Re: tlug: alert-WIPO bill

[Nivad <nivad@example.com>]

Yes, open source should be immune from this bill as far as I can tell (I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer).  Promoting open source is good, but not when effecting privacy (personal) and security (hidden bugs) of computing as a whole.


Maybe after this message the thread will end. I didn't really expect it to go this far. Although it was after the 19 June deadline, the idea was to alert any TLUG members of this bill who might have had time to make their opinions known to the legislators. Hopefully, some understood the implications and were able to act. If not, shouganai, I am finished with this subject.

The following is excerpted from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

H.R. 2281, the "WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act".

Section 1201: Makes the use, manufacture or sale of ANY technology that can be used to circumvent copyright protections illegal. A host of vital technologies, equipment and processes "can" be, but are not intended, for such abuse, and Congress should not outlaw them, any more than they may outlaw the making or sale of crowbars or baseball bats because they "can" be used for vandalism. This section will: 

-criminalize the manufacture, import, or use of tools necessary to perform research in cryptography. Under HR 2281, the manufacture of software tools that test the viability of a proposed encryption algorithm would be prohibited.  { no use encrypting :(  }
-impede the ability of system operators to find and correct weaknesses in their systems. System operators have important, legitimate reasons to attempt to circumvent such access control technologies to confirm the security of the password file or other vulnerable elements of the system. They must be able to use or create software that circumvents access control technologies to determine the robustness of the security system.  { sample account name: bill password: gates1  ;)  } 
-prevent computer users from protecting their privacy online by removing cookies from their computer. Additionally, if cookies are used as a copyright protection system it would be unlawful to manufacture a device that removes the cookie from the system.            { Yes, we will all love our cookies :) }

Section 1202: Allows for the collection of personally identifiable information as part of the Copyright Management System. This section will: 

-allow content owners to collect personally-identifiable information about users who access their copyrighted works. This will eliminate anonymous reading and allow content owners to track not only which online magazines you buy but also which articles you read and which pictures you look at.   { who needs privacy }

Section 201: Encourages system operators to violate the privacy and protected speech rights of their users. This section will: 

-exempt service providers from liability if they disable access to or remove material claimed to be infringing, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing. This encourages them to remove potentially protected speech without any real proof of infringement. It also allows OSPs to violate users' privacy by sifting through customers' electronic files, documents and e-mail looking for potential infringements.  { you don't need those files, right }

ALTERNATIVE: SUPPORT THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 3048

A much better version of WIPO treaty implementation provisions, which punish the act of unlawful infringement yet maintain privacy and fair use protections, can be found in H.R. 3048, the "Digital Era Copyright Enhancement Act." H.R. 3048's language would encourage the development of new technologies and markets for copyrighted works in digital form, and give intellectual property holders the strong tools they need to go after infringing conduct while protecting privacy, security, and anonymity.


>"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com> wrote,
>>     Nivad> stop programmers, not only for linux, from being able to
>>     Nivad> hunt for security hole in software.  IE: rootshell's and
>>     Nivad> bugtrax and etc... job - discover, disclose, and repair
>>     Nivad> security errors in software.  This is important to you
>>     Nivad> right?  I know that it is to me.  
>> 
>> How does it do that?  Free source is free source, isn't it?
>
>Not that I am in favour of the bill, but -- as far as I
>understand -- the only thing it might do to open source is
>promote it.  It doesn't stop anyone from finding security
>holes...it only prevents you from doing it without the
>consent of the copyright owner.
>
>If this regulation really takes effect, anybody interested
>in security should stay far away from closed software, I
>guess...
>
>Manuel

-------------------------------------------------------------- Next Nomikai: 17 July, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691 Next Meeting: 8 August, Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate 12:30 featuring Linux on multiple platforms: i386, Sparc, PA-Risc, Amiga, SGI, Alpha, PalmPilot, ... -------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp