[IP] : Powell stepping down?

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:	Powell stepping down?
Author:	Todd Pinkerton <toddp@geneticmail.com>
Date:		21st January 2005 10:19:21 am

Dave, for IP :

CNN is reporting Powell is resigning from the FCC today? Saw the clip on 
television as I came into work today, and this from the CNN website:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/21/news/newsmakers/powell_resigning/


A senior government official says Powell, a member of the FCC since 
November 1998 and the chairman since early 2001, will announce his 
resignation later Friday. His term on the commission runs through 2007.


Can anyone confirm/deny this?


-Todd



David Farber wrote:

>------ Forwarded Message
>From: "Dr. A. Michael Berman" <amberman@csupomona.edu>
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:34:45 -0800
>To: <dave@farber.net>
>Subject: RE: [IP] The second sincerest form of flattery
>
>I'm glad to hear that Penn has handled this case appropriately.
>According to copyright law, a University does not have to act like an
>ISP when it receives a DMCA takedown request the applies to materials
>posted by a faculty member (as opposed to most others served by the
>institution). There is explicit "safe harbor" language in the
>regulations that states that the institution is not responsible for the
>infringing material posted by a faculty member, and therefore the
>faculty member should deal directly with the claimant without
>intervention from the institution. Specifically:
>
>Special Rules Regarding Liability of Nonprofit Educational Institutions
>Section 512(e) determines when the actions or knowledge of a faculty
>member
>or graduate student employee who is performing a teaching or research
>function may affect the eligibility of a nonprofit educational
>institution for one of the four limitations on liability. As to the
>limitations for transitory communications or system caching, the faculty
>member or student shall be considered a "person other than the
>provider," so as to avoid disqualifying the institution from
>eligibility. As to the other limitations, the knowledge or awareness of
>the faculty member or student will not be attributed to the institution.
>The following conditions must be met:
>! the faculty member or graduate student's infringing activities do not
>involve providing online access to course materials that were required
>or recommended during the past three years;
>! the institution has not received more than two notifications over the
>past three years that the faculty member or graduate student was
>infringing; and
>! the institution provides all of its users with informational materials
>describing and promoting compliance with copyright law.
>
>This language can be found at
>http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf on p. 13.
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-ip@v2.listbox.com [mailto:owner-ip@v2.listbox.com] On
>>    
>>
>Behalf
>  
>
>>Of David Farber
>>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:02 AM
>>To: Ip
>>Subject: [IP] The second sincerest form of flattery
>>
>>
>>------ Forwarded Message
>>From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
>>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:53:58 -0500
>>To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
>>Subject: The second sincerest form of flattery
>>
>>One of my research interests is applying the principles of
>>"human-scale" security (such as mechanical locks and alarm systems) to
>>computer science.  Although human-scale systems are almost always
>>imperfect, their failure mechanisms are often much more gradual and
>>more predictable than their information systems counterparts, and I
>>believe that by better understanding why this is we might be able to
>>build computer systems that behave in similar ways.
>>
>>Several particularly interesting illustrations of the phenomenon of
>>gradual and predictable security failure can be found in safes and
>>vaults.  I'm working on a survey paper, tentatively entitled
>>"Safecracking for the computer scientist," that I hope will stimulate
>>other researchers to think along similar lines.  Last month I finished
>>a first draft and put it on my web site.  (For those who've not seen
>>it, it's at http://www.crypto.com/papers/safelocks.pdf )
>>
>>Although the paper is only of rather narrow interest, a couple of
>>weeks ago the wildly popular "Slashdot" news site discovered and
>>linked to the draft; somewhere around 50,000 people downloaded the
>>(large) pdf file that weekend.
>>
>>My web server survived Slashdot's attention, but I was somewhat taken
>>aback by what happened next.
>>
>>A couple of years ago I wrote a paper about weaknesses in the
>>keyspaces of master-keyed mechanical locks (it marked the beginning of
>>my understanding of the similarities between information and physical
>>security).  Some locksmiths were outraged that I would publish a paper
>>"revealing" security vulnerabilities in what they believed to be a
>>closed field.  See http://www.crypto.com/papers/kiss.html for details,
>>but to make a long story short, some locksmiths do not approve of
>>disclosing vulnerabilities in locks to the "general public," on the
>>grounds that open discussion aids the bad guys more than it helps the
>>good guys.  (I don't agree -- and the scientific method's requirement
>>for open scrutiny and debate does not provide an exemption when the
>>subject involves security -- but that's another story for another
>>time.)
>>
>>Perhaps predictably, there has been a similar reaction to my recent
>>draft on safe locks.  Shortly after Slashdot linked to the paper, one
>>or more locksmithing trade groups discovered it as well .  The
>>response of some locksmiths to the draft has been at least as negative
>>as it was to my master keying paper.  I've received quite a bit of
>>uncomplimentary email from locksmiths, and I'm told that locksmithing
>>message boards have recently been abuzz with messages about what a
>>scoundrel I must be to again have written such an "unethical" and
>>"irresponsible" paper.
>>
>>Ironically, the theme of my safecracking survey is that while safes
>>aren't perfect, they largely meet their requirements, and indeed,
>>computer security would do well to emulate their security principles.
>>Nothing in my paper (and indeed, no techniques of which I'm aware)
>>allow one to quickly open decent quality safes.  The paper's
>>conclusion is that even if one is fluent in the (not very) secrets of
>>the safecracking trade, the measurable security of even relatively
>>modest safes allows them to be used quite effectively for their
>>intended applications (especially as part of larger security system
>>that complement the safes' limitations).  I certainly don't think it
>>would have been unethical to have published an analysis that reached a
>>different conclusion, of course, but my paper as written could hardly
>>be considered an attack against the safe industry or its products.
>>
>>As with the reaction to my master keying paper, many of the complaints
>>I've received are self-contradictory and emotionally charged, often
>>invoking "homeland security" in unspecified but ominous ways.  I've
>>developed a thick skin against this sort of thing, and I try not to
>>take it personally (although it's a bit disturbing to have so many
>>people so angry with me over my work).  It's rather like being accused
>>of witchcraft; many of the complainers don't seem to be seeking a
>>reasoned debate but are instead venting a broder range of unspoken
>>frustrations that go well beyond either me or my papers.  There is
>>simply no effective way to debate on these terms against an angry mob.
>>
>>In any case, some locksmiths are apparently trying to organize a
>>letter writing campaign aimed at various officials at my university,
>>and I'm told that my department chair, my dean, the provost, and the
>>head of campus security have each received (a handful of) letters
>>complaining about me.  While Penn's support for the basic principles
>>of academic freedom would protect me even if these officials agreed
>>that my paper was somehow inappropriate, some of the letter writers
>>seem to have unwittingly stumbled upon a weapon that could potentially
>>be very effective (in other contexts) at silencing Internet-based
>>debate.  They have accused me of copyright infringement.
>>
>>My paper is heavily illustrated with photographs of safe locks and
>>their components.  Several letters have (accurately) pointed out that
>>these photographs are protected by copyright and that by distributing
>>my paper I'm also distributing copyrighted material.  This, I must
>>admit, is entirely correct.  But I created every one of the images
>>myself, in my own studio, and with my own materials, cameras and
>>computers.  I arranged the subjects, lit them, and photographed them.
>>The results are copyrighted, to be sure, but I hold the copyrights.
>>
>>Fortunately, my university is not in the habit of removing the online
>>papers of its faculty without checking with us first, and my paper has
>>remained on my web site unmolested by these spurious copyright claims.
>>But it occurs to me that, given the relevant provisions of the DMCA, a
>>more timid ISP might have reacted quite differently, choosing instead
>>to take down the controversial content until I could prove (or at
>>least assert) that I have the rights to the images in question.  This
>>could take days or even weeks, depending on the level of proof
>>demanded.  Such a tactic could be a very effective way to harass or
>>suppress authors of contraversial material, and, if done with the sort
>>of vague wording used in the letters about me, would appear to leave
>>the author with no recourse against anybody.  The letter writers
>>didn't actually claim copyright, but simply raised the issue. An
>>ISP (had it over-reacted) could plausibly claim that they were
>>simply protecting their interests in quickly taking the questionable
>>material offline.
>>
>>I suspect that, in my case, the organizers of the letter-writing
>>campaign were not dishonestly attempting to exploit the DMCA, but
>>instead genuinely assumed that I had copied my images from some
>>commercial source.  A friend suggested that I should take this as a
>>compliment; after all, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,
>>perhaps being accused of copyright infringement is the second
>>sincerest.
>>
>>Matt Blaze
>>19 January 2004
>>
>>
>>------ End of Forwarded Message
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------
>>You are subscribed as amberman@csupomona.edu
>>To manage your subscription, go to
>>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>>
>>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
>>people/
>>    
>>
>
>------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>-------------------------------------
>You are subscribed as toddp@mailgene.com
>To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
>  
>


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/