[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] (Fwd) FC: More on Orrin Hatch, his plans for anti-piracy legislation
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:48:14 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: politech@politechbot.com
Subject: FC: More on Orrin Hatch, his plans for anti-piracy legislation
Send reply to: declan@well.com
[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
[The first two articles are spoofs -- I hope! --DBM]
---
From: [deleted per request]
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@well.com>
Subject: REMOVEEMAIL: Hatch goes even more nuts!! When's he up for
reelection??? Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:20:49 -0400 X-Mailer:
Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft
MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Priority: 3
Senator wants copyright "kill switches" in PCs
Thursday, June 19, 2003; 10:12 AM
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said
Thursday that future personal computers should be required to
sport "kill switches" that could be remotely activated in cases of
peer-to-peer piracy.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, said he was drafting legislation to
require devices in PCs permitting the destruction of hardware used
for widescale copyright infringement by sending a secret command
to the remote computer. A copyright holder would be required to
offer two warnings before the "kill switch" was activated and the
computer destroyed or permanently disabled, Hatch said.
"That may be the only way you can teach these people about
copyright infringement," Hatch told reporters in the Hart Senate
office building before a meeting of the Judiciary committee.
"Requiring kill switches is an extreme step, but if the private
sector can't stop piracy on its own, the government will."
On Tuesday, Hatch came under fire for saying that he favors
developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of
people who illegally download music from the Internet. Hatch's
latest remarks on go even further, representing the most dramatic
escalation to date in a battle over Internet piracy that has
pitted copyright industry executives against peer-to-peer users
and the technology industry.
"The kill switch would necessarily include an audit trail and some
sort of way to prevent it from being abused by people other than
legitimate intellectual property holders," Hatch said on Thursday.
"While there are no simple solutions, this is a reasonable
proposal that will help preserve the health and vibrancy of one of
America's most important industries."
Hatch said that in addition to technological protections against
misuse of the "kill switch," anyone who activated it who was not a
legitimate copyright holder would be subject to prosecution by the
U.S. Department of Justice.
A senior executive at Intel Corporation, who spoke on condition of
anonymity, called Hatch's comments "nutty, ludicrous, and beyond
the pale."
"Our job is to make the best products for our users, not create
backdoors in microprocessors that will melt them down to a molten
heap of slag because someone on the Internet gets peeved," the
executive said. "There's no guarantee that copyright holders won't
make a mistake, and what if a hacker bypasses this supposedly
secure authentication mechanism? Senator Hatch would be
responsible for melting down most of the Internet overnight."
In May, the Recording Industry Association of America acknowledged
that it erroneously sent dozens of copyright infringement notices
that threatened legal action. The trade association blamed its
errors on a temporary employee.
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA, who has been active in copyright debates,
said that Hatch should reconsider his proposal for legislation. "I
can understand Senator Hatch's frustration, but we have to make
sure the cure is not worse than the disease," Boucher said.
"Requiring kill switches is a last resort, not something that
should be on the table yet."
Hatch is an amateur songwriter who has recorded religious songs
including, according to HatchMusic.com, works titled Our Gracious
Lord, Climb Inside His Loving Arms, and How His Glory Shines.
Hatch's proposed legislation represents a kind of melding of two
other proposals from the last session of Congress. In one, Rep.
Howard Berman, D-CA, ignited a firestorm across the Internet over
his bill that would give copyright holders the power to disable,
divert or block computers used on peer-to-peer networks. The
second bill, backed by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-SC, would require
computer and consumer-electronics companies to build
copyright-protection technology into future products.
One technology lobbyist, who spoke on condition of anonymity,
offered a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. "How about if we implant
'kill switches' in politicians so we can blow them up when they
say anything this stupid?"
---
From: "Xeni Jardin" <xeni@xeni.net>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@well.com>
Subject: Hatch introduces legislation to burn peoples' eyeballs out
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:35:57 -0700
[you've prolly already seen...--XJ]
<<Journalist Declan McCullough, whose articles helped kill the first
Hatch bill, wrote yesterday that "while there is some potential for
damaging private property when burning someone's eyes out--what about
the contact lenses, for instance? I mean, it's not like you can sell
your eyeballs, but you can get a a buck or two for the contact lenses
on the grey market. But that's a minor quibble--after all, it's not
authoritarian, big-brother government blinding people, but the good,
mostly unconvicted, free corporate citizens operating freely under the
free enterprise system to protect their valuable freedom.
"And their stuff," McCullough continued. "But not their eyeballs. So
this technology is here to stay.">>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.jzip.org/jzip/archives/000573.html#000573
Senator Hatch Introduces Bill to Burn People's Eyes Out
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced legislation authorizing the
use of high-powered microwave lasers to burn out the eyes of
non-paying viewers of copyrighted material. "If we could develop
technology which just burned out the parts of their brains where the
illegal memories are stored, that'd be fine with me--but we can burn
their eyes out right now!" said Hatch, while introducing the
Hatch/Hollywood Eyeball Evisceration Act.
Hatch's previous legislation authorizing the remote detonation of PCs
used, or potentially used, or thought to have possibly been used, or
potentially able to be used after some jumper cables and soldering,
assuming a radically defective new security model, to access
copyrighted material was defeated in the Senate on a 51-49 vote last
week.
"I understand why the Senate was hesitant to pass a bill that
authorized the destruction of personal property," Hatch said. "But
this doesn't destroy any property. It just turns your eye sockets into
puddles of bubbling goo. Okay, you might get some melted eyeball on
your shirt, but only if you panic. Keep your wits about you and you
can get those eyeballs to dribble into your cupped hands."
Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA), welcomed the announcement. "For too long, our valuable
intellectual property, such as Encino Man, Citizen Kane and Girls Gone
Wild on Geek Cruises, has been stolen. When you watch a video at your
neighbor's house that your neighbor rented, you are nothing but a
thief who deserves to have his--or her--eyeball fluid pour down your
cheeks like the crododile tears you shed for the plight of
impoverished Hollywood executives. We know who you are, you thieves,
all 157,872,548 of you in the United States alone--and we're going to
burn your eyes out!"
The technology, which uses Radio Frequency ID (RFID) tags, smart
radio, and the Global Positioning System (GPS) to turn healthy
eyeballs into lumps looking like burnt marshmallows, has also been
licensed to the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) to
explode eardrums. When reached for comment, Hilary Rosen, former head
of the RIAA under whose administration this system was initiated and
funded, said, "We have always considered this to be a reasonable,
least-harmful method of stopping the massive, Enron-style fraud
perpetrated by song traders and multi-billionaire corporate crooks.
Remember--Enron sold broadband to the song traders.
"Besides," Rosen continued, "while the sales of some minor independent
artists may suffer, we have reason to believe that sales of artists
like Britney Spears, Shania Twain, and Linkin Park will not drop
simply because those who listen to them have had their eardrums
shattered.
"That is, as long as their eyeballs haven't been burned out."
Comment on the new system has been mixed. Former listener Stacey
Bristol, 25, spoke from her hospital bed about her experience: "I was
standing outside this sold-out Widespread Panic show, asking around
for a ticket. When I couldn't find one, I decided to wait around, see
if they opened up the doors at intermission, maybe listen to a song or
two from outside. They'd just started playing when I felt this
pressure build up in my sinuses--the next thing I knew, there was
blood in my ears and I couldn't hear anything!"
Jeff Williams, 48, had a similar impression: "I was in a bar--you
know, the kind with a bunch of televisions tuned to different
sports--watching the Phillies and the Cubs when the announcer said,
'Unauthorized viewing of this broadcast is prohibited--' but that's
all I heard, 'cause my eyeballs were starting to melt."
Journalist Declan McCullough, whose articles helped kill the first
Hatch bill, wrote yesterday that "while there is some potential for
damaging private property when burning someone's eyes out--what about
the contact lenses, for instance? I mean, it's not like you can sell
your eyeballs, but you can get a a buck or two for the contact lenses
on the grey market. But that's a minor quibble--after all, it's not
authoritarian, big-brother government blinding people, but the good,
mostly unconvicted, free corporate citizens operating freely under the
free enterprise system to protect their valuable freedom.
"And their stuff," McCullough continued. "But not their eyeballs. So
this technology is here to stay."
Lawrence Lessig, professor of law at Stanford University, took a
different tack. "Clearly, the patents on this technology are invalid.
In 1904, groundskeeper Roy McTuggle took a sharp stick and poked it
through the eyeholes at Ebbets Field during 3-2 counts with men on
base. McTuggle successfully blinded seventeen children and a scout
from the Browns--that constitutes prior art.
"Once we can get this technology out into the open," Lessig continued,
"we'll find some way to fight it. Possibly we can use the Commerce
Clause, if we can show that the microwave laser beam crosses state
lines on its way to an eyeball. That might've convinced the court in
Eldred, so surely it'll work this time."
Posted by adamsj at June 18, 2003 02:34 PM
---
From: "Xeni Jardin" <xeni@xeni.net>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@well.com>
Subject: one more on Hatch...
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:12:30 -0700
http://boingboing.net/2003_06_01_archive.html#200437506
Hatch using pirated software on his own website?
Oh, the irony. In this lengthy, amply-footnoted post on Amish Tech
Support blog, Laurence Simon does some HTML sleuthing to reveal that
Sen. Orrin "Destroy Infringers' PCs" Hatch may be illicitly using
copyrighted material from Milonic Software on his own website. If
hatch.senate.gov were in fact in violation of Milonic Software's
License agreement, and the senator's latest proposals became law,
would Hatch's web server be eligible for destruction? (...)
---
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:24:54 -0400
From: Jack King <jns-jking@comcast.net>
Subject: Orrin Hatch, Recording Artist!
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Declan,
You are aware, of course, that Orrin Hatch is a prolific composer and
recording artist, featured on many Mormon (Latter Day Saints)
websites. He even has his own website:
http://www.hatchmusic.com/songs.html
Samples are available online. Just don't pirate them or his agents
will corrupt your hard drive.
-- Jack
=====================================================================
Jack King
gjk@well.com
jns-jking@comcast.net
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments
by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."
--Justice Louis Brandeis
Olmstead v. United States (1928) (dissent)
=====================================================================
---
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates'
computers References:
<5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030@mail.well.com> From: Rich Wellner
<rich@objenv.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:15:52 -0500
> "I'm interested," [Orrin] Hatch interrupted. He said damaging
someone's > computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody
about copyrights."
Damn right. I'm working on a program today that will warn a studio
twice about their prevention of fair use and then proceed to insert a
worm into their render farm which will make all future characters look
like cartman. :-)
rw2
--
http://poliglut.org
Because the oval office has no corners
---
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:26:42 -0700
From: Robert Honan <robertus@harbornet.com>
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates'
computers
Declan,
I wonder how much support Mr. Hatch would give to a bill that required
the immediate, total, and permanent dissolution of any publicly traded
corporation found to be violation SEC rules: without the benefit of a
trial? Personally, I think that's the only way these CEO's will ever
learn that the public does not exist for them to fleece.
---
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:37:47 -0700
From: "Da'ud X Mohammed" <webmaster@ocnsignal.com>
Reply-To: webmaster@ocnsignal.com
Organization: Oregon Coast News Signal
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates'
computers References:
<5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030@mail.well.com>
Hullo Declan,
This is a great story, and typically a pre-emptive sign of the times.
I wonder if Hatch really wants more of what we've see lately to be a
way of life around here, and around the world. While the idea of
crashing someone's computer can be troublesome, I am also concerned
that assassinating troublesome people has become the way of
governments. Hatch and his likes apparently don't see the big pic as
fodder for late night comedians. On this one, I'm not sure I do
either.
With peace
dxm
---
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch [Comments From Hatch's Office]
Declan,
I just called Hatch's office and was told by one of his staffers (in
UT) that he "retracted and 'qualified' his comments" of yesterday as
seen/quoted here:
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail
&PressRelease_id=205147
- - - - - -
June 18th, 2003 Contact: Margarita Tapia, 202.224.5225
HATCH COMMENTS ON COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT
Washington . Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, today issued the following statement:
.I am very concerned about Internet piracy of personal and copyrighted
materials, and I want to find effective solutions to these problems.
.I made my comments at yesterday.s hearing because I think that
industry is not doing enough to help us find effective ways to stop
people from using computers to steal copyrighted, personal or
sensitive materials. I do not favor extreme remedies . unless no
moderate remedies can be found. I asked the interested industries to
help us find those moderate remedies..
Full Committee Introductory Statement Text:
[http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/index.cfm?FuseAction=Statements.Detail&P
ressRelease_id=205148&Month=6&Year=2003]
- - - - - -
I find his "qualifying" comment, " I do not favor extreme remedies .
unless no moderate remedies can be found." to be very interesting,
esp. in light of the comments from the staffer: She also pointed out,
that the Senator added to the Patriot Act the ?clause(s)? making
destruction of a computer (system) a federal crime and an act of
terror...
Just an FYI...
Cheers!
/robert/
P.S. If you post this, please delete eMail addy - thanks!
---
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates'
computers From: Steve Withers <swithers@mmp.org.nz> To: Declan
McCullagh <declan@well.com> Date: 19 Jun 2003 12:04:10 +1200
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 09:46, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> ---
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html
> > Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading > > By TED BRIDIS > The
Associated Press > Tuesday, June 17, 2003; 5:22 PM
> "If we can find some way to do this without destroying their
machines, we'd > be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said.
"If that's the only way, > then I'm all for destroying their
machines. If you have a few hundred > thousand of those, I think
people would realize" the seriousness of their > actions, he said.
"There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws," > Hatch
said. [...]
No excuse?
The fact they have been extended from 14 years to 75 years in the US
is an excellent excuse.
Rule of law?
Take your lead from President Bush:
Law doesn't matter if you think you're right.
--
Steve Withers <swithers@mmp.org.nz>
---
From: "L. Gallegos"
To: declan@well.com
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:22:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: OMITEMAIL Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P
pirates' computers
Declan,
I've been reading a lot of forum boards lately regarding Sen Hatch's
statements and the proposed bill. Let's just say it would be a
mistake to allow the hacking law to be amended in this manner and
allow the destruction of computers in favor of IP interests. Aside
from the devastating effect it could have on innocent people (we've
seen the errors that can be made), the cracker community would wreak
havoc in retaliation from all over the world.
I don't know what Senator Hatch is using for a brain, but if he thinks
any US law will prevent P2P networks and downloading of files, he's
dreaming. If the RIAA thinks their website was hacked and didn't care
for it, just imagine what would happen if there were a concerted
effort to destroy others' machines. How hard would it be for a
cracker to booby trap the attacking computer? I'm no hacker, but if I
were, I would defend my network against attack and, in this case,
would return the favor.
This is so outrageous a concept, I don't even want to think about it.
It's rather like saying "I don't like your dog barking, so I'll just
shoot him." This actually happened here in VA. The shooter will most
likely go to prison. What's next, cut off the hands of thieves? Cut
out the tongues of liars? What are we coming to?
The man has a screw loose. He's starting a cyberwar with people who
are far more capable than he is. I hope he re-thinks his position.
Leah G.
---
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:43:45 -0700
From: Robert Schlesinger <mathtech@earthlink.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: declan@well.com, mathtech@earthlink.net
Subject: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates' computers
Hi Declan,
A couple of brief comments regarding the proposal of Sen. Orin Hatch:
1) Would the destruction of computers also include government and
military computers that violate copyright laws? 2) Who would be
permitted to use these "IP Infringement Bombs", any "music company" or
recording artists, or any copyright holder? 3) Would trademark
holders be permitted to also use this destructive IP Infringement
Bomb? 4) What would the consequences be for such a destructive
policy? Can we then expect more individuals using these "bombs" to
maliciously destroy computers? Will music traders and hackers
retaliate against the music industry with computer viruses and the
like? 5) What counter-measures may a music infringer use to copy
music, and not get caught with these proposed IP Infringement Bombs?
Being in the patent field, and having monitored software, signal
processing, and electronic music patents and technology for some
years, I can think of several counter-measures, off-the-cuff. Best
regards, Robert Schlesinger
---
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 04:13:10 -0400
From: Nick Bretagna <onemug@bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: afn41391@afn.org
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates'
computers References:
<5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030@mail.well.com>
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>---
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html>h
>ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html
>
>
>Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading
>
Considering the nature of this concept itself, Hatch displays an
utterly **amazing** level of sheer, unbounded stupidity to promote
this notion.
Lessee, how might this be fraught with problems, the five minute
thought ramble: 1) Who gets to decide what is fair use and what is
copyright violation? Certainly not the courts. 2) What of those
individuals who are unaware, in one way, or another, that they are
actually in violation of copyright...? 3) I claim copyright to the
pages from the NYTimes website, and threaten to destroy the machines
of anyone caught accessing said material... **who is going to take the
chance**?? (OK, not something as obvious as the NYT -- but some
smaller venue?? Ah, what then?) 4) Define "two warnings" -- suppose I
set up my machine to d/l something innocently, if it comes up, via a
specific venue... then I go away on a vacation, only to come back and
find my machine has been destroyed because I was not around to receive
said warnings...? 5) What if said violation occurred solely because of
some software mixup, like I said download "daisies" because I want a
picture of daisies as my wallpaper and it (multiple times) downloaded
the soundtrack from 2001 with HAL singing "Daisies"...?
OK, five minutes are up, someone want to produce the problems with
this whole that you actually might miss if you WEREN'T a complete
frigging BONEHEAD? Or a member of Congress... but I repeat myself....
I'd also point out, as an aside, directly to the senator:
Trust me -- YOU DON'T WANT A WAR WITH HACKERS. They will screw up the
RIAA and the MPAA so bad they won't know what hit them. Whatever
techniques you grant to these clotheads in the RIAA/MPAA you can count
on hackers subverting for their OWN purposes -- and some of those who
may misuse this power may not be AMERICAN hackers, *either*, I'd point
out. In short, sir, demonstrate that you DO have two brain cells to
rub together and let this imbecilic notion die the quick death it
deserves.
--
------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- -------
Nicholas Bretagna II
<mailto:afn41391@afn.org>mailto:afn41391@afn.org
---
To: declan@well.com
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:42:04 -0400
From: "Peter Sanderson" <pbyaga@lycos.com>
Message-ID: <OEKCOKHPEKKJPDAA@mailcity.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Declan,
Thought you might be interested in this thread from Amish Tech
Support; a blogger with some free time discovered that Sen. Hatch's
website may be using software illegally:
"Senator Orrin Hatch's website uses a very impressive set of
Javascript code for its menus, developed by Milonic Software. A
professional developer's license is $34.99, and a corporate side-wide
license goes for $899.00. However, non-profits seems to have access to
the code for free as long as a license number is obtained... So, does
Orrin Hatch and his web support staff have a license number, or is he
guilty of using unlicensed software himself? There's a "* i am the
license for the menu (duh) *" comment in the View - Source, but no
license ID number..."
http://amish.blogmosis.com/archives/012511.html#012511
Please feel free to forward this to Politech if you feel it is
relevant. The comments on that blog entry are typically inflamatory,
but a few are of relevance.
Sincerely,
Peter Birch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs
are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de