On Friday Democrats in the House of Representatives flexed their new majority muscle to pass a non-binding resolution opposing the surge/escalation in Iraq. The resolution was brief, to the point, and palatable enough to garner the support of 17 Republicans on top of all but two Democrats.
So impressed by the resolution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled a rare Saturday vote on identical language (as opposed to the 14 page whopper they had tried to adopt the week before). It was my thinking that this was a pretty clever move on the Majority Leader's part. To end the Republican filibuster Reid needed a 3/5ths majority and I figured the Saturday vote would mean fewer Republicans and thus a lower absolute vote total.
Indeed, when the vote was taken it came to 56-34--nine Republicans absent and Democratic Sen. Johnson of South Dakota still recovering from brain surgery. Now 56 plus 34 is 90, and 56 is 3/5ths of 90... so why was the Washington Post story reporting the filibuster had held?
Because Senate Rule 22 says so, that's why. The threshold is not based on the number of votes cast as it is with nearly all other votes in both the House and Senate. Rather, it is based on the number of Senators "duly chosen and sworn." Which means if there are 100 seated Senators, you need 60 affirmative votes to end a filibuster. Just as importantly, a "present" or "absent" vote is equivalent to a no vote. The only reason the minority even bother to vote, as far as I can see, is to avoid accusations of laziness back home.
In the end, Reid ends up looking like the fool. Democratic presidential candidates had to leave the campaign trail to go in for the vote, Republicans were allow out to play, and the Republicans continue to prevent a Senate resolution on Iraq. But don't think this fight is over... there is a mighty big appropriations bill working its way down the pike, and I think Rep. Murtha is going to have a few things to say about it.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
They Knew it Was Going to Be Easy
News from the hacker community... the digital rights management (DRM) technology that protects HD-DVD and Blu-Ray high definition video discs has been broken. That's really not news as it was an inevitability.
The Slashdot commentary on this was interesting and pointed out something I hadn't thought of before. I will refrain from quoting the whole comment and instead paraphrase: it is impossible to secure a message when the recipient and the attacker are the same person. And now you are asking, what does that mean?
Okay, quick cryptography lesson from someone who only understands the basic. Assume two people (Bob and Alice) who want to send communication between eachother privately. In order for this communication to occur they must use one of several encryption methodologies. In general, this is done by both Bob and Alice knowing a "secret" and using that secret to encrypt and decrypt the message. Now, a third person (Charles) wants to listen in, but can't because he doesn't know the secret. Works pretty well, for the most part.
Now with DRM, the paradigm is different. Alice (played by the record label or movie studio) wants to send a message to Bob (played by you and I) that he can only listen/watch in certain circumstances. But Bob also wants to watch his DVD in a non-authorized fashion (say, with a Linux box)... which means Bob has a dual identity. He is both Bob and Charles. Any secret Bob knows, Charles knows... and now the gig is up. It may be that Bob doesn't know what the secret is, exactly, that he knows, but it is only a matter of time before smart people figure it out. That's what happened with DVDs several years ago, and that's what happened with the next generation systems.
But this is not what I want to talk about. The title of this post is "They Knew it Was Going to Be Easy" because the makers of DRM knew everything I just said above. They are not, contrary to the opining of the Slashdot crowd, stupid. In fact, they knew this so well that they got a law passed to criminalize the activity... a little something known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. §1201(A) reads:
So yes, it is easy... but so is bopping someone on the nose. Doesn't take anything more than one of my fists and decent aim. Which is why we pass laws in the first place, to create artificial incentives which conform behavior in a particular manner as established by the legislative process (I love this link!). The media companies said they wanted to keep pirates from breaking into their stuff, they recognized it couldn't be done with technology alone, so they appealed to the legislature and got the needed protection.
Which is to say... they knew it was going to be easy.
The Slashdot commentary on this was interesting and pointed out something I hadn't thought of before. I will refrain from quoting the whole comment and instead paraphrase: it is impossible to secure a message when the recipient and the attacker are the same person. And now you are asking, what does that mean?
Okay, quick cryptography lesson from someone who only understands the basic. Assume two people (Bob and Alice) who want to send communication between eachother privately. In order for this communication to occur they must use one of several encryption methodologies. In general, this is done by both Bob and Alice knowing a "secret" and using that secret to encrypt and decrypt the message. Now, a third person (Charles) wants to listen in, but can't because he doesn't know the secret. Works pretty well, for the most part.
Now with DRM, the paradigm is different. Alice (played by the record label or movie studio) wants to send a message to Bob (played by you and I) that he can only listen/watch in certain circumstances. But Bob also wants to watch his DVD in a non-authorized fashion (say, with a Linux box)... which means Bob has a dual identity. He is both Bob and Charles. Any secret Bob knows, Charles knows... and now the gig is up. It may be that Bob doesn't know what the secret is, exactly, that he knows, but it is only a matter of time before smart people figure it out. That's what happened with DVDs several years ago, and that's what happened with the next generation systems.
But this is not what I want to talk about. The title of this post is "They Knew it Was Going to Be Easy" because the makers of DRM knew everything I just said above. They are not, contrary to the opining of the Slashdot crowd, stupid. In fact, they knew this so well that they got a law passed to criminalize the activity... a little something known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. §1201(A) reads:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this titleWhich makes the breaking of DRM a against the law... even if the DRM is really stupid.
So yes, it is easy... but so is bopping someone on the nose. Doesn't take anything more than one of my fists and decent aim. Which is why we pass laws in the first place, to create artificial incentives which conform behavior in a particular manner as established by the legislative process (I love this link!). The media companies said they wanted to keep pirates from breaking into their stuff, they recognized it couldn't be done with technology alone, so they appealed to the legislature and got the needed protection.
Which is to say... they knew it was going to be easy.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Political Mechanics of Troop Funding
I thought I would share a small observation regarding the debate over troop funding with regards to the Iraq war. A lot has been said over whether the Congress should exercise its authority over the "purse" to bring the troops home, with every presidential candidate or wannabe making some sort of statement. Pretty much every politician is against it, and maybe for good reason... such a vote could easily be portrayed as abandoning the troops.
But that's not what this post is about, this post is about the mechanics of such a vote. First stop is the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 which lists off the Enumerated Powers of Congress. Among them is the following.
For the most part the Federal Government is funded on an annual basis through a set of 13 appropriations bills. The government ceases to function without those bills, such as the infamous government shutdown when the House Republicans and President Clinton could not agree on a budget. Now, if a hypothetical Congress truly wanted to write a hypothetical President a blank check for a war, they could just appropriate a hundred billion, gazillion dollars to be spent over the next 100 years and be done with it... but thanks to the clause quoted above, they are Constitutionally barred from doing so. They must affirmatively vote to fund the war a least once every two years.
Which brings us back to Iraq. There will be a new Defense Appropriation bill this year (and thanks to the Iraq Study Group Report, that bill will include the cost of the war, instead of a separate emergency appropriations bill of the past few years). Without this bill the war ends... period, end of story.
I remember an interview committee I once was part of where we reviewed perspective candidates for a lobbying position. The outgoing lobbyist asked one of the candidates, "what's the easiest thing to do in the legislature?" to which the candidate correctly responded: kill a bill.
See, there is only one way to pass a bill through Congress, but there are about a thousand ways to not pass it. And here's a kicker... even if the Senate, its ranks bursting with presidential contenders, votes to fund the war, the House can refuse to do so, and that's the ball game. Even a single Senator can filibuster (absent a Budget Resolution) the entire war if he wanted to; requiring a full 60 Senators to vote to fund the war.
Here's the last critical bit on mechanics. A failure to act is not subject to the presidential veto. He can yell and scream all he wants, but the President lacks the Constitutional authority to compell legislative action. He can't even dismiss the legislature and call new elections, which is a power generally held by most other executive figures in the world.
In the end of the day, the United States Congress really does hold all the cards.
But that's not what this post is about, this post is about the mechanics of such a vote. First stop is the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 which lists off the Enumerated Powers of Congress. Among them is the following.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;Which is very significant.
For the most part the Federal Government is funded on an annual basis through a set of 13 appropriations bills. The government ceases to function without those bills, such as the infamous government shutdown when the House Republicans and President Clinton could not agree on a budget. Now, if a hypothetical Congress truly wanted to write a hypothetical President a blank check for a war, they could just appropriate a hundred billion, gazillion dollars to be spent over the next 100 years and be done with it... but thanks to the clause quoted above, they are Constitutionally barred from doing so. They must affirmatively vote to fund the war a least once every two years.
Which brings us back to Iraq. There will be a new Defense Appropriation bill this year (and thanks to the Iraq Study Group Report, that bill will include the cost of the war, instead of a separate emergency appropriations bill of the past few years). Without this bill the war ends... period, end of story.
I remember an interview committee I once was part of where we reviewed perspective candidates for a lobbying position. The outgoing lobbyist asked one of the candidates, "what's the easiest thing to do in the legislature?" to which the candidate correctly responded: kill a bill.
See, there is only one way to pass a bill through Congress, but there are about a thousand ways to not pass it. And here's a kicker... even if the Senate, its ranks bursting with presidential contenders, votes to fund the war, the House can refuse to do so, and that's the ball game. Even a single Senator can filibuster (absent a Budget Resolution) the entire war if he wanted to; requiring a full 60 Senators to vote to fund the war.
Here's the last critical bit on mechanics. A failure to act is not subject to the presidential veto. He can yell and scream all he wants, but the President lacks the Constitutional authority to compell legislative action. He can't even dismiss the legislature and call new elections, which is a power generally held by most other executive figures in the world.
In the end of the day, the United States Congress really does hold all the cards.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Smart Words from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Buried in a story about the shift of 7 GOP Senators to now back the war resolution debate in the Washington Post, having earlier voted to block the debate, is this gem of a quote. I reproduce it without alteration from the Post's article.
A top Pentagon leader weighed in yesterday on the war debate and appeared to undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale.Fantastic! I really couldn't have said it better myself, and I hope the Bush Administration was listening. It is our debate, and even our dissent, which makes us strong. If our enemies take this as a sign of weakness, they do so at their peril.
"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."
Monday, February 05, 2007
Copyrights in the News
I've got three different copyright stories, all within a 24 hour period. Clearly the world is beginning to take notice.
First up, the "creator" of the Electric Slide has issued a DMCA take down notice to YouTube for videos where the Electric Slide is being performed incorrectly. First, to silence all of those "the DMCA goes to far" folks (of which I am, arguably, one of... but not in this case), the DMCA is only involved here because YouTube has a chance to avoid contributory liability by taking down the material. The original poster of the material can then serve notice to YouTube that the material is not infringing, at which point YouTube must repost it. Then, YouTube having done its part, it's up to the two parties to resolve the issue. The real issue here is one of basic copyright law.
Which presents an interesting question: can dance moves be copyrighted? The expert from the CNet article (Jason Schultz of the EFF) seems to pass this question off as if it's a no-brainer. Just like a song, performing it without permission is a violation of the §106 of the Copyright Act. But I'm not convinced. To perform a dance I must follow a series of steps, also known as instructions. A series of instructions is generally referred to as a process... and processes, as a rule, are not copyrightable. They are not copyrightable because in this country we protect processes through the patent system. It's very easy to state the rule: "patent ideas, copyright expression." I could make the case that dance steps could be either, but by law it cannot be both.
That's not even the most interesting question... see, the videos he wants taken down show the dance performed incorrectly. Which means that if it were patented, he would have no action (except, maybe, for this thing called the Doctrine of Equivalents, and I don't want to talk about that). On the copyright front, there is no literal copying, so you get into a whole fair use thing. Not to mention, if the rights holder is saying "I grant a license to people to dance this correctly," is there an implied license to dance it incorrectly?!
Next story, from the Washington Post, the GW Hatchet ran a story a few days ago which was picked up by the local TV station. Who in turn did not bother to credit the paper. They argue the idea of the story cannot be protected, thus they have no responsibility to attribute, much less seek permission. But, the Post reports the story used direct quotes from the college paper... that is copyright infringement. But putting that aside, I think the legal obsession with copyright has gone too far. It's not a question of whether the paper is bound by law to attribute, but whether it was the right thing to do.
Lastly, Mikhail Gorbachev is appealing to Bill Gates to drop a criminal suit against a Russian school headmaster who is accused of using unlicensed copies of Windows in the school. Apparently former heads of state don't have a lot to do these days. But it raises two interesting points. First, why are we talking criminal charges? Who was harmed in a way that requires punishment beyond restitution? Make the school pay, remove the software, whatever... but jail? Second, Microsoft is in a great position now to push out a marketing and political win. It agrees to give the school the pirated software, free of charge, and lets the guy off the hook. Now you've got another school district locked into the Microsoft hegemony and they get to make nice with the Nobel Peace Prize winner. What I don't understand is why this issue is on Gorbachev's radar. Is this the beginning of a larger campaign for my humane copyright laws?
First up, the "creator" of the Electric Slide has issued a DMCA take down notice to YouTube for videos where the Electric Slide is being performed incorrectly. First, to silence all of those "the DMCA goes to far" folks (of which I am, arguably, one of... but not in this case), the DMCA is only involved here because YouTube has a chance to avoid contributory liability by taking down the material. The original poster of the material can then serve notice to YouTube that the material is not infringing, at which point YouTube must repost it. Then, YouTube having done its part, it's up to the two parties to resolve the issue. The real issue here is one of basic copyright law.
Which presents an interesting question: can dance moves be copyrighted? The expert from the CNet article (Jason Schultz of the EFF) seems to pass this question off as if it's a no-brainer. Just like a song, performing it without permission is a violation of the §106 of the Copyright Act. But I'm not convinced. To perform a dance I must follow a series of steps, also known as instructions. A series of instructions is generally referred to as a process... and processes, as a rule, are not copyrightable. They are not copyrightable because in this country we protect processes through the patent system. It's very easy to state the rule: "patent ideas, copyright expression." I could make the case that dance steps could be either, but by law it cannot be both.
That's not even the most interesting question... see, the videos he wants taken down show the dance performed incorrectly. Which means that if it were patented, he would have no action (except, maybe, for this thing called the Doctrine of Equivalents, and I don't want to talk about that). On the copyright front, there is no literal copying, so you get into a whole fair use thing. Not to mention, if the rights holder is saying "I grant a license to people to dance this correctly," is there an implied license to dance it incorrectly?!
Next story, from the Washington Post, the GW Hatchet ran a story a few days ago which was picked up by the local TV station. Who in turn did not bother to credit the paper. They argue the idea of the story cannot be protected, thus they have no responsibility to attribute, much less seek permission. But, the Post reports the story used direct quotes from the college paper... that is copyright infringement. But putting that aside, I think the legal obsession with copyright has gone too far. It's not a question of whether the paper is bound by law to attribute, but whether it was the right thing to do.
Lastly, Mikhail Gorbachev is appealing to Bill Gates to drop a criminal suit against a Russian school headmaster who is accused of using unlicensed copies of Windows in the school. Apparently former heads of state don't have a lot to do these days. But it raises two interesting points. First, why are we talking criminal charges? Who was harmed in a way that requires punishment beyond restitution? Make the school pay, remove the software, whatever... but jail? Second, Microsoft is in a great position now to push out a marketing and political win. It agrees to give the school the pirated software, free of charge, and lets the guy off the hook. Now you've got another school district locked into the Microsoft hegemony and they get to make nice with the Nobel Peace Prize winner. What I don't understand is why this issue is on Gorbachev's radar. Is this the beginning of a larger campaign for my humane copyright laws?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Don't Believe Everything you Read About Security
Washington Post has a Q&A up that asks "When I log into my Internet provider's Web-mail page, I don't see the usual lock icon. Isn't it dangerous to send a password over the Internet without encryption?" And proceeds to tell people to fear sites which don't employ the little lock.
It's true, sending passwords over the public lines in clear text is asking for trouble. But that doesn't mean that the little lock is the only way to do it. In fact, that little lock costs a lot of money for websites to purchase (and repurchase, on an annual basis). But there are alternatives that are just as good. LegSim uses such a system, relying on basic cryptography and some intelligence. Just because a site doesn't chose to buy into the SSL certificate racket doesn't mean it can't be trusted.
It's true, sending passwords over the public lines in clear text is asking for trouble. But that doesn't mean that the little lock is the only way to do it. In fact, that little lock costs a lot of money for websites to purchase (and repurchase, on an annual basis). But there are alternatives that are just as good. LegSim uses such a system, relying on basic cryptography and some intelligence. Just because a site doesn't chose to buy into the SSL certificate racket doesn't mean it can't be trusted.
What I Miss About College
Learning and student government were great, but what I really enjoyed about college was the collection of brilliant people who, when they put their mind to it, were capable of nearly anything. Here's a great example played out at Dartmouth.
The first 45 seconds of this are a little odd... just keep watching.
The first 45 seconds of this are a little odd... just keep watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
