Re-Posting TWO Important Items

[snot]

Both of these were sent to me by others; I'm not expert enough to understand the details. And pls excuse if you've seen these before. But I am very concerned that we must respond to the multiple, ongoing attacks on our internet freedoms.

FIRST:

FBI to get veto power over PC software?
The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves.

No, really. In an obscure "policy" document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision. <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fhraunfoss.fcc.gov%2Fedocs_public%2Fattachmatch%2FFCC-05-151A1.pdf&siteId=3&oId=2061-10804_3-5884130&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex>

According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement." Read the last seven words again.

The FCC didn't offer much in the way of clarification. But the clearest reading of the pronouncement is that some unelected bureaucrats at the commission have decreeed that Americans don't have the right to use software such as Skype or PGPfone if it doesn't support mandatory backdoors for wiretapping. (That interpretation was confirmed by an FCC spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name. Also, the announcement came at the same time as the FCC posted its wiretapping rules for Internet telephoney-- <http://news.com.com/Wiretap+rules+for+VoIP%2C+broadband+coming+in+2007/2100-7352_3-5883032.html?tag=nl> )

Nowhere does the commission say how it jibes this official pronouncement with, say, the First Amendment's right to speak freely, not to mention the limited powers granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato.org%2Fccs%2Fenum-powers.html&siteId=3&oId=/Wiretap+rules+for+VoIP%2C+broadband+coming+in+2007/2100-7352_3-5883032.html&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex>

What's also worth noting is that the FCC's pronunciamento almost tracks the language of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Almost.

But where federal law states that it is the policy of the United States to preserve a free market for Internet services "unfettered by federal or state regulation," the bureaucrats have adroitly interpreted that to mean precisely the opposite of Congress said. <http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Fhtml%2Fuscode47%2Fusc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html&siteId=3&oId=/Wiretap+rules+for+VoIP%2C+broadband+coming+in+2007/2100-7352_3-5883032.html&ontId=10784&lop=nl.ex> Ain't that clever?

Posted by Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
http://news.com.com/2061-10804_3-5884130.html?part=rss&...

Post a comment <http://news.com.com/5200-12-0.html?siteID=3&nodeID=12&assetID=5884130&assetURL=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.com.com%2F2061-10804_3-5884130.html&title=FBI+to+get+veto+power+over+PC+software%3F&authorID=0>

SECOND:

Sneak attack on free access to media!

MPAA/RIAA subvert democracy with super-broadcast-flag bid <http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/26/mpaariaa_subvert_dem.html>

Cory Doctorow: The RIAA and MPAA have teamed up to demand that Congress get the FCC to create a super-duper broadcast flag for radio and TV. This means that they'll get a veto over pretty much anything that can play video or music -- from your iPod to your PC's tuner card.

My co-worker Danny O'Brien has written a brilliant, witty explanation of how the MPAA and RIAA are pulling this off in Congress, sneaking around behind closed doors to get this enacted without debate -- and what you can do to stop the enterainment cartels to stop undermining American democracy:

This will be tricky, since the Broadcast Flag essentially demands government interference with every digital AV product on the market.

Ah, but how about -- no, that's far too sneaky. But...perhaps...

Listen. Suppose our sympatico politicos carve out a bunch of Digital TV provisions that, in fact, do have something to do with government finance? Suppose they stick those provisions in the Senate Commerce Committee's reconciliations bill (due October 26th), where they're practically untouchable?

But some key clauses on which these provisions depend will be omitted. Consequently, it will it be vitally important that Congress passes another Digital TV bill to fill the gaps.
That Digital TV bill will contain -- oh, look at that! -- the Broadcast Flag language. Oh, and the RIAA's Digital Radio Broadcast Flag, too, just for the sake of completeness.
Link <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004000.php >

[acmejack]

1. Are you familiar with the EFF?

If not,