[Quote:]

Researchers who reverse-engineer software to discover programming flaws can no longer legally publish their findings in France, after a court fined a security expert on Tuesday.

In 2001, French security researcher Guillaume Tena found a number of vulnerabilities in the Viguard antivirus software published by Tegam International. Tena, who at the time was known by his pseudonym Guillermito, published his research online in March 2002.

However, Tena’s actions were not viewed kindly by Tegam, which initiated legal action against the researcher. That action resulted in a case being brought to trial at a court in Paris. The prosecution claimed that Tena violated article 335.2 of the code of intellectual property and asked for a four-month jail term and a fine of 6,000 euros.

On Tuesday, the French court ruled that Tena should not be imprisoned but gave him a suspended fine of 5,000 euros. This means that he only has to pay the fine if he publishes more information on security vulnerabilities in software.

Chaouki Bekrar, a security consultant and co-founder of French Web site K-Otik Security, which is known for regularly publishing exploit codes, said that although it is good news that Tena did not have to go to jail, the ruling is very bad news for the security research industry in France.

“This seems to be a good news, but that is not the case,” Bekrar said. “Publishing a security vulnerability or a proof of concept using reverse engineering or disassembly is now illegal in France. How can a researcher publish a vulnerability if he can’t study the software’s structure?”

On his Web site, Tena argued that if independent researchers were not allowed to freely publish their findings about security software, then users would only have “marketing press releases” to assess the quality of the software. “Unfortunately, it seems that we are heading this way in France and maybe in Europe,” Tena said.

Tegam is also proceeding with a civil case against Tena, in which it is asking for 900,000 euros in damages.

So now a software maker can simply declare his software to be free of flaws, and if you prove otherwise you go to jail. Cute.

Beste mijnheer Sinteur,

Ik heb het even opgenomen met de Economie-redactie, maar het onderwerp softwarepatenten wordt vooralsnog als erg technisch cq. als ‘voer voor specialisten’ beschouwd.

Bovendien is er volgens mij nog niet zoveel aan de hand.

Eerlijk gezegd vind ik op grond van de door u verstrekte informatie (weblinks) dat de ‘rel’ tot dusver meer weg heeft van een storm in een glas water dan van zwaar weer. Maar we houden de Kamerdebatten in de gaten en mocht er alsnog een zware storm boven het hoofd van de heer Brinkhorst opsteken, dan zullen we daar zeker over rapporteren.

Met vriendelijke groet,

<naam geknipt>
Internetredactie de Volkskrant

Ik heb even teruggemaild:

<knip>, dank voor je snelle reaktie en je akties!

Ik heb het even opgenomen met de Economie-redactie, maar het onderwerp softwarepatenten wordt vooralsnog als erg technisch cq. als ‘voer voor specialisten’ beschouwd.

Klinkt alsof er een uitgelezen kans ligt voor de volkskrant om iets dat erg “technisch” is uit te leggen – en dan heb ik het eens niet over de software patenten, maar over de gevolgde procedures in de diverse europese commissies, en de wijze waarop daarin met de eigen regels wordt omgegaan.

Bovendien is er volgens mij nog niet zoveel aan de hand.

Als de commissies maling gaan hebben aan de eigen regels, weet ik niet zo goed wat ik moet met een krant die dat niet zo bijzonder vindt..

Eerlijk gezegd vind ik op grond van de door u verstrekte informatie (weblinks) dat de ‘rel’ tot dusver meer weg heeft van een storm in een glas water dan van zwaar weer. Maar we houden de Kamerdebatten in de gaten en mocht er alsnog een zware storm boven het hoofd van de heer Brinkhorst opsteken, dan zullen we daar zeker over rapporteren.

Daar zal ik jullie zeker aan houden… al weet ik me een tijd te herinneren dat een minister die niet de waarheid aan de kamer heeft verteld in de redactionele kolommen tot aftreden werd aangeraden nog voordat de debatten gevoerd werden.. maar wellicht word ik te oud en cynisch..

Hoe het ook zij: dank voor de reaktie! Deze wordt zeker gewaardeerd.

-John

“Incredible,” said the kzin. “If the Patriarchy tried to force such a law on kzinti, we would exterminate the Patriarchy for its insolence.”

- Ringworld (Larry Niven)

[Quote:]

Dear Legislators of the European Union,

Dear Supporters of the European Constitution,

I’m not “against Europe”, nor against the concept of the EU. On the contrary, I very much enjoy several of the benefits that the EU has brought us and I think that close cooperation between member states can help everyone. I’m also not against the principle of a European Constitution. That said, I would like to say a few things about democracy in Europe as I experienced it until now, the proposed Constitution and how the latter may or may not affect the former.

I have now been involved for almost two years in the discussion and political process surrounding the software patents debate. I was not involved from the start, but I did spend several weeks in the European Parliament and have been in contact with several parliamentarians, civil servants and representatives of the European Patent Office. I even spent a night in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, helping to prepare the FFII voting list for the legendary 24 September 2003 EP vote. Overall, it has been a very educational two years.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the EU Council of Ministers adopted its Common Position on the software patents directive on 7 March 2005. You can find the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure’s account of what happened here. There is also a quote from me on that page, in which I deride supporters of the Constitution, without providing any arguments as to why I attack the Constitution in particular.

In what follows, I would like to clarify my position.

The Council session of 7 March 2005

An MEP who saw our press release noted that “it certainly appears that the Council presidency took some procedural shortcuts”. That is an extremely diplomatic way to put it. The Council Presidency spoke in name of the entire Council (pluralis majestatis as it were) and reversed voting requirements. The rules state that “an A item (formal point) shall be taken off the agenda if a member state so requests or if it might lead to further discussions, unless the Council decides otherwise“.

When Denmark asked for that, the Presidency simply announced it did not want to take it off, instead of asking whether there was a majority against taking it off. Therefore, “unless the Council decides otherwise” became “if a majority of the Council wants to go against the Presidency’s will, while not even a vote has been called”. This might seem like splitting hairs, but in the Council where every sign of opposition is presented to us as something which foreshadows the end of EU decision making as we know it, this is a difference between night and day.

Some more interesting points:

• The request for a B item (discussion point) was supported by Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands and Denmark. Losing the support of even one of the first three of those countries was enough to be left with a text no longer supported by a qualified majority. Asking for renewed discussions means that they are not happy with the current text, otherwise they wouldn’t do so.
• Unilateral declarations with concerns of no less than 8 countries (7 of which officially voted in favour of the text) are attached to the text of the Common Position. Especially the Polish one is very harsh, and basically states “we recognise a political agreement has been reached and do not dare to attack it, but the text from 18 May is our worst nightmare”. You can read it at http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st16/st16120-ad02.en04.pdf

This has nothing to do with software patents. There was simply no qualified majority (possibly not even a simple majority) in the Council for this text. It was purely due to diplomatic inertia and fear of doing something against whatever is customary that it slipped through. Unless the Constitution says somewhere “the written rules always have precedence over diplomatic customs and fears”, it won’t change this.

National Parliaments

An often touted advantage of the Constitution is that national parliaments must get the opportunity to look at all legislation before Council deliberations. In fact, this is even used as justification for giving the Council the great power that it has. The problem with this is that this directive has shown that various governments simply do not care about what the national parliaments say (let’s not even mention the European Parliament).

Before the political agreement of May 2004 was reached

The Dutch national parliament was misinformed about the directive. Minister Brinkhorst told the Dutch Parliament in April 2004 that there was a compromise between the Council and the European Parliament, so that the political agreement in the Council was a formal non-issue. One could argue that the Dutch Parliament should have verified whether or not this is true, but as Mr Rocard would put it, that was quite an “inelegancy”.

Consequently, in July 2004, the Dutch Parliament adopted a motion in which it stated that it had been misinformed, and called upon the government to from then on withhold its support for the Council text. The Dutch government promised to execute this motion, but reinterpreted it as meaning “only if it ever becomes a B item again and it is voted upon, then we will change our vote into an abstention”. Given all the panic reactions we saw the last few months about the possibility of this ever becoming a B item again, this amounted to saying “Nice motion, but no cigar”.

At the May 2004 Council session

As you undoubtedly know, a political agreement has not an ounce of legal value in any way. As the name implies, it’s purely political. Given that in this case there were three last-minute amendments introduced by the Commission and one last minute “compromise” by the German delegation and the Commission, it is fair to say that not a single parliament has had the chance to decide about the final text that was adopted on 18 May 2004. And due to everything that happened later, they didn’t have any chance later on either.

Before those amendment were introduced, the majority of the Council members were against the text. After those “compromises” (which did not change anything to the substance of the text), a 10 minute break was held in which everyone was scrambling to call national experts to judge those texts. Several delegations failed to reach anyone and as such did not really know what to do. Many simply followed Germany, since they had been sort of coordinating the opposition in the Council before.

However, Germany seemed to be in bed with the Commission now, being content with the sole addition of the word “new” in the definition of “technical contribution”. After Denmark was persuaded to be “80% happy” by the Council Presidency, the Presidency even didn’t ask Poland anymore because their vote was no longer needed. If you have not yet seen the Denmark-Ireland dialogue, you can find it at the link below this paragraph. It’s only 45 seconds long, and if it weren’t about a decision as important as this one it would even be quite funny:

[ Windows media version|Quicktime/mpeg4 version]

The European Parliament

Another advantage of the proposed Constitution is that the European Parliament has to approve the legislation in all areas in which the Council acts by majority. Since this directive is being handled under codecision already, that will not prevent any situations as they occurred in the case of this directive however.

It indeed seems like the only way out now is a massive rejection by the European Parliament in second reading, but I would not consider that a victory for the EP. It’s giving up against the Commission and Council who seem to be determined to do whatever they like, unless the EP simply stops the whole procedure by destroying the directive project.

The EP can merely act as an emergency brake in the current situation, and that will not change with the Constitution as far as I can see. Their first reading will remain merely “advice” to the Council, and the second reading will still be handicapped by “majority of its component members” requirements. Additionally, the Commission can still basically nullify the EP position in the Council by disagreeing with amendments, and thus require the Council to act by unanimity rather than by qualified majority on those points.

It must be noted however that if a directive goes through until conciliation, then the EP may be able to assert itself after all. If approved a similar set of strong amendments twice before (in first and second reading), that may give them a strong negotiation position against the Council and Commission. The absolute majority requirement makes this different to achieve, but on the other hand strengthens the signal if it actually is achieved.

The Constitution

Relating to the Constitution in particular, I would like to note my concern regarding one specific paragraph, which simply says “Intellectual property shall be protected” (Article II-17). Given that many people consider software patents to be intellectual property, this almost seems to make any directive excluding software patents to become unConstitutional.

The term “intellectual property” should at least be defined in some way, because everything but the kitchen sink is categorised under that generic term (patents, copyright, trademarks, design rights, digital rights/restrictions management technologies, …), and things keep getting added. The fallacy that “every idea” has to be someone’s “intellectual property” is promoted more and more, which means that such a generic provision is extremely dangerous and may start to conflict quite severely with Article 10 of the European Charter of Human Rights in the near future.

I understand I’m quite late with my remark, but as explained before I was busy with other important things as well.

Conclusion

I am sorry to be so pessimistic and to throw this out all over you, even though many of you personally have no fault in all this. I’m also certain you have the best intentions with the proposed Constitution. However, I’m becoming tired:

1. We got almost unanimous support in the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee to restart the directive.
2. This request was confirmed by unanimity in the Conference of Presidents and an overwhelming majority in plenary
3. The Commission declined and until today has not been able to produce any explanation as to why (except for “we want the procedure to continue”)

1. We managed to secure a generous blocking minority in the Council (Spain, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands)
2. This position was confirmed by the German, Dutch, Spanish and Danish national parliaments
3. The Council presidency “takes some shortcuts” and shoves it through as a “non-discussion” item, “so as not to create a precedent which might have a consequence of creating future delays in other processes”

Because democratic ways fail over and over again, the situation has now become so bad that some people even set up a web page where you can pledge money to bribe the Council, because that’s the only way they see that’s left to get anything done at all. It may seem like a joke, but after everything I’ve experienced the past one-and-a-half year (since the directive was passed from Parliament to Council), it would not surprise me in the least if they’re half-serious.

The Constitution merely enshrines all of the above. Of course it does not codify the fact that the people who lead the European Patent Office should be the same people as those who write the Council version of the directive as it happened last year, but it also does not prevent this. It does not say that the Commission should introduce last minute amendments at Council sessions so as to confuse delegations, but it also does not call a halt to this practice. It does not say political agreements are cast in stone, but neither does it clearly say that they have less legal value than the ticket you get in a supermarket and that they should be treated as such when there is reason to do so.

How on Earth am I expected to still believe in this farce? I really do want to believe. Just give me chance to do so…

Sincerely yours,

Jonas Maebe

jmaebe at ffii.org

FFII Board Member

Ms. Brooks was having trouble with one of her first-grade pupils. “Johnny, what is your problem?” Johnny answered, “I’m too smart for the first Grade. My sister is in third grade and I’m smarter than she is! I think I should be in the third-grade too!”

Ms. Brooks had had enough, so she took Johnny to the principal’s office. The principal agreed that he would give the boy a test and if he failed to answer any of his questions he was to go back to the first-grade and behave.

He started by asking Johnny some simple arithmetic. “What is three times three?” “Nine, Sir.” “How much is nine times six?” “Fifty-four.”

And so it went with every question the principal thought a third-grade should know. The principal looked at Ms. Brooks and said, “I think Johnny can go to third grade! He seems smart enough.”

Ms. Brooks said to the principal, “Let me ask him some questions?” The principal and Johnny both agreed. Ms. Brooks asked, “What does a cow have four of that I have only two of? Johnny, after a moment, answered “Legs, Ma’am”

“What is in your pants that you have but I do not have?” “Pockets!” “OK, what does a dog do that a man steps into?” “Pants.” “What starts with a C and ends with a T, is hairy, oval, delicious and contains thin whitish liquid?” “Coconut.”

“What goes in hard and pink then comes out soft and sticky?” The principal’s eyes opened really wide and before he could stop the answer, Johnny was taking charge. “Bubblegum!”

“What does a man do standing up, a woman does sitting down and a dog does on three legs?” “Shake hands, Ma’am.” “Now for some ‘Who am I’ sort of questions, OK? First one. You stick your pole inside me, you tie me down to get me up, and I get wet before you do.” Johnny, quick as ever, answered, “Tent!”

“OK, a finger goes in me. You fiddle with me when you’re bored. The best man always has me first.” The Principal was looking restless and a bit tense. But Johnny was on the ball with “Wedding Ring!”

“I come in many sizes. When I’m not well, I drip. When you blow me, you feel good.” “Nose.” “Right, I have a stiff shaft, my tip penetrates, and I come with a quiver.” “Arrow.” “Good, now for the last one. What word starts with an ‘F’, ends in K’, and means a lot of heat and excitement?” “Firetruck, Ma’am!”

The principal breathed a sigh of relief and said to the teacher, “Send him to university, I got the last ten questions wrong myself!”

[Quote:]

The Board of Education may toughen its policy on use of wireless telephones in schools, after a videotape showing a Brick Township High School teacher screaming at his students to show respect for the national anthem – and then pulling the chair from underneath one student who refused to stand – was posted on several independent Web sites.

The tape was made by a student in Stuart Mantel’s class and shows Mantel screaming at his students about standing quietly while “The Star-Spangled Banner” is played. When a student, identified on the Web site only as “Jay,” refused to stand, the video shows Mantel yanking the chair from under him.

Although state statute does not specifically address whether a student must stand during the national anthem, Ron Rice, a spokesman with the state Department of Education, said there have been numerous court rulings stating that a student cannot be punished for refusing to stand while the Pledge of Allegiance is recited. Rice said those same rules apply to the anthem.

[..]

“We as a Board of Education realize that we are ushering a new era and will be forced to review our policies and perhaps enforce a more stringent districtwide policy regarding electronic recording devices in the classroom,” Seidenberger added.

This is rich. Schools have been installing cameras and video recording systems for decades to catch children doing something wrong. They think this is appropriate use of technology and defend it to the death. But when the price comes down far enough that children can use it to catch teachers and administrators doing bad things — then it’s time to ban the technology. No, not the surveillance cameras installed by the schools! Only the handheld cameras used by the students.

David Brin wrote a book, The Transparent Society, about this fundamental question: As cameras become ubiquitous, who gets to watch whom? Brin argues that one of the few ways to avoid a totalitarian outcome is if EVERYBODY gets to watch EVERYBODY. The hatred of most current power structures for this idea testifies to its power to make us all equals: students and teachers, administrators and citizens.

Funny how Republicans usually cry about “big government” but don’t want their own federal gravy train cancelled:

[Quote:]

A Bush administration proposal that would cut billions of dollars in subsidies to big cotton growers has struck at a core GOP constituency, setting off a battle in Republican congressional ranks that pits budget cutters and prairie-state populists against traditional agricultural interests.

This paragraph is funny:

The president’s decision to take on the farm lobby has caught many by surprise. He gave no hint of it during his reelection campaign, which was based on winning the South and most of the upper Midwest farm states.

Believe it or not, he also didn’t campaign on slashing the education budget either. Weird, how that works, huh?

This is probably because Bush thinks a prolonged fight with the WTO and Brazil over subsidies to farmers in mostly “safe states” is a no-win situation.

If Bush has to stop the subsidies anyway, he sure doesn’t want to look like he was forced to do so by “those damn furriners.” Better to turn it into a story about Republicans making hard choices while cutting the deficit:

But this year, strong pressure for change is coming from fiscal conservatives at the White House and in Congress, who insist that the farm sector contribute to deficit reduction.

An even bigger factor may be free traders in the business community and the administration who view farm subsidies as an impediment to new trade deals benefiting U.S. companies abroad. Developing countries contend that bloated U.S. farm subsidies encourage agricultural surpluses and depress prices for farmers, such as struggling cotton producers in poor West African nations. They are demanding changes in U.S. farm policy as a condition for a new round of trade agreements.

Now if we could give European farm subsidies the same treatment, that would be something…

[Quote:]

Twee glazen suikervrije frisdrank en een beker yoghurtdrink per dag zijn niet goed voor jonge kinderen. Ze krijgen op die manier te veel van de kunstmatige zoetstof cyclamaat binnen. De Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit (VWA) waarschuwt voor de kunstmatige suikers, speciaal wanneer die aan kinderen onder de vier jaar oud worden gegeven.

De kunstmatige suikers zijn in opmars in levensmiddelen. In allerlei producten – van toetjes en (suikervrije) frisdrank tot vitaminepillen en peutertandpasta – komen zoetmakers als cyclamaat, sacharine of aspartaam steeds vaker voor.

De meeste producten (96 procent) bevatten op zichzelf minder zoetstof dan het wettelijk vastgestelde maximum. Wie per dag grote hoeveelheden of een aantal verschillende producten verorbert, kan echter wel meer binnenkrijgen dan goed voor hem of haar is. De VWA waarschuwde woensdag dat dat gevaar vooral voor jonge kinderen op de loer ligt.

Onbekend is nog wat de gevolgen zijn wanneer jonge kinderen regelmatig teveel zoetmakers binnen krijgen. Niettemin zijn de kunstmatige suikers niet toegestaan in producten als zuigelingenvoeding en koekjes die speciaal voor baby’s, peuters en kleuters zijn. Voor peutertandpasta geldt dat verbod overigens niet. Volgens een VWA-woordvoerster zijn de hoeveelheden zoetstof hierin zo klein dat mensen zich daar “geen zorgen” over hoeven maken.

Vanwege de strijd tegen overgewicht verwacht de inspectiedienst dat de kunstmatige zoetmakers steeds meer de natuurlijke suikers zullen vervangen.

Aspartaam is gewoon een neurogif. Deze troep zou eigenlijk uit alle producten geweerd moeten worden.

[Quote:]

Mount St. Helens made its most significant emission in months, sending an ash cloud drifting slowly to the northeast.

The National Weather Service issued an ashfall advisory after pilots reported spotting ash higher than 30,000 feet, said National Weather Service meteorologist Danny Mercer.

The weather service received reports of light ash falling across the Yakima Valley, roughly 75 miles east of the mountain. Late Tuesday, the ash cloud continued to slowly drift east, across Yakima and Kittitas County.

The explosion happened Tuesday, about an hour after a 2.0 magnitude quake rumbled on the east side of the mountain, said Bill Steele, coordinator of the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network at the University of Washington.

[Quote:]

A man given six months to live by his doctors has been told by an Italian court to come back in 14 months to hear the outcome of his demand for insurance damages.

Carmelo Cisabella, 39, has an inoperable spine disease and is anxious to pick up some $596,300 in already-agreed damages from his insurers to help ease his final months of life, Il Messaggero newspaper reported Tuesday.

In a bid to speed up the process, Cisabella turned to the Sicilian courts to put pressure on the slow-moving insurers, but was told to return next year to hear their decision.

Workers surround the crater left after a garbage truck exploded at dawn, killing at least four people, near a hotel used by western contractors in central Baghdad, Iraq Wednesday, March 9, 2005. The blast shook buildings and covered the area with acrid black smoke, and volleys of automatic weapons fire could be heard before and after the blast which occurred a few blocks from Firdous Square, the roundabout in central Baghdad where Iraqis toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

This weblog is about to become illegal in Australia. I’m surprised they like people in marketing this much…

[Quote:]

The Federal Government is working to introduce hefty fines for people who promote suicide on the Internet.

Under legislation to be introduced this week, corporations will be fined up to $500,000 and individuals $100,000 if they use the Internet to incite or promote suicide methods.

On the other hand, I guess the politicians finaly got sick of being told to drop dead..