FSFE-IE March 2004

fsfe-ie@lists.fsfe.org

17 participants
26 discussions

Meeting on Thursday
by Aidan Delaney 11 Mar '04

11 Mar '04

Hey all, Where's the meeting on Thursday? -- Aidan Delaney email: adelaney(a)cs.may.ie web: http://www.cs.may.ie/~adelaney gpg: http://www.cs.may.ie/~adelaney/public_key.asc

3 3

NUI, Galway Compsoc Intervarsity (talk)
by Ciaran O'Riordan 11 Mar '04

11 Mar '04

Hi, I wasn't certain this event was actually going ahead, but I guess it is, so anyone in the Galway area on Friday: Rory Donohue <roryd(a)compsoc.nuigalway.ie> writes: > Hey guys, > > NUIG Computer Society are pleased to announce they are running an > Intervarsity tomorrow - Friday March 12th. Speakers for the evening > include: > > * Dr. Stefan Decker - Semantic Web Research cluster leader > Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Galway > * Kevin Lyda - Doolin Technologies Ltd - Topic tbc > * Ciaran O'Riordan - Chairman Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) > The Free Software Dossier > * Kenn Humborg - Blue Tree Systems - Linux/VAX porting project > > The evening's events are planned for the back of the NUI, Galway College > Bar from 7.30pm. The College Bar is located in Aras na MacLeinn which is > a 3 minute walk from the main University entrance. This is marked as > building no. 28 on the campus map: > http://www.nuigalway.ie/about_nui_galway/map.html > > There is parking available in front of the Quadrangle at the main > University entrance and at 3 car parks on the Distillery Road entrance > (turn off by the AIB Bank on Newcastle Road). > > Komplett Ireland and Elara Systems have kindly sponsored some prizes for > the evening also. > > For anyone who wants to join, we will be proceeding onto Cuba* nightclub > where the Donegal band Innuendo will be playing in Cuba*Live. > > For more information including travel, accommodation and contact details, > check out the Intervarsity 2004 page: > http://www.compsoc.nuigalway.ie/news/intervarsity/ > > Best regards, > > -- > Rory Donohue > Society Auditor > NUI, Galway Computer Society > roryd(a)compsoc.nuigalway.ie -- Ciarán O'Riordan http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.info/

1 0

Irish (and Northern Irish) MEPs
by Daithi Mac Sithigh 10 Mar '04

10 Mar '04

Here's how they voted on the main vote: Ireland's 15 - 7/2/6 (but Cox can't vote when chairing, I think) N.I.'s 3 - 2/0/1 And the breakdown.. YES: Andrews, Collins, Fitzsimons, Hyland (FF/UEN) Cushnahan, McCartin (FG/EPP), Scallon (Ind/EPP) * Northern Ireland: Nicholson (UUP/EPP), Hume (SDLP/Soc) NO: Ahern, McKenna (Green/Green) ABSTAIN: - NOT PRESENT: Crowley, O Neachtain (FF/UEN) Banotti, Doyle (FG/EPP) DeRossa (Lab/Soc) Cox (Ind/Lib) (although he was actually in the chair) * Northern Ireland: Paisley (DUP/None) The first designation is Irish party, the second European party. All voted along party lines and voted similarily in all the amendments.

1 0

Irish MEP voting analysis
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

Would be interesting to do a voting analysis for Irish MEPs for this and softpat directives (and maybe even publish it on the website). Especially with elections in June. Brian Crowley tabled some bad amendments together with Fourtou and others. But his flight was delayed so he was unable to vote in Strasbourg today, but he supports the decision on the basis that it is better to have something on the statute books now that can be amended later. I understand that all FF MEPs were due to vote with their group i.e. for the Fourtou package. I had a call from a journalist and there may be a piece in the Examiner tomorrow. Great article at: http://www.eureporter.co.uk/images/EUR_ezine_08-12Mar04.pdf Teresa

1 0

EU Parliament approves IP Enforcement Directive
by James Heald 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

So in the end Mme Fourtou got her package through, with no further amendments. The Directive is now likely to be signed off by the Council of Ministers on Thursday. Final vote was 330 to 151 with 39 abstentions. On the key amendments: Am 77 (Art 2.1: Scope of the directive) approved 307 to 185, 7 abstentions Am 58 (Recital 13: to exclude Patents) rejected 193 to 310 Am 59 (Recital 13a: to limit to Commercial Scale) rejected 198 to 305 So we were just over 50 MEPs away from successfully limiting the Directive to intentional commercial infringement. See Google news for other summaries, including eg the Register. Also, below, is a short summary the Greens are putting out. Personally for me, I think the most depressing thing was not Arlene McCarthy4s enthusiastic brandishing of a fake Manchester United shirt and some "Viagra" she4d bought on the web, but hearing her explain to MEPs how "consumers acting in goodfaith are excluded from the scope of the scope of the directive", when in fact quite the contrary is the case, and she was imposing a three-line whip on Labour MEPs *against* an amendment proposed by Sir Neil MacCormack (SNP), which would actually have achieved this. Malcolm Harbour made a firm speech for the Conservatives, explaining that whether or not it was perfect, the Directive had to go through now today at first reading without any amendment, otherwise on May 1st MEPs will have to explain why not, "when a container-load of counterfeit goods arrives from China, trans-shipped through one of the new Eastern states", which join the EU on that date. [And which, like most EU member states, will probably not implement the directive for several years in any case, while they think about how to put it into law]. The Liberal group was divided, with Toine Manders MEP (Holland) approving the text, but Astrid Thors (Finland) and Elly Plooij (Netherlands) both condemning it. The UK Liberals all voted in favour of the directive, with the single exception of Nick Clegg MEP, who works quite closely with the Lib Dems4 IT spokesman in London, Richard Allan. So rushed had been the procedure for the debate, that several legally significant translation discrepancies emerged between different language versions even during the voting proceedings. The German Conservative spokeswoman also appeared confused, talked several times in her speech about the importance of the vote "tomorrow". (MEPs usually take 24 hours to study the text, and consider the points made in the debate, before they actually vote). Exactly what will now happen, and exactly what surprises it may lead to, will now depend on the different details of how the directive is now implemented from member country to member country across Europe. ================================================================== Short summary from the Greens: The Fourtou report on intellectual property passed today as the rapporteur wished. This means that the package proposed by Mrs Fourtou (and supported by her own group, the PSE, the ELDR and the UEN) after unofficial meetings with the Council working group and the Commission was adopted in it's entirety. All other amendments - those from V/ALE, Marco Cappato/others/GUE and EDD - were defeated. The majority in all the roll call votes was of the order 300-350 with Fourtou, 100-200 against. This result means: - patents are included within the scope of the directive. This is of serious concern to a number of sectors including software developers and the free software movement, generic pharmaceutical companies, the automobile spare parts industry, farmers at threat from GM contamination etc. - only 3 parts of the directive are limited to "commercial scale". This means that the provisions of Articles 7(1), 8 and 9 can potentially be used against consumers. In the US this kind of legislation has been used to target, amongst others, children and their parents for downloading music. - there are concerns amongst ISPs that they can be attacked for "providing" the means to download content which is protected by copyright. During the voting session, Neil MacCormick raised the issue of family connections in relation to conflicts of interest. This is in the light of numerous recent articles highlighting Mrs Fourtou's husband being CEO of Vivendi Universal. Pat Cox indicated that this would be raised in the Parliament Bureau. The results of roll call votes have not yet been published; however, it is clear that most PSE delegations voted in such a way as to defeat amendments on the scope and to support the final package. Further details of voting patterns will be circulated later today. ============================================================================== James Heald UK co-ordinator, Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure

1 0

Press release:EU should target counterfeiters, not consumers
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 07 Mar '04

07 Mar '04

>From FIPR Teresa ---------- EU SHOULD TARGET COUNTERFEITERS, NOT CONSUMERS Individuals could be caught in the crossfire of new piracy law MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE 7 March 2004 A Europe-wide coalition of citizens and consumer rights groups is calling on MEPs to support key amendments to a new law at the final European Parliament vote on Tuesday 9 March. The directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights contains strong powers targeted at commercial counterfeiters and pirates. However, the law draft has recently been widened to cover *any* infringement of intellectual property rights, however small, unintentional or non-commercial. It would therefore cover consumers and small businesses as well as the organised criminals the law was originally aimed towards. Without amendment, this legislation would: * Let large companies raid premises, seize evidence and freeze the bank accounts of smaller competitors in highly technical alleged patent infringement cases * Allow music companies to get court orders to raid the homes of alleged music file sharers for evidence * Give any number of licensees of intellectual property the right to threaten their competitors with draconian legal mechanisms simply by alleging infringement * Threaten press freedom in several countries such as Spain that include confidential information in their intellectual property laws Amendments tabled by Marco Cappato MEP and the Green/EFA Group, the GUE Group and the EDD Group would fix these problems with the law. Over one hundred MEPs from across the political spectrum have already pledged their support. But this debate is the last chance Parliament has to stand up for EU citizens and small businesses before the law is passed by EU governments later in the week. Coalition members will be meeting outside the Parliament in Strasbourg from 16.30-18.30 on Monday (8 March) to discuss these key issues with parliamentarians. Ian Brown, director of coalition-member the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), said: "This law would best protect European artists, inventors and citizens if restricted to commercial counterfeiting and piracy. Otherwise it will lead to a flood of lawsuits against small businesses and consumers that will discredit European law in this area." EU citizens can help by contacting their MEPs on Monday or Tuesday and asking them to support the Cappato and Green amendments. Contact details are available at http://www.the-elected.com/showInstitution/1 Contact details --------------- Ian Brown, Director, FIPR (London): ian(a)fipr.org or +44 7970 164 526 Andreas Dietl, EU Affairs Director, FIPR/EDRi (Strasbourg): +32 498 34 56 86 Teresa Hackett (Dublin): +353 87 6253768 More information ---------------- http://www.edri.org/cgi-bin/index?funktion=view&id=000100000134 Notes for editors ----------------- 1. The Foundation for Information Policy Research (http://www.fipr.org/) is an independent body founded in 1998 that studies the interaction between information technology and society. Its goal is to identify technical developments with significant social impact, commission and undertake research into public policy alternatives, and promote public understanding and dialogue between technologists and policy-makers in the UK and Europe. ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Dutch Mobile: +316 523 63486 (until 19.3.2004) NEW! Irish Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

1 0

IP Enforcement Directive -- Update: last chance to influence MEPs
by James Heald 07 Mar '04

07 Mar '04

We're now in to the end zone on the IP Enforcement Directive. The debate and the vote have been put back a day, so we now expect Debate: late Tuesday morning Vote: late Wednesday morning So this is the last chance to write/fax/telephone/email to your MEP. Technobabble: the Britney ringtones Directive ? =============================================== That was the question put by the Times newspaper in a powerful column about the Directive on Tuesday: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7947-1024547,00.html In fact it is so good, that here it is as a pdf, which you might even like to print out and fax (maybe white out the bit about Ricin): http://www.ffii.org.uk/ip_enforce/Technobabble.pdf We understand that it has made a number of lobbyists and pro-Directive MEPs rather unhappy, and Letters to the Editor could be impending. But so far the only criticism published has been a "guest blog" on the usually rather good IP Kat site, http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_ipkitten_archive.html#1078491577646… However, the author wasn't working from the most current version of the text. The new text does indeed significantly broaden the Directive, as discussed in this FFII response: http://www.ffii.org.uk/releases/040306_budworth.txt The Trilogue vs Cappato ======================= The contest is now between * the "trilogue" text, negotiated (and rushed) between the Commission, the Council (Member States) and some members of the Parliament legal affairs committee; and * various other amendments, and in particular 5 amendments tabled by a cross-party group of 36 MEPs, led by an Italian, Marco Cappato. If the "trilogue" text is approved, it will be signed off by the Council of Ministers in Brussels on Thursday, and that will be that. But if *any* other amendments are passed, then (according to Mme Fourtou), the Council will refuse to accept the amended text, and will send it back to Parliament to reconsider in the new Parliament. (This may or may not actually turn out to be true). Comparison of the texts ======================= A comparison of the various texts can be found at http://www.ffii.org.uk/ip_enforce/Comparison_040305.htm The first two columns (the original Commission proposal, and the Parliament legal affairs committee proposal) are now of academic interest only. Clause by clause, these are still on the ballot paper; but they are now pretty much irrelevant. The third and fourth columns are the ones that matter. Party positions =============== The official position of the Socialist group, the Conservative group, and (after a lengthy group meeting this week) also the Liberal group is to back the Trilogue text unamended, whatever its faults. A number of smaller groups have declared for Cappato's amendments, as have a growing number of breakaway individual MEPs and even whole national delegations from all parties. The UK MEPs tend to be the most obedient of all to their whips; but if any UK delegation does crack, this could be the tipping point. So sufficient pressure on UK MEPs now could swing it. The key amendment: Article 2.1 ============================== FFII, along with other digital rights groups, believes that all of the additional party amendments are important, and should be supported. Probably the most important of all is Cappato's amendment to Article 2 Clause 1, which would limit the Directive to intentional commercial trademark and copyright violations -- in contrast to the Trilogue text which would make the Directive apply to "all Intellectual Property infringements". FFII view: Member States are already bound to enforce intellectual property rights by the detailed provisions of the TRIPS agreement. The powerful "TRIPS-plus" measures proposed are neither needed nor appropriate to the swapping of Britney ringtones. This also appears to be the UK Government view. Lord Sainsbury replied to House of Lords' concerns about subsidiarity: "Subsidiarity: it seems likely that amendments will reduce the scope of the proposal so that it concentrates more directly on counterfeiting and piracy. Such a change would allow the proposal to pass the subsidiarity test" (6 Oct 2003). Otherwise, if the Trilogue text goes through, ultimate authority over a large swathe of civil law will be transferred to the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg. And as Stephen Timms MP, the relevant minister, recently said in his final sentences closing a debate in the House of Commons, "Enforcement of rights must be pursued differently, depending on the circumstances. Lumping together commercial piracy on the one hand and private copying on the other is unlikely to be helpful in the longer term... Efforts to increase the understanding of and respect for intellectual property rights, particularly copyright, is not helped by branding illegal downloaders as pirates. We must educate consumers about the downside of sharing copyright works over the internet, but we must not accuse them all of being criminals". (10 Feb 2004). Article 10.5a ============= FFII also particularly supports the EDD group's amendment to Article 10, which would provide that if a company (eg a large pharmaceutical co; or perhaps a large software co) deliberately misuses the more extreme powers of the directive to prolong an effective monopoly, it should face losing any unfair profits it makes as a result (as is currently accepted in UK law). The unfair profits earned by the would-be monopolist may be far larger than the direct loss to the competitor; but that is all the monopolist risks having to pay back under the proposed Trilogue article 10. If this is not corrected, it will be a green light for abuse. ===== FFII believes that all of the non-Trilogue amendments raise important issues, and deserve proper Parliamentary consideration. If that means the Directive is not after all stampeded onto the statute book this month, but has to go back to Parliament for a second reading, allowing time for more detailed national consideration, then that may not be such a bad thing. James Heald. UK Co-ordinator, FFII 7 March 2004.

1 0

LUGs being drafted in to help
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 06 Mar '04

06 Mar '04

Forgot to add that local LUGs in Strasbourg and surroundings are being asked to help gather support for the rally. Teresa

1 0

Urgent: IFSO logo ready to use?
by teresahackett＠eircom.net 06 Mar '04

06 Mar '04

Hello list, I'm going to Strasbourg for the IPRE directive debate/vote on Monday and have been asked if IFSO would like to be included on the flyer for the rally (I'm working with FIPR on the issue, but ok'd it with Ciaran that I could wear a dual IFSO hat for the occasion). Has the IFSO logo been decided upon, or is there a version that you would be ready to use on a flyer? I'd love to unleash the gnu with the harp to the unsuspecting public, but I think there was some more debate on that one. Anyhow, is there anything ready to use? Otherwise we just use the IFSO text? Flyer is at: http://www.edri.org/cgi-bin/index?funktion=view&id=000100000134 Thanks Teresa ---------- Teresa Hackett 114 Cedar House Mespil Estate, Sussex Road Dublin 4, Ireland Email: teresahackett(a)eircom.net Dutch Mobile: +316 523 63486 (until 19.3.2004) NEW! Irish Mobile +353 87 6253768 ----------

1 0

Re: [Fsfe-ie] perspective on e-voting
by Fergal Daly 05 Mar '04

05 Mar '04

On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 02:07:20AM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote: > > Data signing only works for the person who checks the signature and > > since I'm not going to be let near a machine in order to check the ROM > > signature, it's no good for me. It's also no good for people who have > > no idea what a "ROM signature" is. They shouldn't have to know. > > I was more thinking of the data signing mechanisms used to ensure CIA > wire tap boxes haven't been compromised. These boxes get stuck in the > wild so there's a chance they could be interfered with by an outside > party. Basically it's a loopy state machine whereby the software is > encrypted with a key and that key is derived from the signature of > the encrypted image. Basically if you alter the image you must alter > its signature thus losing the ability to run it - and it can't be > faked. Unless you take out the bit that actually cares about the signature. Maybe not possible in a single chip custom listening device but quite possible in a machine built from off the shelf chips and building voting machines from anything except off the shelf chips is not going to change any time soon. Something(s) on the board must be the key to the trust system, usually the processor but maybe there are multiple chips that check the signatures. You only need to replace these with look-a-likes that will also trust your switched image. No one can discover this without examining the chip layout under an electron microscope, rather impractical. > > How do I check the signature of a PCI controller or a chip that's > > labelled as a Motorola 68000 anyway? > > You'd use one of the military spec processors. They are hardened to > EMP and are very hard to hack into. This is a good thing, given they > control the world's nuclear arsenel. They don't need to be hacked, they just need to be replaced with something that looks the same and appears to function the same until it gets the "switch to vote stealing mode" signal. There's now way of calculating a signature from an IC, you have to break the packaging and examine the cicuits. > If people will insist on using off the shelf components, they will > have this problem. When I was working for EuroFighter, I was appalled > to discover they use x86 kit and Windows which is totally unsuitable. > > Commercial off the shelf kit is mass produced cheaply. It's not of > high quality and certainly not of high security. As an example, DEC > VMS didn't have a single root exploit in 17 years. The voting machines are using m68k and a very small custom OS which is little more than a loader. It's probably very secure as it had almost no functionality. It's also got ECC RAM. The counting machine however is Win 98 + Access on a non-ECC PC! Then again it only has a quick job to do that can be verified in other ways. > > We actually have a very secure system at moment. It's secure because > > people from all sides of the election are keeping one-another honest. > > There is no single point of failure. The ballot boxes are watched by > > multiple people (who don't trust each other) from the time they're > > opened to the time they're emptied. > > I think it's less secure than you might think. I have no Irish > examples, but vote rigging is as old as time and it never completely > goes away even with the very best of systems. Nice example is "the shuffle". Send 1 punter in with a blank piece of paper, he puts that in the box and comes back with a stamped ballot. Fill that out, send the next punter in with that and he comes back with another blank. Repeat until no punters left, then go in yourself with the last ballot. Everyone gets a tenner. Computers will eliminate that. > Think about the other areas where public access is granted to ensure > public confidence - most government meetings eg; trials, Dail > debates, public archives - even FOIA. All these are too technical to > the the lay person. Voting software is an identical issue - the lay > person won't and can't understand, but it's having the free access is > what's important. Dail debates are not beyond the layman, in fact the Dail has several men who are as lay as it gets. The other examples can occasionally get very complicated but I'd imagine there are very few people who get convicted without actually understanding why. > However, I really do think if people could vote say by mobile phone, > you'd get a lot more people voting (even better if the phone asked > you for a vote on polling day). So to me, any substantially improved > voting system must have this feature. Just replacing paper ballots > with an electronic system seems pointless to me - one is spending > money for zero gain. Of course, current mobile phones aren't secure > enough and neither will be the next generation. But maybe thereafter > given how much they want us to buy stuff using them eg; a distributed > self-repairing peer to peer voting network based on all mobiles > reaching a consensus (and attacking every mobile phone in the country > is a tad hard). I don't think technological security is the issue here, personal security is much more important. Mobile phone voting in the North would be a good laugh, where the bloke looking over your shoulder, watching you vote, wears a balaclava for a bit of petrol bombing fun at the weekend. Even taking threats and violence out of the mix, remote voting allows vote selling. The tests done in the UK showed very small increases in turnout, F

4 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

FSFE-IE March 2004