Reason Magazine - Staff > Hanah Metchis > Hit & Run Posts

E-mail Privacy

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:18:18 EDT

The good thing about lower courts is that when they make a really stupid decision, they can be overruled. I blogged a while back about a court that decided that an e-mail provider can read his client's e-mails for any reason. Now the Justice Department and some civil liberties groups are trying to get the case reheard.

I was just struck by something when I reread the capsule description of the case in this article:

Councilman was charged in 2001 by the U.S. Attorney's office with violating the Wiretap Act, which outlaws most interceptions of phone calls and e-mails. The case never made it to trial, as the court dismissed the charge.

A three-judge panel from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, arguing that the wiretap law did not apply since the e-mails were stored, even if only for seconds, on Councilman's computer.

It seems to me that a surprising number of legal problems are created by the way computers deal with moving files around. When I started to study computer programming in college, I learned to adjust to the fact that you can't directly move things - a file, a stored variable, or anything else - to a different memory location. That's just not the way computer memory works. Instead, you simulate the process of moving by making a copy to the location you want the thing in, and then deleting the original. Copying is a fundamental activity of a computer, and moving is only derivative. It's not at all like the world of physical objects, where moving things around is trivial (unless they are very heavy) and making a copy is cumbersome.

So, when you try to apply laws created for the physical world to the digital world, you come up with all kinds of problems. The Wiretap Act may not apply because e-mail files are almost always "stored" somewhere instead of "in motion". Taking a legally-downloaded mp3 from your computer and putting it on your portable device can be blocked by a DRM scheme designed to prevent illegal copying. And so forth. It's really quite troublesome. Much more so than I thought during Programming 101.

Who's Fair and Balanced?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 04:46:37 EDT

This analysis of media bias on the major networks is quite interesting. It looks like negative news is dominating. (Link via InstaPundit)

Induce or Don't Induce?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:31:51 EDT

The software industry has come up with an alternative to the absurdly broad Induce Act. It's called (don't you just love this law-naming creativity?) the Don't Induce Act. It sounds a lot better than the original bill:

The Don't Induce Act describes three requirements that would have to be met before a software distributor could be found liable: The "predominant" use of the program would have to be the mass, indiscriminate infringing redistribution of copyrighted works; the "commercial viability of the computer program" would have to be dependent on revenue derived from piracy; and the software distributor would have to have "undertaken conscious, recurring, persistent and deliberate acts" to encourage copyright infringement.

The proposal would also indemnify venture capital firms, payment services, financial services, Internet service providers, librarians and e-mail utilities. If the measure becomes law, anyone filing a "baseless lawsuit" under the Don't Induce Act could be heavily sanctioned with damages that are triple what would normally be levied.

Because the measure would only apply only to "commercial" activities, the proposal would not target free or open-source P2P clients.

But it still would be a shift in the law from "ban the infringing action" to "ban the technology". And of course it's facing heavy opposition from the entertainment companies that support the stronger version.

King John vs. King George

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 03:26:35 EDT

I'd think this was satire if it wasn't on MSNBC. British genealogical researchers claim that every U.S. Presidential election has been won by the candidate with the best connections to European royalty. On this basis, they're predicting a Kerry win this year.

Kerry is a descendant of bygone kings of England, Henry III and Henry II, and is distantly related to Richard the Lionheart, who led the third Crusade in 1189, according to Burke�s.

He is also descended from Henry I, King of France, and his wife, Anne of Kiev, giving him kinship with the royal houses of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the House of Rus.

Bush's bloodline is not so shabby, either:

Similar research carried out on Bush ahead of the 2000 presidential race showed that he beat Al Gore in the royal stakes, claiming kinship with Britain�s Queen Elizabeth as well as with Kings Henry III and Charles II of England.

I guess this means I have no chance of ever becoming President.

Thinking outside the, um, box

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:36:35 EDT

Indian citizens are being flooded with free condoms because of their high population growth and AIDS problem. But enterprising people are using them in some innovative ways:

Of the 891 million condoms meant to be handed out free, a considerable proportion were acquired by road-building contractors who mixed them with concrete and tar and used the mixture to construct roads, rendering road surfaces smooth and resistant to cracks.

Builders spread a bed of condoms beneath cement plastering on roofs, ingeniously preventing water seepage during the monsoon rains.

Weavers in Varanasi used around 200,000 condoms a day to lubricate their looms and to polish the gold and silver thread used to embroider the saris they produced.

They're also being used as fashion accessories, if you can believe the picture on the news article. (Link via Boing Boing)

State-Run Spelling

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:20:02 EDT

Talk about language prescriptivism! Six years ago, the German government instituted spelling reforms, trying to make the language simpler. Now, the peasants are revolting:

Since then opposition to the changes has grown. It culminated in Germany's two leading publishing houses, Axel Springer and Der Spiegel, announcing on Friday that their publications would revert to the old spelling.

The reforms had failed, the publishers said, providing neither 'enlightenment nor simplicity'. They urged other newspapers to follow the example of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which had gone back to old spelling.

We are all creatures of habit, of course. It reminds me of this Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling that made the rounds as an e-mail forward a few years ago.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Name That Business

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:37:11 EDT

Fun tidbit of the day from GeekPress: Ever wonder where your favorite company's name comes from? Find out here. Some of my favorites:

Arby's - the enunciation of the acronym of it's signature food- roast beef, or RB, thus Arby's.

Hotmail - Founder Jack Smith got the idea of accessing e-mail via the web from a computer anywhere in the world. When Sabeer Bhatia came up with the business plan for the mail service, he tried all kinds of names ending in 'mail' and finally settled for hotmail as it included the letters "html" - the markup language used to write web pages. It was initially referred to as HoTMaiL with selective upper casing. (If you click on Hotmail's 'mail' tab, you will still find "HoTMaiL" in the URL.)

Nintendo - Nintendo is composed of 3 Japanese Kanji characters, Nin-ten-do the first two of which can be translated to "Heaven blesses hard work"; do is a common ending for any store.

Pirates or Fans?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:14:18 EDT

Via Techdirt, here's a fascinating article about anime fandom and production.

Japanese anime has won worldwide success in part because Japanese media companies were tolerant of the kinds of grassroots activities that American media companies seem so determined to shut down. Much of the risks of entering Western markets and many of the costs of experimentation and promotion were born by dedicated consumers. A symbiotic relationship existed between fans and producers that warrants closer consideration as we watch American media companies take a scorched earth attitude toward their most dedicated followers.

There is definitely such a thing as excessive copyright protection. I don't think the media companies know how much they're hurting themselves with their enforcement and harassment policies. The whole article is definitely worth reading.

The War on Doctors

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:20:38 EDT

Expert testimony in malpractice lawsuits turns out not to be very expert after all. Via Paul Hsieh of GeekPress, who is a diagnostic radiologist himself:

The study by Johns Hopkins University radiologists found that medical experts who testified on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos suits almost always found something suspicious on their X-rays, whether it was asbestos dust or a likely malignant tumor.

But six disinterested radiologists asked to review the same 492 chest X-rays found something wrong only 4.5 percent of the time.

And people wonder why the cost of medical care has gotten so high.

Election-Watching

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:10:48 EDT

Okay, this just gives me the creeps. An international team of observers will be monitoring the presidential election right here in the U.S.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she [Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas] said in a news release.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'll think if I see a European bureaucrat paying very close attention to my polling place. What are the chances that they won't find anything to complain about?

Can Spam?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:54:27 EDT

The FCC is busy protecting us from mobile phone spam:

But the FCC exempted from its spam definition any short message service, or SMS, messages that go directly to phone numbers, which could create a large loophole through which millions of junk messages may travel.

The agency also exempted "transactional" and "relationship" messages -- such as billing statements or simple customer information. But it left the definition of what messages fall under those classifications to the Federal Trade Commission.

[...]

FCC chairman Michael Powell said he was "very proud to have just flatly prohibited spam on wireless devices"

For some definition of "spam" and "flatly".

Whose DNA?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:25:47 EDT

What happens when you can't get tested for a genetic disease because the company that makes the test doesn't have enough money to pay the company that owns the patent on the gene in question? Okay, this hasn't happened yet, but it's likely to become an issue soon.

"Fortunately, it doesn't appear that we're in a lot of danger," Stone said. "We've (been) doing this for a year and have not encountered a problem. But not encountering a problem in a year doesn't mean there will be no problems forever. Even a single problem that would require legal representation is just incredibly expensive for a completely non-moneymaking operation."

The ultimate answer, Stone believes, is to amend the Rare Diseases Act of 2002 to include patent freedom for nonprofit organizations that want to provide gene-testing services to patients with or at risk for rare diseases.

The law currently gives financial incentives to pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for diseases that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States and would not otherwise make much revenue. But the law does not address genetic testing.

This is just another example of how unfit the system of patent and copyright is to new developments in science and technology.

Because Chickens are Inherently Amusing

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 04 Aug 2004 03:29:21 EDT

This cartoon, explaining the terror warning system, is too funny to pass up.

iPod Down Under

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 03 Aug 2004 02:50:39 EDT

Think U.S. copyright law is bad? In Australia, almost every possible use of an iPod is illegal.

Most people know it is illegal to download songs from the internet without paying. But far fewer people know it is illegal to copy music from a CD you have legally bought.

Anyone who has copied songs from a CD onto an iPod or computer hard drive has fallen foul of Australian copyright laws, which critics argue are failing to keep pace with technological change. Copying music for personal use is generally OK in the US and Europe. But not in Australia.

Australian users are not allowed to use the U.S. version of iTunes to pay for and download songs, and there is no local Australian version as of yet. So what does that leave? Well, if you've got your own band, you can make an mp3 of that music... but that's about it. (Thanks to Boing Boing for the link.)

Hope Is On The Way?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:41:48 EDT

Edwards's "Hope is on the way" is a really stupid campaign slogan. If Kerry and Edwards are supposed to make the country better, and if we are to believe that they can win, shouldn't hope be here now? But no, instead they're saying that if Kerry and Edwards get elected, then we can have hope that sometime in the future things might get better.

Maybe they should change their slogan to "Kerry/Edwards. We won't actually make anything better, but we'll make you feel good about it."

The Tethering Game

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:17:15 EDT

What is it about copyright that seduces companies into making really stupid decisions? Okay, to be fair, companies can make stupid decisions about tethering all by themselves, but the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is helping.

Printer makers, garage-door-opener companies, and electronics manufacturers are busy installing useless �handshake� code as an interface between the replaceable, disposable product (ink cartridge, remote control, battery) and the more durable host device. Soon we will see automobile companies limit the replacement market for batteries, filters, and tires by installing useless code or contractual restrictions on those who lease.

By using computer code as an �access control device,� they can invoke the power of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to stifle competition from generic competitors.

The tethering of secondary goods within the extra-copyright industries is yet another piece of evidence that the DMCA is among the stupidest laws every passed. It is by all measures a complete failure that has retarded innovation and done nothing to protect copyright holders. And it has punished consumers.

Sure, locking your customers in to your replacement products can make a lot of money for your company. But is it really worth consumer anger over higher replacement prices and lack of choice? Plus, what's the consumer to do if the company goes out of business?

Also getting in on the tethering trend are coffee makers and mp3 players. The whole article is really worth a read. Thanks to Boing Boing for the link.

Flip-Flopping

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:13:57 EDT

Speaking of ads, I just watched this 12-minute video designed by the RNC to highlight Kerry's flip-flopping on the Iraq war issue. Strange to say, it had the opposite of its intended effect. Kerry is clearly comfortable and sincere when he says we need to go to war against Iraq. He's clearly playing for political advantage and uncomfortable about what he's saying when he tries to position himself against the war and reinterpret his previous statements. It made me believe, at least for now, that if Kerry is elected president, he'll be strong on terror because he won't need the votes any longer.

Ad or Entertainment?

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:42:01 EDT

I watch almost no TV. In fact, the only reason I bought a TV in the first place is that my computer screen is too small to watch DVD's with other people. In my opinion, the average TV ad is better than the average TV show. Networks may be starting to catch on to this concept.

Meanwhile, here's an awesome ad in which an Audi drives through some of Escher's impossible mazes. (Link via Donald Sensing)

Chaining the Future

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:41:58 EDT

Traditional phone lines based on miles of copper wires are expensive, especially in rural areas, and becoming obsolete. What's a regulator to do? Answer: Tax internet-based voice chat to subsidize the outdated system! Declan McCullagh comments:

It's not clear why programmers like Silva and companies offering commercial voice software must subsidize rural telephone companies. By that logic, Congress should have forced Henry Ford to pay for horse troughs. It should have also extorted cash from laser printer manufacturers on behalf of the dying manual-typewriter industry.

"You're Evil!" "No, You're Evil!"

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:38:01 EDT

I think Virginia Postrel has it exactly right in this blog post about how each of the two parties view themselves. (She's quoting from Clinton's speech last night at the beginning.

We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.

That's an interesting anti-elitist message, one that directly contradicts the Republicans' view of themselves and their opponents. Both parties, in other words, think the other guys "believe in an America run by the right people." Technocracy is certainly dead as a governing ideal, though not as a practice.

Clinton's statement can be read many different ways, depending on your point of view. "The role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives" can describe anything from a classical liberalism that emphasizes the importance of underlying institutions--if I didn't know the source, I might endorse it myself--to a Swedish-style welfare state.

The biggest mistake one can make in understanding American politics is to think that people in one party or the other are primarily motivated by greed, power, or a desire to screw over other people. As someone who has switched within the past 10 years from being a Democrat (okay, I wasn't old enough to vote when I was a Democrat) to a Republican-leaning libertarian, I can say with certainty that most people in both parties truly believe their policies are the best ones for America and for all Americans.

It really pains me that so many Democrats are so willing to say and believe that Republicans are evil, that Bush and Cheney are only out to pad their wallets. And it pains me that so many Republicans believe the same things about Democrats, environmentalists, gun control advocates, abortion rights activists.

Why is it so shockingly easy to get caught up in the belief that "I am good and my opponent is evil"? Is it some kind of mob mentality? Is it the same emotion that gives rise to sports fanaticism? Knowing that I sound incredibly naive, I'm still going to type this sentence: Why can't people just listen to what other people are saying?

Cheap Land, Great View of Earth

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:06:39 EDT

With private companies breaking their way into space, property rights on the moon and other astronomical bodies are about to become very important. The issue is currently in legal limbo. Here's a fun test case:

In an attempt to illustrate the relative lawlessness of space, Gregory Nemitz, a US aerospace consultant, registered a claim to Eros, also known as Asteroid 433, in March 2000.

When NASA landed its Near Shoemaker spacecraft on the four-billion-year-old moon as a permanent fixture the following February, Nemitz sent the US space agency an invoice for a nominal $20 (?11) to cover the next century?s parking fees. NASA officials refused to pay, so he took them to court. His claim, the first legal case over space property, was denied but on Tuesday this week he filed a federal appeal.

A loss for Nemitz probably wouldn't be as disastrous as the article goes on to claim. There are plenty of grounds to differentiate his claim from more serious extraterrestrial property claims - for instance, he's never physically been to this asteroid and doesn't have any plans to go there himself. But probably this issue would best be sorted out sooner rather than later.

SimCandidate

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 03:48:23 EDT

I've been a Sim City fan for a long time, dating back to the days of Super Nintendo. The games are great fun, despite the frustration of built-in anti-libertarian bias: you're mayor for life (actually for all eternity) without electoral challenges, zoning is a must, and citizens are woefully incapable of independent thought and action. But hey, if SimCitizens could do everything for themselves, it wouldn't be much of a game.

Anyway, my interest was piqued when I flipped through the L.A. Weekly at lunch today and found this review of a game that lets you pretend to be a presidential candidate in the 2004 election and several historical elections. There's a Canadian version, too. I'm downloading this as soon as I get home, definitely. Here's the link: President Forever 2004.

Kids These Days

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:47:23 EDT

They're doing great, it turns out. Violence, drug use, and sex among teens are down. They like their parents. They're happy. They want to get married and have kids.

How did a whole generation of kids turn out so darn good? Glenn Reynold's says it's because of decentralization!

The question is, why are teens doing better? I think there are two answers. First, people noticed problems, and tried a lot of different approaches. Private organizations, church groups, schools, and -- especially -- parents started taking a greater role in educating teenagers and encouraging better behavior. As with teen pregnancy, no single policy solved the problem, but multiple approaches tended to make it better until something seen as insoluble just a few years ago began to look, well, solved.

[...]

Another -- and it's a lesson that policy wonks seem slow to learn -- is that people other than policy wonks are capable of learning, and of changing their behavior on their own. Given the chance, and the information, they observe things that work and things that don't, and adjust their lives in ways that seem most likely to get them what they want, if they are allowed to do so. This means that projections of catastrophic future ills are usually wrong, as people learn from experience.

This could be a great new libertarian argument: "We need less government interference - it's for the children's sake!"

I Scream, You Scream

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:53:17 EDT

As Dave Barry would say, I swear I am not making this up. (Link via Best of the Web)

The co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is on the road, towing a 12-foot-tall effigy of President Bush with fake flames shooting out of the pants.

Ben Cohen believes it is an acceptable way to point out what he calls the president's lies.

But the real kicker is this: Cohen thinks this stunt is "dignified" and "polite". Here's the full article.

If you prefer your ice cream from the other side of the political aisle, check out Star Spangled Ice Cream, which has flavors like "Nutty Environmentalist" and "Iraqi Road".

Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology ...

info@reason.com (Hanah Metchis) — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 03:58:23 EDT

... is indistinguishable from magic. According to BBC News:

A rumour has spread rapidly in the commercial capital, Lagos [Nigeria], that if one answers calls from certain "killer numbers" then one will die immediately.

A BBC reporter says experts and mobile phone operators have been reassuring the public via the media that death cannot result from receiving a call.

[...]

The BBC's reporter in Lagos, Sola Odunfa, says that the current scare story is reminiscent of a rumour that spread a few years ago that a handshake could cause sexual organs to disappear.

That rumour turned to tragedy as mobs rounded on people accused of making organs disappear.

I wonder how one qualifies as an "expert" in mobile phone death ray technology.