[The first two articles are spoofs -- I hope! --DBM] --- From: [deleted per request] To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declanat_private> 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" <xeniat_private> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declanat_private> 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" <xeniat_private> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declanat_private> 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-jkingat_private> Subject: Orrin Hatch, Recording Artist! To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> 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 gjkat_private jns-jkingat_private "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: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates' computers References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030at_private> From: Rich Wellner <richat_private> 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 <robertusat_private> To: declanat_private 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" <webmasterat_private> Reply-To: webmasterat_private Organization: Oregon Coast News Signal To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates' computers References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030at_private> 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 <declanat_private> 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&PressRelease_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 <swithersat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> 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 <swithersat_private> --- From: "L. Gallegos" To: declanat_private 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 <mathtechat_private> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: declanat_private, mathtechat_private 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 <onemugat_private> Reply-To: afn41391at_private To: declanat_private Subject: Re: FC: Orrin Hatch: It's OK to destroy P2P pirates' computers References: <5.2.1.1.0.20030618174240.0448c030at_private> Declan McCullagh wrote: >--- > ><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html>http://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:afn41391at_private>mailto:afn41391at_private --- To: declanat_private Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:42:04 -0400 From: "Peter Sanderson" <pbyagaat_private> Message-ID: <OEKCOKHPEKKJPDAAat_private> 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 19 2003 - 07:48:11 PDT