Declan McCullagh, the author of the CNET article I linked to yesterday has posted a FAQ about the legislation. In my opinion, it answers the legal debunking of his article posted at BoingBoing.
Annoying Legislation, Part 2
Leave a reply
Category Archives: government, law, and politics
Annoying Legislation
The United States Congress (Senator Arlen Spector in particular) can kiss my….Oh, wait. I musn't be annoying. I might be breaking the law.
" Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. "
"In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess."
"This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison."
….
"Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called 'Preventing Cyberstalking.' It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet 'without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
"To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure."
"The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16. "
I guess I'm safe because my true identity is disclosed on this site.
What a bunch of asshats. Readers are encouraged to leave anonymous and/or pseudonymous annoyances aimed at our brilliant leaders (Please keep them PG, though).
Executive Privilege
INTERVIEWER: So what in a sense, you’re saying is that there are certain situations…where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.
PRESIDENT: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
INTERVIEWER By definition.
PRESIDENT: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they’re in an impossible position.
Remind you of anyone? Nope, it’s not George "It’s just a goddamn piece of paper" Bush. It’s Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon discussing aspects of executive privilege in an interview with David Frost as it related to United States v. Nixon. Be sure to read the whole interview. I found the quote from Abraham Lincoln particularly interesting.
Can You Hear Me? Then Get Off My Phone!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probablecause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." – Fourth Amendment
Was Bush (Congress, the NSA, whomever) wrong to employ the kinds of wiretaps he did? Did he violate Constitutional law? I don’t know. Just because a certain power is not forbidden to the federal government by the Constitution, doesn’t mean it’s licit.
Dean Gray Tuesday…er…Wednesday
I didn’t get around to posting this yesterday, so I’ll tell folks about it now. Actually, I’ll let BoingBoing explain.
Today is Dean Gray Tuesday, a net-wide day of protest over Warner Brothers attempt to censor a stupendous noncommercial mashup album called American Edit that remixes Green Day’s album American Idiot.
For today, websites across the Internet are mirroring the American Edit album and/or turning their page-backgrounds grey. Mashup albums don’t hurt the sales of the albums they sample — at worst, they have no effect on sales, at best they can promote them. Artists who are signed to major labels can avail themselves of labels’ legal departments when they want to remix others’ work and get their samples cleared. Indie artists, hobbyists and fans don’t get legal assistance from labels’ high-priced fixers. This is pure patronage: in the old days you couldn’t make art unless the King or some bishop granted you permission; today you need permission from a studio executive.
The labels admit this. Last year, EMI made headlines by censoring DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, which remixed the Beatles’ White Album and Jay-Z’s Black Album. I raised this with an EMI representative at London’s Creative Economy conference and she shrugged it off: "What’s the problem? We later hired Danger Mouse to make a mashup album for us."
The problem is that copyright law is supposed to decentralize the process of making art, moving the power to authorize art from royalty to the marketplace. Labels have no business setting themselves up as arbiters of what art can and can’t be made.
Happy Dean Grey Tuesday. Up yours, Warners. Link
Update: Matt cooked up this sweet Dalek/Warner lawyer graphic in honor of the day.
Here are a three more cool mashups for your listening pleasure. 🙂
The Kleptones – A Night at the Hip Hopera
Various Artisits – llegal Art
Various DJs – Flip the Swtich (Chemical Brothers Remixed)
I’ve added a button to my left sidebar with a link pointing to Banned Music. They have links to other mashups (like the infamous "Grey Album"). Check it out.