On Monday a groundbreaking moment for the liberalization of copyright law occurred. The US Library of Congress granted iPhone consumers who practice what has come to be known as “jailbreaking,” exemption from prosecution under the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Jailbreaking is essentially when a consumer circumvents digital protections on smartphones to install unapproved third-party software or applications. Consumers are exempt from punishment when such jailbreaking is found to be “noninfringing.” The exemption was proposed by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) in 2008 who argued that consumers should be allowed to install third-party software to their phones if such was legally attained.

Exemptions determined by the Librarian expire every 3 years, meaning the previous 2006, 2003, and 2000 findings no longer apply. It is worth noting that Apple or other similar companies to remove digital protection from their software; rather, if a consumer chooses to circumvent the protection and is within the rules while doing so, they will not be held criminally responsible for the act of jailbreaking. Also, the exemption only applies for legally attained software, not for pirated applications.

Several other exemptions were announced on Monday, but they all are quite similar to their 2006 version.

The iPhone jailbreaking exception is certainly a victory for the EFF and other proponents of liberalized copyright law. Our civil liberties certainly grant consumers the right to utilize and alter their purchased technological devices however they see fit.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

Dana Priest and William Arkin spent two years investigating the government’s response to the September 11th attacks. Yesterday, a 16-page report on their findings was published in the Washington Post. The piece focuses on the “top secret” government that has developed. Priest and Arkin discovered an American government that does not budget spending appropriately, that has grown uncontrollably, and whose lines of responsibility are blurred beyond recognition to even those highest in power. Just how secretive is this “top secret America” you might ask? According to Priest and Arkin, it is secretive enough to hinder society from knowing how much money it costs, how many people it employs, and how many programs and agencies exist.

A government transformed in order to keep our citizens safe has become so large and secretive that the effectiveness of its spending and agencies is unknown. Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines  claims that “because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste, we consequently can’t effectively assess whether it is making us more safe.”

Many are arguing that Priest and Arkin are exaggerating the scope of “Top Secret America”, bringing in a touch of sensationalism to garner unnecessary concern from the reader. I, on the other hand, can’t help but be concerned. I hope that all readers will reflect upon the facts and interviews presented in the report and at least become skeptical of the government that we actually know very little about. Regardless of the effectiveness and intentions of the actions taken by “Top Secret America,” concern is warranted merely by the lack of knowledge and transparency that exists.

On Tuesday the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC must reconsider the fines that it administers for “unplanned expletives” that are expressed during live broadcasts. The FCC has a very strict policy on these so-called “fleeting expletives” on broadcast television, blatantly violating our First Amendment right to free speech. The court’s decision should please those who respect our First Amendment rights as their holding may potentially limit government control over the media and may stop what many view as the FCC evaluating the content of broadcasts rather than just their technicalities. This case comes at a time when there is already much debate about whether or not the FCC should play such a powerful role in media regulation. The FCC’s regulatory infringement severely violates our First Amendment rights and has certainly added a few flames to the already heated debate between those in favor of strict regulation and those in support of free speech and press.

Perhaps this case may result in greater deference toward the First Amendment, a right that has so frequently been violated and given little respect. Those in support of regulation from the FCC cite the responsibility that the organization has to “protect the public”, as broadcasts are in fact public. They argue that the use of profanity and expletives cannot be completely tolerated, as children are often watching the broadcasts. This argument does seem to raise some valid points, as public opinion does seem to be that there is far too much vulgarity and profanity on television in this day in age. However, if organizations are given the power to regulate the media and our speech in order to adhere to arbitrary standards of what is in the public’s interest, how will a line ever be drawn? Our fundamental rights to free speech and free press as guaranteed to us by the First Amendment certainly seem to outweigh the potential benefits of altering such freedom.

I’d like to thank Connecticut’s Department of Public Safety. The DPS was very welcoming and helpful throughout our visit, during which we looked through the 2003 DHS (Department of Homeland Security) Grants Files and learned that the funds were primarily administered for CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive) equipment. Such was the case due to the fact that the grants were being allocated shortly after 9/11 and recent Anthrax incidents. Thus, most of the money was spent on decontamination facilities and HazMat (Hazardous Materials) response efforts. Once again, thank you very much to the Connecticut Department of Public Safety for being transparent and allowing our group to visit their facility.

Recently the EFF filed an amicus brief urging a Federal Judge to overturn the indictment charges against the operators of Wiseguys Tickets, Inc., a ticket re-selling service. The four defendants are being charged with purchasing tickets from Ticketmaster by automated means. Such action violated Ticketmaster’s terms of service, and thus, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In the brief, the EFF argues that prosecution is broadening the scope of the CFAA, giving websites the ability to create unreasonable terms of service and to impose criminal liability onto its users. It also appears as it the prosecution is limiting the access to information and online services without having the necessary and compelling government interest to do so.

If the prosecution is to prevail then users can be held criminally liable for not following all arbitrary terms of services that websites decide to impose upon them. An online service website can impose unfair requirements in their terms of services, as did Ticketmaster, in order to limit the success of their competitors. Such a tactic hinders the free market and will result in a lack of media advancement. The prosecution claims this is about consumers’ free access to media tickets, however, it seems that quite the opposite is the case. The charge against the defendants is a hindrance to free access.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1986 intended to reduce the hacking of computer systems and to address federal computer-related offenses. The CFAA governs cases with a compelling federal interest, where computers of the federal government or certain financial institutions are involved. It also governs computers used in interstate and foreign commerce. Under the CFAA, criminal offenses are typically accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data or information from a department or agency of the US. Some other punishable actions include offenses such as accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud or traffic unauthorized information. How exactly the case at hand applies to this Act is unclear. It certainly seems the government is broadening the scope of the Act in order to crack down on terms of service violators. However, such a stance is bound to limit future innovation among online services and will intimidate users from seeking all available resources. The CFAA is meant to prevent trespass and theft, not meant to hinder innovation.

The possible implication of a guilty finding is that anyone who ignores or doesn’t read a website’s terms of service could be held liable for computer criminal conduct according to the reasoning of the government. If the prosecution is to be successful then it seems an unacceptable power dynamic among the online service and the user will be created. Ticketmaster and other online services will have the tremendous power over its users to decide what is criminal conduct and what isn’t.