News

These new data retention laws go beyond what the government should be doing about terrorism (such as declaring WAR with the countries that harbor them instead of draconian laws that strip our civil freedoms). Now they want internet sites to retain data. This is an OUTRAGE. This goes beyond spying, this is a HUGE invasion of privacy for EVERYONE that uses the internet. Comcast is increasing their retention to 180 days in response to this crap. I'm looking to drop them soon and go with someone else. I agree that keeping logs is important (for technical reasons alone), but to mask spying in the guise of terrorism and child porn? These are the new trump cards of the government and unless WE THE PEOPLE do something about it, it will continue.

You need to start asking yourselves if civil liberties and privacy are important to you. If they are, call up your political representation and tell them to A) stop taking away our civil liberties and personal privacy in response to terrorism and B) screw themselves.

As if the »news yesterday wasn't bad enough, Spain is now banning all unauthorized downloads. The law makes it a criminal offense for ISPs to allow it as well. Score one for the copyright cartels in Spain. I'm sure we in the US will see draconian laws like this start cropping up soon.

Quote

A Spanish intellectual property law has finally banned unauthorized peer-to-peer file-sharing in Spain, making it a civil offense even to download content for personal use. The legislation, approved by Congress on Thursday, toughens previous provisions. An early May circular from Spain's fiscal general del estado, or chief prosecutor, allowed downloads for purely personal use.

I was reading an article for an interview with the FCC head. He states that the change to the universal services fund to include VoIP providers may costs consumers more money and that is totally fair!

Quote

Would there be an impact on consumers' monthly bills?
Copps: Absolutely--there could be an impact. I think you're much better off, again, if you're a VoIP or wireless provider, there's a possibility now that your bills are going to go up because we haven't included the broadband. When everyone participates in the (system) it's more equitable and fair and you don't feel the pain as much. It could well be consumers are going to feel more pain, and that's something we always have to be sensitive and alive to. Consumers, too often, don't get the priority concern that they ought to get.

Here at the FCC, we don't actually listen to what we say. I may have said that I am concerned about consumers, but I am not. I only care about the companies that give me money to push their own agendas. Did I just say that out loud?

In a bow to all media cartels, the Spanish government has mandated that a tax will be placed on all blank media. This means that you pay the content cartels even for stuff that has no effect on them at all. On the other hand, does this mean that copying copyrighted work is legal because you are already paying for it? Also, how does this fee get to the copyright holder? I have serious doubts if the government will give money to Linux distros that many people use on CDs.

Quote

Is this an example of what is to come in the United States or other parts of Europe? People have long discussed this concept, known as "compulsory licensing." Meaning that basically the government assumes people are going to be putting copyrighted material on this blank media, Other ideas in the same vein include licensing fees imposed on DSL or cable customers, again assuming they are going to be making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material.

Since when did government exist to help the corporations? I thought governments were there to serve the people... Ohh that's America? Wait, America turned into a military-industrial complex! We are screwed.

This bill is the EXACT bill that I posted about below. There are some good intentions in this bill, but because it contains broadcast flags, it is garbage. Either remove the broadcast flags or vote the bill down. Those are the only two acceptable answers to this problem.

Quote

"It puts Hollywood, acting through the FCC, in charge of how consumer electronics manufacturers should build their devices," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. Senate committee aides said earlier this week that a number of Republicans share concerns about the government's wading into technological mandates. They would rather not see the provisions in the bill at all but added them after pressure from Democrats like Barbara Boxer, who counts a large chunk of the entertainment industry in her California constituency.

Yet another one of these additions to a bill. We need a system that a bill handles a SINGLE issue. Riders and such are not good for these types of things. The bill is in for a vote today. I will be calling my senator in a few moments. I hope you do the same.

Quote

Congress is mandating the use of DRM, plain and simple. Although one part of the bill seems to give a nod to fair use, it's done in the same way as it was under the DMCA. Meaning, the bill ignores fair use. It reads that the FCC's regulation won't affect fair use rights-well, it won�t. Those fair use limitations still exist under the copyright law-but as we know well, DRM legally trumps fair use thanks to the DMCA.

Microsoft found a way to get ODF support out of the state government. MA is pushing a bill that pushes the IT spending to the state CIO instead of the IT person. Smart move on MS' part. Lobbying is a bad part of this country.

Quote

The less (as in "not") noticed event relates to the passage of an important economic stimulus bill that for months had been stalled while Beacon Hill legislators debated a universal health coverage bill with a higher priority. The passage of the bill, of course, was widely reported. What wasn't noted (except by IBM's Bob Sutor at his blog and few, if any, others) is the fact that a certain amendment that had been added to the Senate version of the same bill last fall did not survive the final reconciliation of the Senate and House versions of the legislation. That amendment, if approved, would have dramatically curtailed the power of the State CIO to set IT standards policies (or any other IT or CT policy, for that matter). You can read all about that saga in this and a number of later entries in the OpenDocument blog entry folder.