News: Tech's top-ten hype-notic spells
It doesn't often happen, but I recently found myself agreeing with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. In a Wall Street Journal interview, Ellison was quoted saying, "We became the largest industry in the world by selling things that people didn't want to buy."
That's because the technology industry has elevated hype to an art form.
Chief information officers may have slowed down--or entirely stopped--buying computer products and services, but the industry hype machine is busier than ever. Here's my update from the fluff front.…
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-998703.html
Saturday, May 03, 2003
Friday, May 02, 2003
Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon
The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said.
The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas — known as "national security letters" — requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.
The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.
After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.
In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.
There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.
A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/international/worldspecial/02TERR.html
The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said.
The proposal, which was beaten back, would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas — known as "national security letters" — requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval.
The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate today in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said.
After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said.
In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea, officials said.
There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected.
A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/international/worldspecial/02TERR.html
Iraqis Plead for Order; Two Saddam Aides Seized
In the tense western city of Falluja, a Muslim prayer leader called on townsfolk not to fight U.S. soldiers who killed 15 demonstrators earlier this week and then suffered seven wounded in a reprisal attack on the main U.S. base in the town.
``I want to tell you, to tell all of the people here in Falluja, not to attack Americans. If you do they will kill you,'' one prayer leader told worshipers at a mosque opposite the U.S. post. ``They have tanks, how can you fight tanks?''
The mayor of Falluja held ``peace talks'' with a major at the U.S. camp, American soldiers said.
But anger still simmered on the streets, where some said they preferred Saddam's rule to the U.S. ``occupation.'' A poster read, ``Sooner or later, U.S. killers, we will kick you out.''
Iraqis are dismayed at the breakdown in law and order, and angry about shortages of water, power and other basic services.
``Water at the moment is critical,'' said Veronique Taveau, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. Securing food warehouses was also a high priority.
Taveau, one of 21 U.N. international staff who returned to Baghdad Thursday, told Reuters their first task was to assess overall humanitarian needs, especially a water system disrupted by war damage, looting and electricity cuts.
International aid agencies appealed Friday for the United Nations to be given a key role urgently in rebuilding Iraq, where they said disease, hunger and anarchy were spreading.
Britain and the United States have dragged their heels over defining what role the world body should play in postwar Iraq.
``It is essential that the United Nations have a central role in facilitating the creation of a transitional Iraqi authority,'' said a joint statement from Oxfam, Islamic Relief, Caritas, Cafod, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Save the Children.
A vessel with 14,000 tons of rice docked in the southern port of Umm Qasr, the largest to arrive by sea and the first shipment by the U.N. World Food Program since the war began.
About 60 percent of Iraqis depended on food handed out under U.N. oil-for-food program before the conflict. Taveau said they probably had enough food to last until mid-May.…
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html
In the tense western city of Falluja, a Muslim prayer leader called on townsfolk not to fight U.S. soldiers who killed 15 demonstrators earlier this week and then suffered seven wounded in a reprisal attack on the main U.S. base in the town.
``I want to tell you, to tell all of the people here in Falluja, not to attack Americans. If you do they will kill you,'' one prayer leader told worshipers at a mosque opposite the U.S. post. ``They have tanks, how can you fight tanks?''
The mayor of Falluja held ``peace talks'' with a major at the U.S. camp, American soldiers said.
But anger still simmered on the streets, where some said they preferred Saddam's rule to the U.S. ``occupation.'' A poster read, ``Sooner or later, U.S. killers, we will kick you out.''
Iraqis are dismayed at the breakdown in law and order, and angry about shortages of water, power and other basic services.
``Water at the moment is critical,'' said Veronique Taveau, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. Securing food warehouses was also a high priority.
Taveau, one of 21 U.N. international staff who returned to Baghdad Thursday, told Reuters their first task was to assess overall humanitarian needs, especially a water system disrupted by war damage, looting and electricity cuts.
International aid agencies appealed Friday for the United Nations to be given a key role urgently in rebuilding Iraq, where they said disease, hunger and anarchy were spreading.
Britain and the United States have dragged their heels over defining what role the world body should play in postwar Iraq.
``It is essential that the United Nations have a central role in facilitating the creation of a transitional Iraqi authority,'' said a joint statement from Oxfam, Islamic Relief, Caritas, Cafod, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Save the Children.
A vessel with 14,000 tons of rice docked in the southern port of Umm Qasr, the largest to arrive by sea and the first shipment by the U.N. World Food Program since the war began.
About 60 percent of Iraqis depended on food handed out under U.N. oil-for-food program before the conflict. Taveau said they probably had enough food to last until mid-May.…
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq.html
ExtremeTech - Print Article
If you're typing on a standard QWERTY keyboard, and most of us are, then your keyboard design is over 100 years old (135 years old, to be exact). Can you imagine using a hard drive that was designed a decade ago? Or a processor from two centuries past?
Currently, computer users don't have much choice in keyboard design. Just about every computer comes factory equipped with a standard flat QWERTY keyboard. Since keyboard design has virtually stagnated over the last few years, the expectations for change have also stagnated. Nowadays, most computer users are woe to trade in their "old reliable" for something new. Well, by the end if this series of articles you may be singing a new tune.
New and innovative designs for keyboards have been developed over the past few years--the problem is, barely anyone is aware of them.…
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=40556,00.asp
If you're typing on a standard QWERTY keyboard, and most of us are, then your keyboard design is over 100 years old (135 years old, to be exact). Can you imagine using a hard drive that was designed a decade ago? Or a processor from two centuries past?
Currently, computer users don't have much choice in keyboard design. Just about every computer comes factory equipped with a standard flat QWERTY keyboard. Since keyboard design has virtually stagnated over the last few years, the expectations for change have also stagnated. Nowadays, most computer users are woe to trade in their "old reliable" for something new. Well, by the end if this series of articles you may be singing a new tune.
New and innovative designs for keyboards have been developed over the past few years--the problem is, barely anyone is aware of them.…
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=40556,00.asp
Thursday, May 01, 2003
CHMOD Calculator
Set Those numbers!
see http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/webjs/jsmath/item.php/153171 for more
http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/repository/javascripts/2003/04/153171/chmod%20calculator.html
Set Those numbers!
see http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/webjs/jsmath/item.php/153171 for more
http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/repository/javascripts/2003/04/153171/chmod%20calculator.html
Young Minds Force-Fed With Indigestible Texts
As the commissars of political correctness on the left and the fundamentalist sentries of morality on the right have clamped down on the education system, more and more subjects, words and ideas have become taboo. According to Diane Ravitch's fiercely argued new book, "The Language Police," the following are just some of the things students aren't supposed to find in their textbooks or tests:
¶Mickey Mouse and Stuart Little (because mice, along with rats, roaches, snakes and lice, are considered to be upsetting to children).
¶Stories or pictures showing a mother cooking dinner for her children, or a black family living in a city neighborhood (because such images are thought to purvey gender or racial stereotypes).
¶Dinosaurs (because they suggest the controversial subject of evolution).
¶Tales set in jungles, forests, mountains or by the sea (because such settings are believed to display "a regional bias").
¶Narratives involving angry, loud-mouthed characters, quarreling parents or disobedient children (because such emotions are not "uplifting").
Owls are out because some cultures associate them with death. Mentions of birthdays are to be avoided because some children do not have birthday parties. Images or descriptions of a mother showing shock or fear are to be replaced by depictions of both parents "expressing the same facial emotions."
Mentions of cakes, candy, doughnuts, french fries and coffee should be dropped in favor of references to more healthful foods like cooked beans, yogurt and enriched whole-grain breads. And of course words like brotherhood, fraternity, heroine, snowman, swarthy, crazy, senile and polo are banned because they could be upsetting to women, to certain ethnic groups, to people with mental disabilities, old people or, it would seem, to people who do not play polo.
In "The Language Police," Ms. Ravitch — a historian of education at New York University and the author of "Left Back," a 2000 book about failed school reform — provides an impassioned examination of how right-wing and left-wing pressure groups have succeeded in sanitizing textbooks and tests, how educational publishers have conspired in this censorship, and how this development over the last three decades is eviscerating the teaching of literature and history.
The "bias and sensitivity reviewers" employed by educational publishers, she argues, "work with assumptions that have the inevitable effect of stripping away everything that is potentially thought-provoking and colorful from the texts that children encounter," and as a result, school curriculums are being reduced to "bland pabulum."
Ms. Ravitch — who served as an assistant secretary in the federal Education Department under President George H. W. Bush, and who was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the National Assessment Governing Board, which supervises national testing — writes with enormous authority and common sense. She shows how priggish, censorious and downright absurd "the language police" can be, and she does so with furious logic.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/books/29KAKU.html
As the commissars of political correctness on the left and the fundamentalist sentries of morality on the right have clamped down on the education system, more and more subjects, words and ideas have become taboo. According to Diane Ravitch's fiercely argued new book, "The Language Police," the following are just some of the things students aren't supposed to find in their textbooks or tests:
¶Mickey Mouse and Stuart Little (because mice, along with rats, roaches, snakes and lice, are considered to be upsetting to children).
¶Stories or pictures showing a mother cooking dinner for her children, or a black family living in a city neighborhood (because such images are thought to purvey gender or racial stereotypes).
¶Dinosaurs (because they suggest the controversial subject of evolution).
¶Tales set in jungles, forests, mountains or by the sea (because such settings are believed to display "a regional bias").
¶Narratives involving angry, loud-mouthed characters, quarreling parents or disobedient children (because such emotions are not "uplifting").
Owls are out because some cultures associate them with death. Mentions of birthdays are to be avoided because some children do not have birthday parties. Images or descriptions of a mother showing shock or fear are to be replaced by depictions of both parents "expressing the same facial emotions."
Mentions of cakes, candy, doughnuts, french fries and coffee should be dropped in favor of references to more healthful foods like cooked beans, yogurt and enriched whole-grain breads. And of course words like brotherhood, fraternity, heroine, snowman, swarthy, crazy, senile and polo are banned because they could be upsetting to women, to certain ethnic groups, to people with mental disabilities, old people or, it would seem, to people who do not play polo.
In "The Language Police," Ms. Ravitch — a historian of education at New York University and the author of "Left Back," a 2000 book about failed school reform — provides an impassioned examination of how right-wing and left-wing pressure groups have succeeded in sanitizing textbooks and tests, how educational publishers have conspired in this censorship, and how this development over the last three decades is eviscerating the teaching of literature and history.
The "bias and sensitivity reviewers" employed by educational publishers, she argues, "work with assumptions that have the inevitable effect of stripping away everything that is potentially thought-provoking and colorful from the texts that children encounter," and as a result, school curriculums are being reduced to "bland pabulum."
Ms. Ravitch — who served as an assistant secretary in the federal Education Department under President George H. W. Bush, and who was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the National Assessment Governing Board, which supervises national testing — writes with enormous authority and common sense. She shows how priggish, censorious and downright absurd "the language police" can be, and she does so with furious logic.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/books/29KAKU.html
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing — and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished — not just from the top of the page, but from the site.
Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and muted or suppressed retractions, the American public probably believes that we went to war to avert an immediate threat — just as it believes that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11.
Now it's true that the war removed an evil tyrant. But a democracy's decisions, right or wrong, are supposed to take place with the informed consent of its citizens. That didn't happen this time. And we are a democracy — aren't we?
Matters of Emphasis
We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." The official was referring to the way the administration hyped the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. According to the ABC report, the real reason for the war was that the administration "wanted to make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target."
A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that "intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war." One "high-level source" told the paper that "they ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat."
Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction. It's hard to believe that we won't eventually find some poison gas or crude biological weapons. But those aren't true W.M.D.'s, the sort of weapons that can make a small, poor country a threat to the greatest power the world has ever known. Remember that President Bush made his case for war by warning of a "mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn't have anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have known that it didn't.
Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some people say that it doesn't: we won, and the Iraqi people have been freed. But we ought to ask some hard questions — not just about Iraq, but about ourselves.
First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.
Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?
So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.
Meanwhile, aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.html
News: Judge: File-swapping tools are legal
A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two companies.
In an almost complete reversal of previous victories for the record labels and movie studios, federal court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that Streamcast--parent of the Morpheus software--and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software. The ruling does not directly affect Kazaa, software distributed by Sharman Networks, which has also been targeted by the entertainment industry.
"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson wrote in his opinion, released Friday. "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."
The ruling is the second major setback to date to the entertainment industry's efforts to keep a tight rein on online file-swapping, following a similiar decision in the Netherlands last year that found that Kazaa was not liable for its users' copyright infringements. If upheld, the decision could lead artists, record labels and movie studios to cast new legal strategies that they have until now been reluctant to try, including bringing lawsuits against individuals who copy unauthorized works over Napster-like networks.
According to the major record labels, file-swapping is a major contributor to declines in music sales over the past few years, a trend that has thrown the industry into disarray. Debt-ridden media conglomerates are now considering sales of their music divisions even as they begin to test paid online music services intended to compete with free file-swapping networks and turn the tide.
Attorneys called the ruling a blow for entertainment and record companies trying to stop the networks used to swap unauthorized copies of their works.
"This is a very serious setback for the record industry and other content industries, because they've uniformly won these cases in the U.S.," Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich said.
While the ruling in no way validates the legality of downloading copyrighted music online, it would shield companies providing decentralized file-swapping software such as Gnutella from liability for the actions of people using their products.…
The court's ruling applies only to existing versions of the Morpheus and Grokster software. Earlier versions of the software, which functioned slightly differently, could potentially leave the companies open to liability.
A spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the copyright holders were deeply disappointed in the decision and would certainly appeal.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-998363.html
A federal judge in Los Angeles has handed a stunning court victory to file-swapping services Streamcast Networks and Grokster, dismissing much of the record industry and movie studios' lawsuit against the two companies.
In an almost complete reversal of previous victories for the record labels and movie studios, federal court Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that Streamcast--parent of the Morpheus software--and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements that took place using their software. The ruling does not directly affect Kazaa, software distributed by Sharman Networks, which has also been targeted by the entertainment industry.
"Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends," Wilson wrote in his opinion, released Friday. "Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights."
The ruling is the second major setback to date to the entertainment industry's efforts to keep a tight rein on online file-swapping, following a similiar decision in the Netherlands last year that found that Kazaa was not liable for its users' copyright infringements. If upheld, the decision could lead artists, record labels and movie studios to cast new legal strategies that they have until now been reluctant to try, including bringing lawsuits against individuals who copy unauthorized works over Napster-like networks.
According to the major record labels, file-swapping is a major contributor to declines in music sales over the past few years, a trend that has thrown the industry into disarray. Debt-ridden media conglomerates are now considering sales of their music divisions even as they begin to test paid online music services intended to compete with free file-swapping networks and turn the tide.
Attorneys called the ruling a blow for entertainment and record companies trying to stop the networks used to swap unauthorized copies of their works.
"This is a very serious setback for the record industry and other content industries, because they've uniformly won these cases in the U.S.," Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich said.
While the ruling in no way validates the legality of downloading copyrighted music online, it would shield companies providing decentralized file-swapping software such as Gnutella from liability for the actions of people using their products.…
The court's ruling applies only to existing versions of the Morpheus and Grokster software. Earlier versions of the software, which functioned slightly differently, could potentially leave the companies open to liability.
A spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said the copyright holders were deeply disappointed in the decision and would certainly appeal.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-998363.html
Monday, April 28, 2003
Killer Apps Share A Common Thread: Hacker Geeks
According to Tim O'Reilly, founder and president of O'Reilly and Associates Inc., and organizer of the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference here, four trends bear watching: Amazon.com Web Services; BARWN, or the Bay Area Research Wireless Network; hardware hacking; and multi-player gaming.
"There's a common thread – a hacker culture that ties together all of these four activities on the O'Reilly radar today," said O'Reilly said. "Essentially it is being able to recognize the alpha geeks in society and leveraging their enterprise."
"An invention has to make sense in the world it finishes in, not in the world it started," O'Reilly said. "We are beginning to see the rise of interconnected networks, the technology uptake is accelerating, there are people with passion like the hacker guys and people with professional experience like professional programmers, so it's not in the danger of being one really cool party. The most important thing is that this is bottom up – it has grassroots support," he said.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1043541,00.asp
According to Tim O'Reilly, founder and president of O'Reilly and Associates Inc., and organizer of the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference here, four trends bear watching: Amazon.com Web Services; BARWN, or the Bay Area Research Wireless Network; hardware hacking; and multi-player gaming.
"There's a common thread – a hacker culture that ties together all of these four activities on the O'Reilly radar today," said O'Reilly said. "Essentially it is being able to recognize the alpha geeks in society and leveraging their enterprise."
"An invention has to make sense in the world it finishes in, not in the world it started," O'Reilly said. "We are beginning to see the rise of interconnected networks, the technology uptake is accelerating, there are people with passion like the hacker guys and people with professional experience like professional programmers, so it's not in the danger of being one really cool party. The most important thing is that this is bottom up – it has grassroots support," he said.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1043541,00.asp
Rulings Define What's Legal In File-Sharing
A federal judge refused to uphold a motion filed by Verizon Internet Services to quash the disclosure of the identities of two of its users who had shared songs using the Kazaa file-sharing service. On Friday, however, a judge in a separate case ruled that StreamCast Networks and Grokster cannot be liable for the actions of its users.
Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court ruled that the RIAA's request did violate the laws of free speech or Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that a court may only rule when a legal case is pending before a judge.
More importantly, though, the judge ruled that Kazaa users do not have a right to anonymity. "The (Digitial Millennium Copyright Act), however, does not directly impact core political speech, and thus may not warrant the type of "exacting scrutiny" reserved for that context," Judge Bates wrote. "Section 512(h) deals strictly with copyright infringement. Verizon concedes, as it must, that there is no First Amendment defense to copyright violations."
The judge ruled that the DMCA adequately protects the consumer by requiring prosecuters, such as the RIAA, to show there is a "good faith" reason to believe that the defendant is violating it, and that the RIAA was acting on behalf of copyright holders.
The DMCA, by defending copyrights -- "the engine of free expression," in the words of the court -- "fosters speech by helping artists, musicians, and authors protect their creative works, in turn encouraging further expression".
RIAA executives expressed their pleasure with the decision.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1043474,00.asp
A federal judge refused to uphold a motion filed by Verizon Internet Services to quash the disclosure of the identities of two of its users who had shared songs using the Kazaa file-sharing service. On Friday, however, a judge in a separate case ruled that StreamCast Networks and Grokster cannot be liable for the actions of its users.
Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court ruled that the RIAA's request did violate the laws of free speech or Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which holds that a court may only rule when a legal case is pending before a judge.
More importantly, though, the judge ruled that Kazaa users do not have a right to anonymity. "The (Digitial Millennium Copyright Act), however, does not directly impact core political speech, and thus may not warrant the type of "exacting scrutiny" reserved for that context," Judge Bates wrote. "Section 512(h) deals strictly with copyright infringement. Verizon concedes, as it must, that there is no First Amendment defense to copyright violations."
The judge ruled that the DMCA adequately protects the consumer by requiring prosecuters, such as the RIAA, to show there is a "good faith" reason to believe that the defendant is violating it, and that the RIAA was acting on behalf of copyright holders.
The DMCA, by defending copyrights -- "the engine of free expression," in the words of the court -- "fosters speech by helping artists, musicians, and authors protect their creative works, in turn encouraging further expression".
RIAA executives expressed their pleasure with the decision.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1043474,00.asp
News: Special Reports
Spam 2003: A progress report
The amount of spam grew in March and has almost doubled from last year, threatening to cost businesses $10 billion in 2003. The best tech minds are working feverishly to help you perform one simple task--read you e-mail.
http://zdnet.com.com/2251-1110-997654.html
Spam 2003: A progress report
The amount of spam grew in March and has almost doubled from last year, threatening to cost businesses $10 billion in 2003. The best tech minds are working feverishly to help you perform one simple task--read you e-mail.
http://zdnet.com.com/2251-1110-997654.html
News: Microsoft releases Windows security guide
Microsoft released on Friday a tutorial and templates to help system administrators lock down the security of computers running the company's newest operating system, Windows Server 2003.
The tutorial consists of portable document files (PDFs) detailing the reasoning behind configuring the server software for various applications, from a Web server connected to the Internet to a domain controller on a company's internal network. Also included are examples of Microsoft-recommended configurations for specific applications.
"There are a lot of different settings that a customer can set on something like a Web server," said Michael Stephenson, lead program manager for Windows Server 2003. "What the guide does is explain to customers why they would want a setting a certain way."
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-998390.html
Microsoft released on Friday a tutorial and templates to help system administrators lock down the security of computers running the company's newest operating system, Windows Server 2003.
The tutorial consists of portable document files (PDFs) detailing the reasoning behind configuring the server software for various applications, from a Web server connected to the Internet to a domain controller on a company's internal network. Also included are examples of Microsoft-recommended configurations for specific applications.
"There are a lot of different settings that a customer can set on something like a Web server," said Michael Stephenson, lead program manager for Windows Server 2003. "What the guide does is explain to customers why they would want a setting a certain way."
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-998390.html
News: Special Reports
RSA Conference: Closing the security gap
RSA brings 10,000 security experts together to stem the tide against the increasing number of hacker attacks. Add a dramatic increase in the number of software vulnerabilities to the increasingly sophisticated attacks--and you've got a security gap.
http://zdnet.com.com/2251-1110-996669.html
RSA Conference: Closing the security gap
RSA brings 10,000 security experts together to stem the tide against the increasing number of hacker attacks. Add a dramatic increase in the number of software vulnerabilities to the increasingly sophisticated attacks--and you've got a security gap.
http://zdnet.com.com/2251-1110-996669.html
News: Linus Torvalds opens door to DRM
Linus Torvalds, the founder of the Linux operating system, threw a curve ball into the open-source programming community Thursday.
In a posting sent to a key Linux-focused e-mail list, he outlined a controversial proposal: Nothing in the basic rules for the Linux operating system should block developers from using digital rights management (DRM) technology. DRM tools are technological locks or identification measures that range from ensuring a software program is genuine to protecting a movie against unauthorized copying.
In some open-source and "free software" circles, such technological locks and authentication measures are seen as infringements on their freedom. In his posting, Torvalds took a more pragmatic approach--Linux is an operating system, not a political movement, and people should ultimately be able to do what they want with it, he said.
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds wrote on the "Linux-kernel" mailing list. "But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to--which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of."
The posting and subsequent discussion brought to light what remains a serious tension in some open-source programming circles.
Proprietary software and hardware developers, led in large part by Microsoft and Intel, are in the midst of a long-term "trusted computing" initiative that backers say will allow computer users to trust that software running on their machine is virus- and Trojan-free. As outlined in plans such as Microsoft's Palladium, however, it requires building authentication capabilities deep into computer hardware and operating systems.
Some open-source developers suspect that this is code for saying that some software--such as that created by the open-source community--won't be able to run on standard machines or won't interoperate with standard programs. Others fear that the authentication tools will simply allow big content companies such as movie studios or record labels far more control over how computer owners use their content.
In his discussion, Torvalds conceded that content owners such as Disney could see their hands strengthened if rights-management technology were built deeply into computing systems--but noted that the drive to have trusted software was also a valuable goal. The two could not be separated, he added.
"There is zero technical difference. It's only a matter of intent--and even the intent will be a matter of interpretation," Torvalds wrote. "This is why I refuse to disallow even the 'bad' kinds of uses--because not allowing them would automatically also mean that 'good' uses aren't allowed."
Torvalds has issued edicts on thorny legal issues of Linux before. For example, he decreed that it's permissible to let the kernel--the open-source code at the heart of Linux--call upon proprietary modules of software. That's an important issue in some cases, for example, video card companies that might want to support Linux but not reveal the inner workings of the software that controls their products.
Discussion remains ongoing about whether DRM in Linux is a good idea--or even whether Torvalds has enough sway in the community to make his opinion stick. Torvalds said later he was willing to be persuaded to a different point of view.
"One of the reasons for posting (the message) was to get feedback, after all," he wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "I always reserve the right to change my mind as a result of discussion."
News: Linus Torvalds opens door to DRM
Linus Torvalds, the founder of the Linux operating system, threw a curve ball into the open-source programming community Thursday.
In a posting sent to a key Linux-focused e-mail list, he outlined a controversial proposal: Nothing in the basic rules for the Linux operating system should block developers from using digital rights management (DRM) technology. DRM tools are technological locks or identification measures that range from ensuring a software program is genuine to protecting a movie against unauthorized copying.
In some open-source and "free software" circles, such technological locks and authentication measures are seen as infringements on their freedom. In his posting, Torvalds took a more pragmatic approach--Linux is an operating system, not a political movement, and people should ultimately be able to do what they want with it, he said.
"I also don't necessarily like DRM myself," Torvalds wrote on the "Linux-kernel" mailing list. "But...I'm an 'Oppenheimer,' and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to--which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of."
The posting and subsequent discussion brought to light what remains a serious tension in some open-source programming circles.
Proprietary software and hardware developers, led in large part by Microsoft and Intel, are in the midst of a long-term "trusted computing" initiative that backers say will allow computer users to trust that software running on their machine is virus- and Trojan-free. As outlined in plans such as Microsoft's Palladium, however, it requires building authentication capabilities deep into computer hardware and operating systems.
Some open-source developers suspect that this is code for saying that some software--such as that created by the open-source community--won't be able to run on standard machines or won't interoperate with standard programs. Others fear that the authentication tools will simply allow big content companies such as movie studios or record labels far more control over how computer owners use their content.
In his discussion, Torvalds conceded that content owners such as Disney could see their hands strengthened if rights-management technology were built deeply into computing systems--but noted that the drive to have trusted software was also a valuable goal. The two could not be separated, he added.
"There is zero technical difference. It's only a matter of intent--and even the intent will be a matter of interpretation," Torvalds wrote. "This is why I refuse to disallow even the 'bad' kinds of uses--because not allowing them would automatically also mean that 'good' uses aren't allowed."
Torvalds has issued edicts on thorny legal issues of Linux before. For example, he decreed that it's permissible to let the kernel--the open-source code at the heart of Linux--call upon proprietary modules of software. That's an important issue in some cases, for example, video card companies that might want to support Linux but not reveal the inner workings of the software that controls their products.
Discussion remains ongoing about whether DRM in Linux is a good idea--or even whether Torvalds has enough sway in the community to make his opinion stick. Torvalds said later he was willing to be persuaded to a different point of view.
"One of the reasons for posting (the message) was to get feedback, after all," he wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "I always reserve the right to change my mind as a result of discussion."
News: Linus Torvalds opens door to DRM
digital rights management White Papers, Webcasts and Case Studies - ZDNet
White Papers: Search Results
CRITERIA> All Documents in All Categories, "digital rights management "
http://itpapers.zdnet.com/search/searchNew.asp?term=digital%20rights%20management%20%20&domain=224
White Papers: Search Results
CRITERIA> All Documents in All Categories, "digital rights management "
http://itpapers.zdnet.com/search/searchNew.asp?term=digital%20rights%20management%20%20&domain=224
Sunday, April 27, 2003
A Flashback to the 60's for an Antiwar Protester
At the time, Brett A. Bursey says, he seemed to be having a 60's flashback.
There he was at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport with his antiwar sign. There were the thousands of Republicans gathering to welcome a president. There were the police officers arresting him for trespassing.
The first time this happened was in May 1969, before a visit by Richard M. Nixon. The charges against Mr. Bursey were dropped after the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that if protesters were on public property — as the antiwar demonstrators were — they could not be charged with trespassing.
Last Oct. 24, 33 years later and about 100 yards away, the now graying Mr. Bursey was again arrested for trespassing, this time before a visit by President Bush. The charge was soon dropped.
But last month, the local United States attorney, J. Strom Thurmond Jr., brought federal charges against Mr. Bursey under a seldom-used statute that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting. He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
This being South Carolina, Mr. Bursey's story includes lots of colorful history, old grudges and improbable plot twists, not to mention the Confederate battle flag.
But to some legal experts it is also part of a growing pattern of repression against protesters, demonstrators and dissenters. The American Civil Liberties Union says it has found many examples, like increased arrests and interrogations of protesters and the shunning of celebrities who have opposed the war in Iraq.
"When you connect the dots, you see very clearly a climate of chilled dissent and debate," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the civil liberties group.
In particular, Mr. Romero said, there is a growing practice of corralling protesters in "free-speech zones," which are often so far from the object of the protest as to be invisible. "It's an effort to mitigate the effectiveness of free speech," he said.
And he does not buy the argument that such zones are necessary to protect the president and other officials. "John Hinckley wasn't carrying an anti-Reagan sign when he shot him," Mr. Romero said.
It was just such a "protest zone" that got Mr. Bursey in trouble last fall. A spokeswoman for the airport said officials there had established a protest area on the verge of a highway, a good half mile from the hangar where the president would be speaking. (Airport police are not sure if anyone actually protested at the official zone, she said.)
Mr. Bursey hoped he and some friends could protest somewhere closer, maybe across the road from the hangar, he said. The police in Charleston and Greenville had been accommodating, he said, when he had asked to avoid the protest zones, which he described as being "out there behind the coliseum by the Dumpsters."
It did not work this time.
"We attempted to dialogue for a while, them telling me to go to the free-speech zone, me saying I was in it: the United States of America," Mr. Bursey said. Finally, he said, an airport policeman told him he had to put down his sign ("No War for Oil") or leave.
" `You mean, it's the content of my sign?' I asked him," Mr. Bursey said. "He said, `Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign.' "
Mr. Bursey kept the sign and was arrested; he said he watched Air Force One land from the back of a patrol wagon and spent the night in the county jail.
A Secret Service agent was present at the arrest, Mr. Bursey said, but he added that no one could have seen him and his companions as a security threat. "There was no one under 50 in that crowd," said Mr. Bursey, who is 54. "In my mind, at that time, we didn't pose a security threat; we posed a political threat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/international/worldspecial2/27PROT.html
At the time, Brett A. Bursey says, he seemed to be having a 60's flashback.
There he was at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport with his antiwar sign. There were the thousands of Republicans gathering to welcome a president. There were the police officers arresting him for trespassing.
The first time this happened was in May 1969, before a visit by Richard M. Nixon. The charges against Mr. Bursey were dropped after the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that if protesters were on public property — as the antiwar demonstrators were — they could not be charged with trespassing.
Last Oct. 24, 33 years later and about 100 yards away, the now graying Mr. Bursey was again arrested for trespassing, this time before a visit by President Bush. The charge was soon dropped.
But last month, the local United States attorney, J. Strom Thurmond Jr., brought federal charges against Mr. Bursey under a seldom-used statute that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is visiting. He faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.
This being South Carolina, Mr. Bursey's story includes lots of colorful history, old grudges and improbable plot twists, not to mention the Confederate battle flag.
But to some legal experts it is also part of a growing pattern of repression against protesters, demonstrators and dissenters. The American Civil Liberties Union says it has found many examples, like increased arrests and interrogations of protesters and the shunning of celebrities who have opposed the war in Iraq.
"When you connect the dots, you see very clearly a climate of chilled dissent and debate," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the civil liberties group.
In particular, Mr. Romero said, there is a growing practice of corralling protesters in "free-speech zones," which are often so far from the object of the protest as to be invisible. "It's an effort to mitigate the effectiveness of free speech," he said.
And he does not buy the argument that such zones are necessary to protect the president and other officials. "John Hinckley wasn't carrying an anti-Reagan sign when he shot him," Mr. Romero said.
It was just such a "protest zone" that got Mr. Bursey in trouble last fall. A spokeswoman for the airport said officials there had established a protest area on the verge of a highway, a good half mile from the hangar where the president would be speaking. (Airport police are not sure if anyone actually protested at the official zone, she said.)
Mr. Bursey hoped he and some friends could protest somewhere closer, maybe across the road from the hangar, he said. The police in Charleston and Greenville had been accommodating, he said, when he had asked to avoid the protest zones, which he described as being "out there behind the coliseum by the Dumpsters."
It did not work this time.
"We attempted to dialogue for a while, them telling me to go to the free-speech zone, me saying I was in it: the United States of America," Mr. Bursey said. Finally, he said, an airport policeman told him he had to put down his sign ("No War for Oil") or leave.
" `You mean, it's the content of my sign?' I asked him," Mr. Bursey said. "He said, `Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign.' "
Mr. Bursey kept the sign and was arrested; he said he watched Air Force One land from the back of a patrol wagon and spent the night in the county jail.
A Secret Service agent was present at the arrest, Mr. Bursey said, but he added that no one could have seen him and his companions as a security threat. "There was no one under 50 in that crowd," said Mr. Bursey, who is 54. "In my mind, at that time, we didn't pose a security threat; we posed a political threat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/international/worldspecial2/27PROT.html
Baghdad Blasts at Arms Dump Kill at Least 6
At least six Iraqi civilians were killed on the outskirts of Baghdad today when explosions ripped through an ammunition dump guarded by American troops in their neighborhood. Military officials said a group of attackers had fired a flare into the cache, setting off the blasts.
A statement from the United States Central Command said six Iraqis had been killed and four wounded. But a military official in Baghdad said the toll could be as high as 40 people killed or wounded in the attack.
An official at the scene said that the flare set off a Soviet-made Frog battlefield rocket that was part of the Iraqi arsenal, and that it resulted in the explosion that caused most of the casualties.
The military, concerned about the reaction from the Iraqi public, began radio broadcasts tonight saying that the attack had been by people trying to undermine Iraq's future, and that Americans had been trying to help Iraqis by collecting arms from around the city and adding them to the cache.
Officials said that they were still investigating the case and that the exact circumstances of what happened remained unclear. There was no definitive report of who was responsible for the explosion.
As some of soldiers from the Army's Third Infantry Division tried to provide medical assistance immediately after the explosions, they were fired on by angry residents, officials said. An American official said that one reason there were few details about the number of casualties was because soldiers withdrew after the angry reaction by residents.
Shouts of "Down with America" rang through the neighborhood, called Zafaraniya, and a truck drove through the streets with six coffins, apparently for the dead.
One hospital said it had received 20 patients who were wounded in the blast. One American soldier was wounded in the attack, Central Command said.
At the ammunition dump, Sgt. Maj. Gary Coker said that both American and Iraqi ammunition was stored over several acres of ground protected by a high wall.
As the extent of the casualties became clear, residents said they were incensed that American soldiers continued to add to the dump, which the government of Saddam Hussein had put so close to their neighborhood.…
In the statement, the Central Command said, "An unknown number of individuals attacked U.S. Third Infantry Division soldiers who were guarding a cache of captured Iraqi ammunition near Baghdad this morning."
"During the attack, the assailant fired an unknown incendiary device into the cache, causing it to catch fire and explode," the statement said. "The explosion caused the destruction of the cache as well as a nearby building."
The attack came as American officials here announced that they had been making steady progress in restoring basic services to Baghdad.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/international/worldspecial/27IRAQ.html
At least six Iraqi civilians were killed on the outskirts of Baghdad today when explosions ripped through an ammunition dump guarded by American troops in their neighborhood. Military officials said a group of attackers had fired a flare into the cache, setting off the blasts.
A statement from the United States Central Command said six Iraqis had been killed and four wounded. But a military official in Baghdad said the toll could be as high as 40 people killed or wounded in the attack.
An official at the scene said that the flare set off a Soviet-made Frog battlefield rocket that was part of the Iraqi arsenal, and that it resulted in the explosion that caused most of the casualties.
The military, concerned about the reaction from the Iraqi public, began radio broadcasts tonight saying that the attack had been by people trying to undermine Iraq's future, and that Americans had been trying to help Iraqis by collecting arms from around the city and adding them to the cache.
Officials said that they were still investigating the case and that the exact circumstances of what happened remained unclear. There was no definitive report of who was responsible for the explosion.
As some of soldiers from the Army's Third Infantry Division tried to provide medical assistance immediately after the explosions, they were fired on by angry residents, officials said. An American official said that one reason there were few details about the number of casualties was because soldiers withdrew after the angry reaction by residents.
Shouts of "Down with America" rang through the neighborhood, called Zafaraniya, and a truck drove through the streets with six coffins, apparently for the dead.
One hospital said it had received 20 patients who were wounded in the blast. One American soldier was wounded in the attack, Central Command said.
At the ammunition dump, Sgt. Maj. Gary Coker said that both American and Iraqi ammunition was stored over several acres of ground protected by a high wall.
As the extent of the casualties became clear, residents said they were incensed that American soldiers continued to add to the dump, which the government of Saddam Hussein had put so close to their neighborhood.…
In the statement, the Central Command said, "An unknown number of individuals attacked U.S. Third Infantry Division soldiers who were guarding a cache of captured Iraqi ammunition near Baghdad this morning."
"During the attack, the assailant fired an unknown incendiary device into the cache, causing it to catch fire and explode," the statement said. "The explosion caused the destruction of the cache as well as a nearby building."
The attack came as American officials here announced that they had been making steady progress in restoring basic services to Baghdad.…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/international/worldspecial/27IRAQ.html
Friday, April 25, 2003
CyberJournalist.net: A Bloggers' Code of Ethics
CyberJournalist.net has created a model Bloggers' Code of Ethics, by modifying the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics for the Weblog world. CyberJournalist.net follows this code and urges other Weblogs to as well.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php
CyberJournalist.net has created a model Bloggers' Code of Ethics, by modifying the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics for the Weblog world. CyberJournalist.net follows this code and urges other Weblogs to as well.
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php
Words of War
The Pentagon last week announced the end of major offensive operations in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has already assigned the military to gather "lessons learned" from the conflict.
Here is a sampling of terms the military has used to describe the war, its planning, conduct and aftermath.
Catastrophic Success — In advance of the war, commanders prepared for a spectrum of possible outcomes, from prolonged combat to such a speedy collapse of the regime that it presented a new host of problems.
The concept of "catastrophic success" was summed up by Mr. Rumsfeld after Baghdad fell in just three weeks: "We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that. We needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water."
After-Action Review — All bureaucracies engage in post-mortems to analyze successes and shortcomings of a mission, enterprise or deal just completed. For the military, it is the After-Action Review. This formalized process does not truly end until the lessons learned are incorporated and change the behavior of the armed services.
The Pentagon has a related but speedier process for actions on a much smaller scale. In advance of Congressional testimony or a public briefing, civilian officials and military officers subject themselves to a tough preparatory grilling by colleagues, called a "murder board." And just after the testimony or briefing, the quick recap of how things went is called a "hot wash."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/weekinreview/20BOXB.html
The Pentagon last week announced the end of major offensive operations in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has already assigned the military to gather "lessons learned" from the conflict.
Here is a sampling of terms the military has used to describe the war, its planning, conduct and aftermath.
Catastrophic Success — In advance of the war, commanders prepared for a spectrum of possible outcomes, from prolonged combat to such a speedy collapse of the regime that it presented a new host of problems.
The concept of "catastrophic success" was summed up by Mr. Rumsfeld after Baghdad fell in just three weeks: "We did, however, recognize that there was at least a chance of catastrophic success, if you will, to reverse the phrase, that you could in a given place or places have a victory that occurred well before reasonable people might have expected it, and that we needed to be ready for that. We needed to be ready with medicine, with food, with water."
After-Action Review — All bureaucracies engage in post-mortems to analyze successes and shortcomings of a mission, enterprise or deal just completed. For the military, it is the After-Action Review. This formalized process does not truly end until the lessons learned are incorporated and change the behavior of the armed services.
The Pentagon has a related but speedier process for actions on a much smaller scale. In advance of Congressional testimony or a public briefing, civilian officials and military officers subject themselves to a tough preparatory grilling by colleagues, called a "murder board." And just after the testimony or briefing, the quick recap of how things went is called a "hot wash."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/weekinreview/20BOXB.html
I.R.S. to Ask Working Poor for Proof on Tax Credits
The Internal Revenue Service is planning to ask more than four million of the working poor who now claim a special tax credit to provide the most exhaustive proof of eligibility ever demanded of any class of taxpayers.
The I.R.S., trying to prevent errors and cheating, says it needs greater proof of eligibility months before people claim the credit on their tax returns because its efforts to find errors through audits after the fact have not worked. Treasury officials estimate that $6.5 billion to $10 billion is lost to improper payments each year.
But some tax experts criticize the higher burden of proof as unfair and a wasteful allocation of scarce I.R.S. enforcement dollars. They say that corporations, business owners, investors and partnerships deprive the government of many times what the working poor ever could — through both illegal means and legal shelters — yet these taxpayers face no demands to prove the validity of their claims in advance with certified records and sworn affidavits.
Others warn that the proposed I.R.S. rules will set a standard of proof so high that it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, for honest taxpayers to meet it. As a result, some people entitled to the tax credit will no longer receive it. And those who do manage to file successful claims will almost certainly have to pay commercial tax preparers more for helping them with the extra paperwork.
"There is this double standard," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington financed mainly by large foundations. "The losses are larger in other areas of the tax code, but somehow a different standard gets applied to this."
Instead of conventional welfare benefits, the earned-income tax credit provides an offset for the Social Security taxes low-income workers have already paid, along with a credit based on their earnings that is intended to give them an incentive to work. The credits vary according to income and family size, but no household with earned income above $34,692 is eligible.
The average tax credit, paid by the government by check, was $1,976 for households with children in 2001. That is less than the average food stamp benefit for households with children that year, $2,904. But the I.R.S.'s proposed rules would make it much harder to qualify for the tax credit than for food stamps.
Republicans and Democrats have both supported expanding the tax credit, but as the cost of the program has risen, many Republicans have been vehement in saying that the program is riddled with errors and fraud.
President Bush has praised the tax credit. But his administration has also complained about fraud, and the president has asked Congress for $100 million and 650 new employees to identify potentially erroneous claims before any money is paid out.
There is a similar effort with federally subsidized school lunches. Eric Bost, the under secretary of agriculture for food and nutrition, has increased efforts to weed out students who officials say are ineligible for free or subsidized school meals.
A Treasury official who insisted on not being identified said it was unfair to judge the size of the overpayment problem on the basis of just one year's tax credit, because the overpayments can continue year after year until each minor child listed on a false claim turns 18.
"It's a permanent thing," she said. "The I.R.S. tends to take things that are permanent very seriously, and put a lot of resources into them."
She added that screening out false claimants in advance could be characterized as a benefit to the poor, because such taxpayers would no longer have to have their claims audited, or scrounge for a way to pay back the money with interest if their claims are denied.
The new measures, which are expected to be published for public comment shortly, are scheduled to begin in July, when the first 45,000 taxpayers who fit into a "high-error category" will be asked to submit proof of their eligibility within six months. The program will accelerate to two million taxpayers in 2004. Eventually some four million "high error" claimants — a fifth of the 19 million who now claim the tax credit — will be required to submit advance proof of their eligibility.
The high-error category encompasses all claimants except married taxpayers filing joint returns and single mothers; it includes fathers with sole custody of children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents and others. They will have to provide papers proving that the relationship with the children claimed is as claimed, and that the children lived with them for at least six months of the year.
Only a few types of evidence will be acceptable to the I.R.S., and some are documents that will be difficult or impossible for people to get within the six-month deadline. To prove their relationships to children, for example, they are expected to produce marriage certificates, in some cases for other people's marriages; for marriages that took place abroad; and in a few cases for marriages of great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents.
Even American weddings may be hard to document adequately in less than six months. The State of California, for example, warns on its Web site that it may take "up to two to three years" to issue copies of marriage certificates, "due to budgetary constraints." The State of Ohio does not even issue copies of marriage certificates, only "marriage abstracts," which are not certified documents and take six months to obtain in any case.
New York State will not issue certificates to people who were married in New York City. New York City will not issue the certificates to anyone but the husband and wife, "or someone with written authorization from them." The I.R.S. plan does not offer any guidelines for the children of couples in common-law marriages.
To prove where a child lived, the I.R.S. will require claimants to produce school records, medical records, leases or similar documents that show both the filer's and the child's names and address, and state specifically the range of dates when they lived there together.
Filers who have no such documents will be allowed to produce instead a sworn affidavit from a school official, employer, member of the clergy or other person in a quasi-official capacity, specifically stating under penalty of perjury that he or she has "personal knowledge" that the taxpayer and child lived together during the dates cited. An affidavit from a landlord, who may live far away, would be accepted, but not one from a building superintendent who lives on the premises.
An I.R.S. briefing paper on the new rules states that in 1999 the Treasury lost $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion by paying earned-income tax credits to filers who should not have received them. A separate analysis, by two Treasury Department specialists, says subsequent measures may have reduced these erroneous payments by $2 billion.
By comparison, corporations managed to sidestep as much as $54 billion in 1998, by hiding about $155 billion in profits in tax shelters, according to a study by a Harvard economist, Mihir A. Desai.
The I.R.S.'s most recent attempt to measure tax cheating — based on 1988 data and published in 1992 — showed that the biggest tax dodgers by far were people running their own businesses. They cost the Treasury about $38 billion in lost 1992 taxes by failing to report all their income.
The same I.R.S. study found that people who wrongly took tax credits of all types — including earned-income tax credits — cost the Treasury less than $6 billion in 1992.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/business/25TAX.html?pagewanted=all&position=
The Internal Revenue Service is planning to ask more than four million of the working poor who now claim a special tax credit to provide the most exhaustive proof of eligibility ever demanded of any class of taxpayers.
The I.R.S., trying to prevent errors and cheating, says it needs greater proof of eligibility months before people claim the credit on their tax returns because its efforts to find errors through audits after the fact have not worked. Treasury officials estimate that $6.5 billion to $10 billion is lost to improper payments each year.
But some tax experts criticize the higher burden of proof as unfair and a wasteful allocation of scarce I.R.S. enforcement dollars. They say that corporations, business owners, investors and partnerships deprive the government of many times what the working poor ever could — through both illegal means and legal shelters — yet these taxpayers face no demands to prove the validity of their claims in advance with certified records and sworn affidavits.
Others warn that the proposed I.R.S. rules will set a standard of proof so high that it will be difficult, and in some cases impossible, for honest taxpayers to meet it. As a result, some people entitled to the tax credit will no longer receive it. And those who do manage to file successful claims will almost certainly have to pay commercial tax preparers more for helping them with the extra paperwork.
"There is this double standard," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington financed mainly by large foundations. "The losses are larger in other areas of the tax code, but somehow a different standard gets applied to this."
Instead of conventional welfare benefits, the earned-income tax credit provides an offset for the Social Security taxes low-income workers have already paid, along with a credit based on their earnings that is intended to give them an incentive to work. The credits vary according to income and family size, but no household with earned income above $34,692 is eligible.
The average tax credit, paid by the government by check, was $1,976 for households with children in 2001. That is less than the average food stamp benefit for households with children that year, $2,904. But the I.R.S.'s proposed rules would make it much harder to qualify for the tax credit than for food stamps.
Republicans and Democrats have both supported expanding the tax credit, but as the cost of the program has risen, many Republicans have been vehement in saying that the program is riddled with errors and fraud.
President Bush has praised the tax credit. But his administration has also complained about fraud, and the president has asked Congress for $100 million and 650 new employees to identify potentially erroneous claims before any money is paid out.
There is a similar effort with federally subsidized school lunches. Eric Bost, the under secretary of agriculture for food and nutrition, has increased efforts to weed out students who officials say are ineligible for free or subsidized school meals.
A Treasury official who insisted on not being identified said it was unfair to judge the size of the overpayment problem on the basis of just one year's tax credit, because the overpayments can continue year after year until each minor child listed on a false claim turns 18.
"It's a permanent thing," she said. "The I.R.S. tends to take things that are permanent very seriously, and put a lot of resources into them."
She added that screening out false claimants in advance could be characterized as a benefit to the poor, because such taxpayers would no longer have to have their claims audited, or scrounge for a way to pay back the money with interest if their claims are denied.
The new measures, which are expected to be published for public comment shortly, are scheduled to begin in July, when the first 45,000 taxpayers who fit into a "high-error category" will be asked to submit proof of their eligibility within six months. The program will accelerate to two million taxpayers in 2004. Eventually some four million "high error" claimants — a fifth of the 19 million who now claim the tax credit — will be required to submit advance proof of their eligibility.
The high-error category encompasses all claimants except married taxpayers filing joint returns and single mothers; it includes fathers with sole custody of children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents and others. They will have to provide papers proving that the relationship with the children claimed is as claimed, and that the children lived with them for at least six months of the year.
Only a few types of evidence will be acceptable to the I.R.S., and some are documents that will be difficult or impossible for people to get within the six-month deadline. To prove their relationships to children, for example, they are expected to produce marriage certificates, in some cases for other people's marriages; for marriages that took place abroad; and in a few cases for marriages of great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents.
Even American weddings may be hard to document adequately in less than six months. The State of California, for example, warns on its Web site that it may take "up to two to three years" to issue copies of marriage certificates, "due to budgetary constraints." The State of Ohio does not even issue copies of marriage certificates, only "marriage abstracts," which are not certified documents and take six months to obtain in any case.
New York State will not issue certificates to people who were married in New York City. New York City will not issue the certificates to anyone but the husband and wife, "or someone with written authorization from them." The I.R.S. plan does not offer any guidelines for the children of couples in common-law marriages.
To prove where a child lived, the I.R.S. will require claimants to produce school records, medical records, leases or similar documents that show both the filer's and the child's names and address, and state specifically the range of dates when they lived there together.
Filers who have no such documents will be allowed to produce instead a sworn affidavit from a school official, employer, member of the clergy or other person in a quasi-official capacity, specifically stating under penalty of perjury that he or she has "personal knowledge" that the taxpayer and child lived together during the dates cited. An affidavit from a landlord, who may live far away, would be accepted, but not one from a building superintendent who lives on the premises.
An I.R.S. briefing paper on the new rules states that in 1999 the Treasury lost $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion by paying earned-income tax credits to filers who should not have received them. A separate analysis, by two Treasury Department specialists, says subsequent measures may have reduced these erroneous payments by $2 billion.
By comparison, corporations managed to sidestep as much as $54 billion in 1998, by hiding about $155 billion in profits in tax shelters, according to a study by a Harvard economist, Mihir A. Desai.
The I.R.S.'s most recent attempt to measure tax cheating — based on 1988 data and published in 1992 — showed that the biggest tax dodgers by far were people running their own businesses. They cost the Treasury about $38 billion in lost 1992 taxes by failing to report all their income.
The same I.R.S. study found that people who wrongly took tax credits of all types — including earned-income tax credits — cost the Treasury less than $6 billion in 1992.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/25/business/25TAX.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
