Mixing Business With Gov't Stupidity: General Clark Tells Congress Why It Should Regulate P2P (And Make Him Richer)

from the all-about-the-money dept

Remember the ridiculous story last month about how some clueless politicians were blaming the fact that some government employees were breaking rules and too stupid to understand how P2P software worked that P2P software needed to be regulated for the good of national security? It turns out that there's even more to this story. Congress called in a "star witness," in former presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, who took the position that P2P must be regulated: "If you saw the scope of the risk, I think you'd agree that it's just totally unacceptable. The American people would be outraged if they were aware of what's inadvertently shared by government agencies on P2P networks. They would demand solutions." And what kind of solutions would those be? Apparently, the kind whereby the gov't regulates P2P providers and requires they build in security. And what kind of security would that be? Why, perhaps the kind of security supplied by a company advised by the very same General Wesley Clark. We won't even bother to name the company here, because it doesn't need any additional free publicity, but its website is full of scary statements about how P2P software is threatening national security.

Filed Under: congress, file sharing, national security, p2p, wesley clark
Companies: tiversa

Nobody's Hunting Over The Internet, But Dammit, We Gotta Make It Illegal

from the proactive-legislation-the-best-kind dept

The uproar over online hunting has far outpaced its actual practice. It would appear that there's only been one such site in the US, which wasn't even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong. The WSJ has caught on, noting that lobbyists led by the Humane Society are still convincing legislators that legally enshrined bans are needed. Thirty-three states now have bans on the practice (up from 25 back in February), and Congress is considering a national ban -- despite the fact that nobody's doing it. One state rep in Delaware asserts that online hunting "would have the potential to make terrorism easier," though it would appear the reporter didn't ask her to explain exactly why, and that she doesn't "want to give ideas to people." So, instead, she's sponsored a bill drawing attention to an activity that nobody's really bothering with anyway. Makes perfect sense. Furthermore, one of the Congressional sponsors of the nationwide ban said he'd never heard of internet hunting until the Humane Society brought it to his attention. He says he wondered "who would do something like this?" As it turns out, nobody, really.

Filed Under: congress, internet hunting, politics
Companies: humane society

Congressional Computer Crashes: Congressional Reps Too Confused To Vote

from the oh-no! dept

It's no secret that many members of Congress seem to not understand technology issues, but they sure don't seem to like it when their own technology malfunctions. The Raw Feed points us to the news that the Congressional computer that shows vote tallies in the House of Representatives went on the fritz Friday afternoon, leaving those poor Congressional Representatives with no large monitor to tell them how their colleagues were voting. Apparently, without having this information being prominently displayed, some were concerned that they wouldn't know if their votes were being accurately counted (they were), and therefore began debating whether voting should cease until the computer was fixed. Rep. Joe Barton pointed out that each side had their own computers with tallies, and if those tallies matched up, it seemed silly to delay the voting, but eventually the Representatives decided it was just too difficult and recessed while the machines were fixed. What ever did they do before computers?

Filed Under: computers, congress
Companies: congress

Anti-Anti-Muni Bills Take Hold In Congress

from the 'bout-time dept

Efforts by incumbent telcos to stifle municipalities' attempts to roll out municipal broadband projects may not get the press they did a few years back, but the carriers are still at it, trying to get state legislatures to pass laws banning or hamstringing muni broadband. This week, though, a bill was introduced in the house that would prevent states from passing such laws. It follows similar legislation that was introduced in the Senate, and appears to already have a broad base of support -- but given the power of the telco lobby in Washington, we won't count the eggs before they've hatched.

Filed Under: congress, muni wifi, politics, telecom

Bloggers Could Get The Same Protections As Journalists, As Long As They're In It For The Money

from the splitting-hairs dept

There have been a number of cases in which it's been argued that bloggers and other independent writers don't deserve the same legal protection as "real" journalists, with a notable example being Apple's lawsuits to force some sites to reveal their sources of some leaked product info. While Apple won the first round, an appeals court overturned the decision, saying that state shield laws (which protect journalists from such suits) are "intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news," regardless of whether the person doing the gathering and dissemination is called a journalist or something else. A Congressional committee has now approved a federal shield law that would protect anyone who gets "financial gain or livelihood" from their journalistic pursuits, regardless of affiliation. If the measure's approved and signed into law (which seems unlikely given the Bush administration's opposition to it), it would extend protection to bloggers, so long as they were trying to make money from their online efforts. Obviously that's a pretty wide standard, and one that most bloggers could easily live up to by getting some form of advertising, or at least attempting to get some, on their sites. Some legislators say it's far too broad, but a bigger question would seem to be why financial gain is the sole criteria. Certainly there are plenty of people who write blogs or create other online media in a professional or moneymaking capacity, but there are plenty of others who aren't in it for the money. Just because someone isn't looking to make money from their online work shouldn't automatically mean they don't deserve the protection of shield laws.

Filed Under: congress, first amendment, politics

Representative Actually Introduces Version Of Alberto Gonzales' Attempted Copyright Infringement Law

from the you-want-to-bet-on-that-pony? dept

Back in May, when US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales started pushing his ridiculous bill that would make copyright law much stronger we figured that it was simply Gonzales' way of actually doing something unrelated to the widespread scandals coming out of his office. Given that nearly all of Congress seemed pretty pissed off at Gonzales (which still seems true today), we didn't think anyone would actually introduce the proposed bill. However, there's always someone. Rep. Steven Chabot has introduced a bill that's very similar to what Gonzales proposed, including making "attempted copyright infringement" a criminal offense. It also increases the time copyright infringers can spend in jail. As the EFF notes, Chabot's bill goes even further than Gonzales' proposal in that it allows judges to apply statutory damages separately on each song of an album, rather than on the entire album (even as the recording industry only registers the copyrights on the entire album at a time). There are no co-sponsors to the bill and it seems unlikely to get very far, but it's disappointing that it's even been introduced at all. Why not head over to Washington Watch and give your opinion on the bill.

Filed Under: alberto gonzales, bad laws, congress, copyright

Internet Access Tax Ban Up For Renewal Again, But The Push To Make It Permanent Remains

from the doing-some-good-for-a-change dept

We've noted in the past how every once in a while, some good internet laws turn up, even though they're still far outweighed by the bad ones. One of the good laws has been the moratorium on taxes on internet service, which keep states from increasing the total cost of internet access for consumers. The only hiccup, though, is that this ban has never been made permanent, mostly thanks to the objections of the states. The current moratorium expires November 1, and discussions to extend it or make it permanent are ongoing. While there's bipartisan support for keeping internet access bills free from the morass of taxes and regulatory recovery fees that plague telephone and cable TV bills, a lobbying group representing the states say they current ban should only be extended temporarily, so that legislators can "return to this issue and make sure we've gotten it right." It's not entirely clear why they can't "get it right" now, particularly as two bills that would make the ban permanent have already been introduced in the House. What's heartening about the discussion, though, is that it seems to focus on legislators' desire to make the ban more broad, potentially covering backbone services and even basic cable. For the time being, the worst-case scenario appears to be that the taxes are banned for four more years, but it looks like there's too much momentum behind the ban eventually becoming permanent to stop it at this point.

Filed Under: congress, isps, taxes

Political Gamesmanship In XM-Sirius Merger Rolls On

from the the-fun-never-ends dept

While comments filed with the FCC in support of the merger of satellite radio companies XM and Sirius outnumber those opposing it by nearly a four to one margin, they're not seen by many people to carry the same influence as those arguing against the merger. For instance, more than 70 Congressmen have told the heads of the FCC, DOJ and FTC that they should block the merger, and as stock pundit Jim Cramer points out, this has little to do with anything other than legislators' self-interest, since they don't want to upset local broadcasters in their constituencies. He adds that since XM and Sirius are up against such powerful opposition, they've had to go for broke, by announcing pricing plans that, if the merger's approved, could slice their average per-subscriber revenue. The plans offer consumers the ability to choose channels on an a la carte basis -- a move that looks like it's designed to appeal to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, for whom indecent programming is always an issue. At the outset of the merger announcement, Martin said that XM and Sirius would have to show that "consumers would clearly be better off with both more choice and affordable prices" before the FCC would approve the deal. These new plans would appear to deliver consumers more choices and control over the content they receive, and do so at lower prices. But it's still hard to see that being enough to overcome politicians' objections, fueled by the National Association of Broadcasters' clout.

Filed Under: congress, doj, fcc, ftc, mergers, politics, satellite radio
Companies: nab, sirius, xm

Politicians Blame P2P Software For Not Stopping Gov't Employee Stupidity

from the no,-seriously dept

Would you elect as your Congressional representative someone who blamed automakers because a bad driver crashed a car through his or her own negligence? Would you elect as your Congressional representative someone who claimed that email was a threat to national security because it can (and has) been used by spies to transmit confidential data? Probably not. Why? Because that's clearly misplaced blame. However, it appears that we have elected Congressional representatives who have made an almost identical argument and stick by it when it's pointed out how ridiculous it is. A bunch of our representatives are pushing for laws against file sharing networks claiming that file sharing is a national security threat. Why? Because some idiot government employees, against gov't regulations and policy, installed file sharing networks on their computers and then screwed up the installation to make confidential files available via P2P. Yes. Because government employees are stupid and disobeying rules, file sharing system providers must be punished. This is based on an equally poorly argued USPTO report from a few months ago that incorrectly blamed P2P networks for gov't employees stupidity.

In the meantime, while this magical law is being written, (and we can't wait to see the law that will somehow punish P2P software providers in a way that prevents gov't employee stupidity), many Congresscritters teamed up to scold the head of file sharing software firm Limewire. Rep. Jim Cooper accused Limewire's CEO of being naive (amusing, since Cooper doesn't appear to understand what he's talking about) and claiming that Limewire provided the "skeleton keys" to accessing material that harms national security. If that's true, then it's equally true that any internet provider is providing similar skeleton keys. And any search engine. Plus any computer maker. Or any telephone maker or service provider. They're all about as equally guilty as any P2P provider. Yet why isn't Cooper harassing any of their executives? Cooper goes on to demonstrate his complete ignorance of what's going on by saying: "you seem to lack imagination about how your product can be deliberately misused by evildoers against this country." That's laughably wrong. The misuse isn't by so-called "evildoers." It's by gov't employees who are disobeying policy and stupidly revealing confidential documents by misusing the software. Rep. Darrell Issa then warned Limewire that it may find itself legally liable if someone were stupid enough to share their tax returns via Limewire. Does this mean if I were so stupid to post my tax returns to Blogspot that I could sue Google? Technically, that's no different than Issa's argument. This is yet another case where politicians want to regulate a technology they don't understand.

Filed Under: congress, file sharing, national security, p2p

Law Would Tell Universities To Do The RIAA's Bidding, Or Lose Funding

from the not-your-place dept

The RIAA has consistently complained that there should be laws forcing colleges and universities to stop students sharing unauthorized music on their computer networks, and its extensive lobbying efforts have seen legislators in the past to "drop the hammer" on schools that don't comply to the RIAA's wishes. That hammer came a step closer to being dropped, as reader Blake writes in to let us know: an amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which funds colleges and universities and the students who attend them, was introduced this week, and it would cut funding from schools that didn't install technology to try and block P2P file-sharing on their networks. It looks like the amendment got yanked following university complaints, but its introduction highlights the ridiculous amount of clout the RIAA carries in Washington (an amount it seeks to further increase). The RIAA's attempts to abuse the legal system roll on, and now it's attempting to pervert the legislative process and American higher education as well. It isn't the job of colleges and universities to do the RIAA's dirty work, and the government shouldn't be forcing them to do it, either.

Filed Under: congress, p2p, piracy, politics
Companies: riaa