S. soil. Which means a warrant has to be issued before they can act on any person on US soil. This has been a standard for many years.  It was passed in the 1970's to stop abuse by the higher Government offices.  In other words abuse was rampid and then Congress went in and stepped on a few toes to protect our Constitutional Rights.  It's one thing to be acting like God, and another to be playing the part of God.  The NSA along with a few other agencies abused their power plain and simple.  Even though I don't remember Congress getting involved and this taking place. It had to be absolutely bad in order for Congress to be involved in it, and taking action against them.  So this is something to consider.

 

I just hope they didn't open another Pandora's box. I also hope that our President didn't abuse his powers to allow them to step on our Constitutional Rights. The Bush Justice Department has argued that the Constitution grants the president "inherent authority" to spy on foreign powers or their agents, including U.S. citizens, and Congress cannot extinguish that authority. I don't remember reading this in the Constitution. I have read every line and can't find this folks.  I must be not as so blind as Bush is so deaf. he could be blind too.  Who knows? But to give credit where credit is due here is Bush's side of it. Bush and NSA He claims this was not suppose to be made public.  Oops!

 

So how bad is this?  It can be very bad for the public because it goes against the very fabric of what our Country has told us about our Constitution all of these years.  Our Liberties can be stripped from us and we can become no more than just another piece of land with a dictator running it.  Our Constitutional Rights are being treated as no more than a piece of paper that can be wiped of all of our freedoms, one by one.  It should never ever be so easy for the American public to loose a Constitutional Right. It should never be left for one man to change how our freedoms are handled. Not even the president should be allowed to change our Constitutional Rights without the publics say in it, and not without a act of Congress that the public has full access, and knowledge of.  No investigation should be done behind closed doors either on how Bush was able to do this.   

 

So what do I believe after reading all of this news?  It's just the best excuse Bush could come up with.   But the so called law he put in affect makes not a damn bit of sense if you think about it.  He claimed he needed this so he could be ahead of terrorist, etc.  He was already ahead.  He had top level Court Judges that were cleared for Top secret material that he could get in touch with and get a court order to search and do about anything he needed to do through the NSA.  So the NSA having God like powers wasn't necessary.  Unless he wants to tell us he couldn't trust his top Court Judges that has the Top Secret clearance?  Maybe they couldn't sign the court orders fast enough too? Duh.  I will wait for a better answer from our President. After all everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. But the American public deserve better treatment also. Besides our Constitution is not just a piece of paper it's our backbone, heritage, history, and our livelihood...

 

Amendment IV - Search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.