ISPs free from paying royalties

Internet service providers should not have to pay royalties to the music industry for files downloaded by their customers, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday.

The court decided 9-0 that companies providing access to the web, are merely "intermediaries" in the downloading process and are therefore not bound by federal copyright legislation.

"This sounds like a big victory for the ISPs, who had been arguing loudly not be held responsible for delivering content that is not their own," Michael Geist, a legal professor at Ottawa University and one of the country's top authorities on digital copyright issues, told globeandmail.com.

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers, which includes subsidiaries of high-tech giants Bell, Sprint, AOL, MCI, IBM and Yahoo, fought the effort by the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN).

CAIP argued that their services act as a conduit from websites to surfers, transmitting content to which they are not privy.

Upholding the attempt by the music industry to force ISPs to pay tariffs "would have put Canada at odds with most of the rest of the world in terms of liability for caching and created a significant impediment for ISPs and users across the country," Mr. Geist said.

SOCAN had also wanted Canadian copyright law extended beyond Canada's borders to offshore websites accessed by Canadians.

Since ISPs are not the publishers of the material, but simply pipelines for it, they should be protected by the measures for intermediaries within the copyright laws, Mr. Geist said.

He noted that this is the second Supreme Court decision that has clarified that people who merely provide devices or services enabling copying are not responsible for copying that runs afoul of the law.

In the first, and analogous, decision last March, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court judgment that said the Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body for Ontario lawyers, had violated the copyrights of three legal publishers by selling their work at the Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toronto without paying a licensing fee.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the Society could not be held responsible for infringements that had taken place simply because the group owned the machine on which the copying occurred.

In this case, SOCAN took a simpler and broader legal approach than that taken by the recording industry in the United States, where specific file-sharing services and the individuals who download their music were hunted and litigated piecemeal.

SOCAN recognized that it is simply inefficient to go after the websites and users one by one, deciding instead that the ISPs were the best parties to try to target for royalties.

High Court: Porn Law Too Broad

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of the law had said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy.

"Today's ruling from the court demonstrates that there are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults," said ACLU associate litigation director Ann Beeson in a statement. Beeson argued the case before the court in 2001 and again last March.

"By upholding the order stopping Attorney General (John) Ashcroft from enforcing this questionable federal law, the court has made it safe for artists, sex educators, and Web publishers to communicate with adults about sexuality without risking jail time," Beeson said.

The court did not end the long fight over the law, however. The majority sent the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

In the ruling (PDF), the majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law. Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is "harmful to minors" within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see pornographic material online.

For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, sweeps with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote.

"There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law took effect, he wrote.

Kennedy said that filtering software "is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials."

He said that so far, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term. The year's marquee cases involving presidential power to dealing with suspected terrorists were announced Monday, and mostly represented a loss for the Bush administration.

Tuesday's pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last.

Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without running afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.

Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court's free-speech standards.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since.

In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld.

Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced "answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality," Breyer wrote.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of websites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears.

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not.

That is a tricky rule to enforce in the murky and anonymous reaches of the Internet. Most websites, chat rooms and other Internet venues are available to adults and minors alike, and commercial transactions do not take place face to face.

The Internet also presents a difficulty in translating old rules about what children could see and what they could not.

In writing the 1998 law, Congress said "contemporary community standards" should guide what is harmful to children. Civil liberties defenders said that the standard would lead to the most prudish place in America having veto power over the most liberal, because Internet material is available to them both.

The ACLU also said the community standards idea would force legitimate website operators to self-censor, for fear of running afoul of someone's idea of what is inappropriate for children.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and ruled that the standards issue alone made the law unconstitutional. The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered a partial victory for the government two years ago.

The court said at that time that, by itself, the community standards issue did not make the law unconstitutional. The justices then sent the case back for a fuller examination of the other free speech objections raised by the ACLU.

The Philadelphia-based federal appeals court then struck down the law a second time, on much broader First Amendment grounds, and the administration again appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

Man tosses undies in reservoir, fined

ERIE, Pa. (AP) -- A man who soiled his underwear and tried to dispose of the evidence by tossing it over the fence of the city's largest reservoir has been fined $5,000.

The city bomb squad and hazardous materials crew responded after an Erie Water Works employee spotted a black bag near the 33-million gallon Sigsbee Reservoir last month.

The reservoir was shut down for several hours while the bomb squad X-rayed the bag and hazardous materials crews waited to test it.

Police tracked down Troy Musil, 18, of Erie. He told police he'd been ill and soiled his underwear. He changed at a friend's house, then climbed over two barbed-wire-topped fences to ditch the skivvies.

Musil pleaded guilty last week to defiant trespass. The judge gave Musil a 90-day suspended jail sentence and ordered him to pay $500 a month for 10 months to the emergency agencies that responded.

If he doesn't pay, the judge said Musil will be jailed. A telephone number for Musil couldn't be found.

< Yeah, that's at least $5000 worth of wrongdoing there... >

The Penis-Pump Judge

Senate Approves Indecency Fines Hike

By a 99-1 margin, the U.S. Senate today approved an amendment that would dramatically increase indecency fines. First introduced and later re-written by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), the measure was attached to a $447 billion Defense Department funding bill.

Under the amendment, the maximum fine for a single indecency incident would climb from $27,500 to $275,000 for licensees, for a maximum of $3 million a day. In a significant departure from the indecency legislation passed by the House, the Senate bill does not increase the fine for air talents. That fine, which currently stands at a maximum of $11,000, has never actually been enforced. AFTRA Assistant National Executive Director for Public Policy and Strategic Planning Rebecca Rhine said, "While legitmate concerns still exist about the possible chilling effect that large broadcaster fines may place upon free speech over the airwaves, we are gratified and relieved that the legislation avoids the pitfall of fining individual performers, announcers, broadcasters and sound recording artists."

Before the new fine structure becomes law, the Senate must approve the entire defense spending bill. Differences between the Senate and House versions would then have to be ironed out in joint conference, before the measure could be sent to President Bush -- who could sign or veto it.

Also approved today was a provision by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) that would delay by one year implementation of cross-media ownership rules relaxed by the FCC in June 2003. The Senate also voted in favor of an amendment by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) that would permit the Commission to protect small market stations hit with sky high indecency fines for airing network or syndicated programming they had no control over.

Florida to Tax Home Networks

Florida state officials are considering taxing home networks that have more than one computer, under a modified 1985 state law that was intended to tax the few businesses that used internal communication networks instead of the local telephone company.

Officials from Florida's Department of Revenue held a meeting on Tuesday to see whether the law would apply to wired households, and exactly who would be taxed. About 200 people attended, including community and business representatives.

In 1985 the state passed a law to tax businesses using their own communications networks, because otherwise the state could not collect tax revenue on the businesses' local telephone service. In 2001, that law was expanded to make "any system that is used for voice or data that connects multiple users with the use of switching or routing technology" taxable up to 16 percent.

The law is so broad that it would apply to networked computers, wireless services, two-way radios and even fax machines -- or "substitute communications systems," as the state calls them. The tax would be applicable (PDF) to the costs of operating such a substitute communications system, not to the purchase of the system's components.

In some cases, it appears the tax would be collected by the providers of communications services such as wireless companies or voice-over-IP firms. The tax would be added to the user's bill and then turned over to the Department of Revenue.

But some substitute communications services don't require a service plan. For those, the state could take the tax from the amount deducted on business, and perhaps personal, tax filings.

"According to my accountant, the way the law is written, if my tax filing includes deductions for the repair or maintenance of my two computer and one printer network, those costs will be subject to state communication taxes," said graphic artist Linda Kellman, who works from home. "Self-employed people get slammed with insane taxes everywhere, and I've sadly but grudgingly accepted that. But this tax, if they ever try to collect it, would be the last straw. Can I outsource my network to a more sensible state, do you think?"

Florida businesses and residents -- and even some officials in the Florida Department of Revenue -- agree that the wording of the law is too broad.

In May, the Florida Senate unanimously passed a bill that would have prevented collection of the tax until 2006, during which time the law could be carefully reviewed. The bill was then sent to the House, but wasn't voted on before the summer break, clearing the way for officials to begin collecting the tax.

As a result, the Florida Department of Revenue, which, according to local newspaper reports, was in favor of the bill to delay the collection of the tax, must now begin to address how the tax should be implemented.

"The tax language is so broad that virtually any communication technologies in your home or office could be subject to this tax," said Chris Hart, spokesman for ITFlorida, a not-for-profit industry organization for the state's technology professionals. "It's difficult to imagine a more anti-technology, anti-business tax. It directly attacks the efficient use of information technology."

Florida businesses aren't in favor of the tax.

It also could tax almost any Florida resident who uses any sort of modern communications technology, something that Florida's battalions of retirees on fixed incomes have just begun to become aware of, according to Hart.

"Information on this issue is starting to reach the general public, and it probably isn't widely understood just yet," he said. "However, once people do realize how this tax could impact them on a personal level, they wake up very fast."

"All my life, I've willingly paid my fair share of taxes in exchange for community services," said 73-year-old George Fedoro, a retired engineer who now lives in Boca Raton. "But this tax is not fair and could turn senior citizens into criminals, because no one that I know can or will pay it."

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush would have to approve any rule the tax department suggests. Bush has said he isn't in favor of the tax, but many fear he may be swayed by city and county government officials. The tax would go, in part, toward school construction and other projects.

Additional meetings on the proposed rules for the tax will be held in other locations around the state later in the year, Department of Revenue officials said.

If the law is implemented, Florida would have the most wide-reaching state tax on technology. But it may not be the last -- state officials estimate enforcement of the tax could bring in more than $1 billion a year in revenue for the state.

Florida: Felon List Not for Copy

ORLANDO, Florida -- Florida Department of State officials, in response to a lawsuit by CNN, said nobody is guaranteed the right to a copy of a list of felons who may be purged from voter rolls before the presidential election.

The state is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with CNN and the Florida First Amendment Foundation over public-records requests for the felon list. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, state officials argued that releasing the names of felons would violate the privacy of those on the list.

In an argument against the lawsuit, lawyers for the state wrote that Florida law requires records "be open for personal inspection by any person," but there is no requirement that copies of the records be provided.

It also argued that a broad release of those names would offer no public service, denying CNN's assertion that the list might disenfranchise the 47,000 people whose names are on the list. While the felons have been flagged in the database, state officials argued that none would be purged from rolls unless county supervisors determine through further research that the convictions are valid.

Florida is one of seven states where convicted felons lose their right to vote. Felons may apply to have that right restored once their sentence is served.

Few have been able to obtain a copy of the list of names because of laws regarding voter-registration books. The purge list is considered part of the Central Voter Database, which has statutory exemptions from the state's public-records laws. Anyone can look at the list of names, but only specific political entities such as candidates and political action committees can have a copy, and the copies can only be used for campaign purposes.

The CNN lawsuit was filed after a public-records request for the list was denied in May. The First Amendment Foundation filed a motion of intervention in June, and Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the network.

In its complaint, CNN attorneys wrote "there is an enormous public interest in scrutinizing the potential disenfranchisement of such a large pool of citizens in what portends to be a closely contested presidential race."

Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, said the state's arguments simply don't fly. The exclusion from the state's Government-in-the-Sunshine law is itself unconstitutional because it does not provide any benefit or protection for the public, she said. She also said that as a list of people who may be purged from voting rolls, the felon list should not be considered the same as voter registration information in the first place.

The plaintiffs in the case say they want a full list so that its validity may be independently verified. Florida officials hired a private firm in 2000 to flag felons and released a list with 173,142 names, many of which proved to be inaccurate. In fact, hundreds of legitimate voters may have been turned away from precincts. President Bush ultimately won in Florida by 537 votes after a 36-day recount. The 25 electoral votes from the state resulted in Bush winning the presidency.

God's Number Is Up

Naked faith is what religious enterprise was always about, until science became the preeminent system of natural verisimilitude, tempting the faithful to employ its wares in the practice of preternatural belief. Although most efforts in this genre offer little more than scientistic cant and religious blather, a few require a response from the magisterium of science, if for no other reason than to protect that of religion; if faith is tethered to science, what happens when the science changes? One of the most innovative works in this genre is The Probability of God (Crown Forum, 2003), by Stephen D. Unwin, a risk management consultant in Ohio, whose early physics work on quantum gravity showed him that the universe is probabilistic and whose later research in risk analysis led him to this ultimate computation.

Unwin rejects most scientific attempts to prove the divine--such as the anthropic principle and intelligent design--concluding that this "is not the sort of evidence that points in either direction, for or against." Instead he employs Bayesian probabilities, a statistical method devised by 18th-century Presbyterian minister and mathematician Reverend Thomas Bayes. Unwin begins with a 50 percent probability that God exists (because 50?50 represents "maximum ignorance"), then applies a modified Bayesian theorem:

< snip theorum graphic >

The probability of God's existence after the evidence is considered is a function of the probability before times D ("Divine Indicator Scale"): 10 indicates the evidence is 10 times as likely to be produced if God exists, 2 is two times as likely if God exists, 1 is neutral, 0.5 is moderately more likely if God does not exist, and 0.1 is much more likely if God does not exist. Unwin offers the following figures for six lines of evidence: recognition of goodness (D = 10), existence of moral evil (D = 0.5), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (prayers) (D = 2), extranatural miracles (resurrection) (D = 1), and religious experiences (D = 2).

Plugging these figures into the above formula (in sequence, where the Pafter figure for the first computation is used for the Pbefore figure in the second computation, and so on for all six Ds), Unwin concludes: "The probability that God exists is 67%." Remarkably, he then confesses: "This number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence. It isn't as if we have calculated the value of pi for the first time."

Indeed, based on my own theory of the evolutionary origins of morality and the sociocultural foundation of religious beliefs and faith, I would begin (as Unwin does) with a 50 percent probability of God's existence and plug in these figures: recognition of goodness (D = 0.5), existence of moral evil (D = 0.1), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (D = 1), extranatural miracles (D = 0.5), and religious experiences (D = 0.1). I estimate the probability that God exists is 0.02, or 2 percent.

Regardless, the subjective component in the formula relegates its use to an entertaining exercise in thinking--on par with mathematical puzzles--but little more. In my opinion, the question of God's existence is a scientifically insoluble one. Thus, all such scientistic theologies are compelling only to those who already believe. Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic. This is faith's inescapable weakness. It is also, undeniably, its greatest power.

God's Number Is Up

Naked faith is what religious enterprise was always about, until science became the preeminent system of natural verisimilitude, tempting the faithful to employ its wares in the practice of preternatural belief. Although most efforts in this genre offer little more than scientistic cant and religious blather, a few require a response from the magisterium of science, if for no other reason than to protect that of religion; if faith is tethered to science, what happens when the science changes? One of the most innovative works in this genre is The Probability of God (Crown Forum, 2003), by Stephen D. Unwin, a risk management consultant in Ohio, whose early physics work on quantum gravity showed him that the universe is probabilistic and whose later research in risk analysis led him to this ultimate computation.

Unwin rejects most scientific attempts to prove the divine--such as the anthropic principle and intelligent design--concluding that this "is not the sort of evidence that points in either direction, for or against." Instead he employs Bayesian probabilities, a statistical method devised by 18th-century Presbyterian minister and mathematician Reverend Thomas Bayes. Unwin begins with a 50 percent probability that God exists (because 50?50 represents "maximum ignorance"), then applies a modified Bayesian theorem:

< snip theorum graphic >

The probability of God's existence after the evidence is considered is a function of the probability before times D ("Divine Indicator Scale"): 10 indicates the evidence is 10 times as likely to be produced if God exists, 2 is two times as likely if God exists, 1 is neutral, 0.5 is moderately more likely if God does not exist, and 0.1 is much more likely if God does not exist. Unwin offers the following figures for six lines of evidence: recognition of goodness (D = 10), existence of moral evil (D = 0.5), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (prayers) (D = 2), extranatural miracles (resurrection) (D = 1), and religious experiences (D = 2).

Plugging these figures into the above formula (in sequence, where the Pafter figure for the first computation is used for the Pbefore figure in the second computation, and so on for all six Ds), Unwin concludes: "The probability that God exists is 67%." Remarkably, he then confesses: "This number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence. It isn't as if we have calculated the value of pi for the first time."

Indeed, based on my own theory of the evolutionary origins of morality and the sociocultural foundation of religious beliefs and faith, I would begin (as Unwin does) with a 50 percent probability of God's existence and plug in these figures: recognition of goodness (D = 0.5), existence of moral evil (D = 0.1), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (D = 1), extranatural miracles (D = 0.5), and religious experiences (D = 0.1). I estimate the probability that God exists is 0.02, or 2 percent.

Regardless, the subjective component in the formula relegates its use to an entertaining exercise in thinking--on par with mathematical puzzles--but little more. In my opinion, the question of God's existence is a scientifically insoluble one. Thus, all such scientistic theologies are compelling only to those who already believe. Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic. This is faith's inescapable weakness. It is also, undeniably, its greatest power.

A Computer Test to Catch Boys Headed for the Edge

WITHOUT TeenScreen, there is no telling whether Simon would have been rescued from his depression.

Through TeenScreen, a computerized mental-health test, Simon found out he suffered from the illness and soon stopped cutting himself, and falling further into a mental abyss.

"I knew that somebody understood or was out there," he said, explaining his feelings after taking the test, which was developed by Columbia University. "It was a matter of someone extending help to me instead of my finding it."

Simon was a sophomore at an elite New York City public high school when he took the test many years ago; today, he is a 20-year-old college student studying information systems.

Leslie McGuire, the director of TeenScreen and a social worker, said Simon was just the person, those suicidal or depressed, that TeenScreen is intended to seek out. In 13 years, Ms. McGuire said, the program has screened 43,000 teenagers nationwide, making it possibly the largest screening effort of that age group in the country.

Started by Dr. David Shaffer, the chief of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry division at Columbia, TeenScreen aims to offer mental-health checkups to all teenagers before they leave high school.

The screening, medical specialists said, is particularly important given the statistics. Suicides among young men from 15 to 19 years old, which TeenScreen primarily focuses on, ranks second among young adults through their early 20's.

Male teenagers in the 15- to 19-year-old group are five times more likely than girls to kill themselves. Girls, who make more suicide attempts, usually rely on pills or cutting their wrists, leaving more time for rescue or a decision to seek help. Boys tend to hang or shoot themselves.

Fortunately, the number of suicides among teenagers has been dropping, while research into the causes has increased, with medical specialists pointing to disorders like depression, a family history of suicide, psychiatric illnesses and stress as some of the causes.

Drug and alcohol use also contributes significantly to suicide attempts, especially with boys, who tend to abuse such substances more than girls.

"Alcohol in certain individuals leads to suicides," Dr. Shaffer said, adding that 40 percent of suicides among boys 17 to 19 years old are related to drinking. Getting drunk several times a month, being arrested while drinking and driving, going to school while drinking or losing relationships because of it are the most telling signs of alcohol misuse. One reason for the link to drinking may be that alcohol reduces serotonin levels, which tend to be lower in males.

Dr. Shaffer said a teenage boy was a high suicide risk if he drinks heavily, is prone to outbursts or impulsive behavior, or is "getting into trouble because of his drinking and usually feeling bad about it."

Laurie Flynn, the director of the Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and Treatment, which is the umbrella group for TeenScreen at Columbia, noted that impulsiveness in adolescent boys can be more common than with girls. "When they have something happen ? flunking a chemistry test ? they can lose it." Girls, on the other hand, might cry in reaction, she said.

In addition, a subgroup of boys who are vulnerable to suicide are those who experience performance anxiety; they exaggerate the significance of pending tests, for example, and predict the worst (even if they have done well in the past). Difficult to identify, these boys are popular at school because they work hard and do not get into trouble.

The screening test works like this: after parents sign a consent, the students take a 10-minute computerized test during school. The test is usually administered by a mental-health professional and questions assess for eight psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, social phobia, suicide and alcohol and marijuana abuse. The questions are direct. This, for one, addresses social phobia: "In the last three months, have you often felt very nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?"

One incentive for taking the test, some students admit, is a chance to miss class. The test is followed up with a meeting with a parent.

Ms. McGuire said that students generally wanted to take the test.

"No one else is asking them these questions," she said.

For boys, who are known for their unwillingness or inability to open up, a computerized questionnaire can provide a safe, confidential avenue for expression.

Simon was fortunate. After taking TeenScreen, he was able to persuade his parents, immigrants from Hong Kong, to come in and talk with school administrators.

"My parents' impressions of mental health is of people locked up in padded rooms," he said.

Ultimately, Simon saw a counselor during school whenever, he said, he needed to "babble." He feels more self-confident now and comfortable with himself. "It empowered me to have a voice," he said, "to not be afraid to discuss my thoughts and feelings."

Push to Allow DVDs to Be 'Sanitized' Alarms Studios

WASHINGTON ? Which should prevail, artistic freedom or a tool that could be used to protect children from foul language, nudity and violence in movies?

Over Hollywood's long-standing objections, some members of Congress are endorsing legislation that would allow DVDs to be "sanitized" ? stripped of scenes that parents don't want their children to see or hear ? without first requiring the consent of studios or directors.

To the movie studios, the bill is merely the most outrageous of a wave of anti-indecency legislation moving through Congress, spurred by pop star Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance at the Super Bowl.

As part of that continuing crackdown, the Senate on Tuesday attached a "decency" provision as a rider to its annual defense bill. The measure would increase penalties tenfold for radio and TV broadcasters that violate federal indecency rules. Approved 99 to 1, the bill would allow the Federal Communications Commission to raise fines from a maximum of $27,500 to $275,000 per violation, up to $3 million a day per broadcaster.

The House earlier this year overwhelmingly approved a similar measure, virtually ensuring tougher penalties will reach President Bush's desk. The House version, which passed 391 to 22, would raise fines to a maximum of $500,000 per violation and require a hearing on revoking a broadcaster's license after the third offense.

House and Senate members will now try to iron out differences in the two chambers' bills, including an element in the Senate legislation that could temper the growth of media conglomerates by invalidating newly relaxed ownership rules.

Yet for all the action in Congress on Tuesday, some in Hollywood are starting to focus on the DVD-sanitizing legislation that's waiting just offstage.

A House bill now gaining momentum would make it so that sanitizing films do not violate federal copyright law as long as the edited copies are restricted to home use, as opposed to being shown in theaters. DVDs are sanitized through filters that can remove any kind of material regarded as offensive ? profanity, nudity or violence, for example.

Called the Family Movie Act, the bill awaits action in the Judiciary Committee, where it has won an endorsement from the influential chairman of the panel, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R.-Wis.). No comparable bill has been introduced in the Senate.

The legislation was introduced in response to a fight being waged in federal court in Colorado by the studios, the Directors Guild of America and 16 prominent directors against ClearPlay Inc., a Utah company that sells filtering software and DVD players with special filtering features built in.

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, told a congressional committee last week that such editing without the input of the directors and studios "disfigures the original vision of the creator."

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood) mustered a different argument against the legislation, saying it would send the wrong message to parents. "Technology should not become an excuse for avoiding the hard work of parenting," he said.

But Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), the bill's chief sponsor, suggested that Berman's position didn't reflect the challenges facing households in which kids are constantly being bombarded by the media.

"It's unrealistic and impractical to expect parents to monitor their children's video habits 24 hours a day," Smith said. "They need help."

The studios and the Directors Guild contend that Smith's bill, by removing dialogue and scenes, can ruin entire films.

In "Austin Powers in Goldmember," for example, 22 minutes were edited from the 94-minute film, said Ernie Getto, an attorney representing the guild in a lawsuit against film sanitizers. "It's not watchable," he said. "It makes virtually no sense."

For his part, Berman called the nude scenes in "Schindler's List" crucial to conveying "the debasement and dehumanization suffered by concentration camp prisoners."

The lawmaker also warned that unauthorized editing could lead to political mischief. "Anti-tobacco groups could offer a filter that strips all movies of scenes depicting tobacco use," Berman said. "Racists might strip 'Jungle Fever' of scenes showing interracial romance between Wesley Snipes and Annabella Sciorra, perhaps leaving only those scenes depicting interracial conflict."

Critics of the legislation also say that parents already have the MPAA's rating system to keep children from watching movies they shouldn't see.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has not taken a position on the House bill. But he hinted that it might be best for both sides to forge some sort of compromise. "The fastest and surest way to protect and promote family-friendly viewing rights," he said, "is for artists and consumers to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution."

< Wow, imagine that, something we can side with the record-companies with, anti-censorship and artistic integrity >

Beastie Boys CD installs virus

According to a recent thread at BugTraq, an executable file is automatically and silently installed on the user's machine when the CD is loaded. The file is said to be a driver that prevents users from ripping the CD (and perhaps others), and attacks both Windows boxen and Macs.

The infected CD is being distributed worldwide except in the USA and UK, which prevents us from giving a firsthand report. However, according to hearsay, we gather that the Windows version exploits the 'autorun' option, and that the Mac version affects the auto play option.

On Windows, when a CD is loaded, a text file called autorun.inf is read, and any instructions within it are executed. In this case, the machine is instructed to install some manner of DRM driver that prevents copying. We haven't seen either the .inf file or any of the executables, so we can't say how or at what level it accomplishes this - or if indeed it actually does accomplish this.

But assuming that the unconfirmed reports are accurate, we have here a media company infecting users' machines silently with a file that affects a computer's functionality, without first obtaining informed consent: a likely violation of pretty much every jurisdiction's anti-hacking laws. It's possible to foresee criminal charges being brought at some point: after all, having a good reason for spreading malware has never been much of a defence in court. And a file that alters a computer's functioning without the owner's informed consent is the very definition of malware. Because this malware can be transferred from machine to machine on a removable disk, and requires user interaction to spread, it is, quite simply, a computer virus. (A worm, on the other hand, is distinguished by its ability to spread without user interaction.)

CD virus protection
Let's look at the ways this autorun business can be defeated. It's quite easy to disable autorun in Windows by holding down the Shift key when loading a CD. Unfortunately, this has to be done each time the CD is played. However, it's easy to insert the CD once with the Shift key depressed, and then simply rip the tracks to the hard disk. You can then use the CD in other devices, and listen to your corresponding MP3s or whatever on your computer.

< snip (description of how to disable it)>

Keeping name private can be crime, court rules

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has again given police greater power to stop and question suspects, ruling Monday that a Nevada cowboy could not refuse to give his name to officers who tried to question him along a roadside.

The case was the fifth victory for law enforcement this term in cases involving search and seizure by law enforcement.

The narrow 5-4 ruling was seen as a defeat for privacy advocates.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, the Nevada rancher at the center of the case, had become a minor celebrity for those who believed he was standing up for his constitutional rights.

He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.

In its ruling announced Monday, the justices upheld Hiibel's misdemeanor conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Asking questions is an essential part of police investigation. In the ordinary sense a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."

Kennedy noted that having identification has benefits to both police and suspect. "Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted of another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder," he wrote. "On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere."

In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said that because Hiibel was the target of a police investigation, he "acted well within his rights when he opted to stand mute."

Stevens said, "There is no reason why the subject of police interrogation based on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, should have any lesser protection."

Monday's ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information, according to a report from The Associated Press. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.

Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The court in previous weeks ruled for police in four other search and seizure cases that tested the limits of police intrusions and privacy rights.

In the other cases the court:

Allowed police to kick down a suspect's door after only 15 seconds if they believed the suspect was dangerous, or that evidence could be destroyed.

Upheld "informational roadblocks" where officers seek the public's help to solve crimes. A man was arrested at such a stop for driving erratically.

Permitted drugs found in a suspect's car to be used as evidence after federal agents dismantled his car at a border checkpoint.

Ruled lawful a suspect's arrest next to his vehicle after drugs were found inside the car. The court said it was not always necessary for the suspect to be inside his car to have evidence used against him.

Some legal analysts say these cases could have broad implications for law enforcement and the public.

"We have this idealistic notion in this country that we can live in kind of splendid anonymity, we can walk around and be left alone," said Edward Lazarus, a former Supreme Court clerk and author of a book on the justices. "And this question really raises, in the post-9/11 era, the issue of whether that's really true anymore."

According to an AP report, justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554.

Marshmallow error lands woman in shackles

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- A teacher's aide who forgot to put away her marshmallows and hot chocolate at Yellowstone National Park last year was taken from her cruise ship cabin in handcuffs and hauled before a judge, accused of failing to pay the year-old fine.

Hope Clarke, 32, crying and in leg shackles, told the judge Friday she was rousted at 6:30 a.m. by federal agents after the ship returned to Miami from Mexico. She insisted that she had paid the $50 fine before she left Yellowstone, which has strict rules about food storage to prevent wildlife from eating human food.

Customs agents meet all cruise ships arriving from foreign ports and run random checks of passenger lists, and a warrant claiming Clarke had not paid the fine was found in the federal law enforcement database.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Outerbridge conceded there were some "discrepancies," but suggested to the judge that Clarke appear in court again to clear up the warrant.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John O'Sullivan, who had a copy of a citation indicating the fine had been paid, apologized to Clarke, who spent nearly nine hours in detention, and demanded that the U.S. attorney's office determine what went wrong.

Zach Mann, spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, called the arrest "an unfortunate set of circumstances." He added, "We were acting on what we believed was accurate information."

Web-Linked Cameras Let Parents Play Big Brother

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Big Brother is getting a whole lot of little siblings.

New surveillance cameras allow anyone with a broadband Internet connection to keep a 24-hour watch on nearly anything from anywhere.

Want to monitor your house from the office? Connect one of the cameras to an Ethernet or wireless computer network at home, then navigate your browser to a Web site linked to an Internet address assigned to the camera.

These Internet protocol (IP) cameras, made by companies including Cisco Systems Inc's Linksys unit and Sweden's Axis Communications, function as stand-alone servers that stream video over the Web.

In Europe alone, IP cameras are expected to account for about 20 percent of a surveillance market forecast to be worth 376.5 million euros ($460 million) in annual sales by 2008, up from less than five percent today, according to IMS Research.

"It's going to be one of the biggest trends in the surveillance market over the next few years without a doubt," said Simon Harris, a senior IMS analyst. "The companies that don't have good product offerings for (Internet) network surveillance are going to lose market share."

In a sign of the market's growth, the organizers of last week's Computex computer trade show in Taipei set up a security pavilion for the first time, populated by about 25 vendors.

Systems ran the range from simple configurations allowing parents to check on their children, to 16-camera networks providing multi-point remote surveillance of office buildings.

Extra bells and whistles included cameras controlled via the Internet to scan a room, systems that trigger remote alarms when motion is detected, and ones whose views are accessible over cellphones and wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs).

Such systems offer the advantage of relative affordability, since they use existing broadband infrastructure. Off-the-shelf software-equipped cameras cost just US$200-$300 apiece, said vendors at Computex, most of them smaller firms. More consumer oriented models, such as the Linksys model, can cost even less.

Broadband-based systems are also more easily integrated with related systems that regulate functions such as access control, said Jill Chu, a sales specialist with G-Star Communications Inc.

A drawback is the complexity of setting up systems, said Jin Whan, a product engineer at 3JTech Co Ltd.
"The configuration is the hard part, but once you get that figured out the operation is easy," he said at Computex.

For that reason, most of 3JTech's biggest customers so far have been specialty security companies, such as Napco Security Systems Inc, a supplier to Tyco International Ltd's ADT Security Systems Inc.

"Sales are picking up gradually," Whan said. "There's more and more people asking for IP cameras. The technology is getting more accepted because people are moving to the Internet more." (US$1=0.8188 euro)

How Liberty was lost on the internet

'The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press"', wrote John Stuart Mill nearly 150 years ago. But his hopes have not been fulfilled. In the vast digital land of cyberspace, private companies regulate, eliminate and censor what we want to say, publish or communicate.

As part of a recent research project, I posted a section of Mill's On Liberty on the internet (which is clearly in the public domain), then issued unfounded copyright complaints against it (1). One internet service provider (ISP) removed the chapter almost immediately. This illustrates the problem with self-censorship procedures, which rely on hidden judgements being made by unaccountable bodies.

There is a murky context behind this peculiar form of private censorship. On the internet, millions of websites have been created by individuals who post all kinds of content - and some argue that this justifies the current system of regulation. But there is a mistake in this chain of logic: just because the internet is big, diverse, decentralised and digital it isn't true that public bodies can't police it.

Of course, policing would be difficult, but this should not be a reason to be in favour of private governance and regulation. Governments, companies and individuals have taken the easy route to regulation, by relying on ISPs. Everyone who wants to publish, post and propagate content on the internet needs the services of ISPs, which host most of the content available on the World Wide Web and are often also hosting providers. This is why ISPs have been identified as the agents in the internet's communication chain who should be responsible for removing illegal and harmful materials, ranging from copyright infringement to cases of defamation, racist websites and pornographic content.

ISPs have been made responsible for removing illegal and harmful content under so-called notice and take down (NTD) procedures, once they have been put on notice by a complainant. Because it comes under the rubric of internet self-regulation, this kind of censorship is seen as less intrusive. But why private governance should be less intrusive than government regulation is something I have never quite understood. State censorship, while clearly problematic, is at least open to questioning and accountability. Notice and takedown is censorship without debate.

The quantity of complaints and websites removed under NTD is unknown, and the process by which ISPs determine whether or not a website contains illegal or harmful content remains obscure. Once an ISP disables access to a website the content disappears from the internet, undoubtedly an effective form of censorship.

My research project attempted to unpick the workings of NTD, using a method termed the 'mystery shopper'. This consisted of a complaint to an ISP about alleged copyright infringement on a website that actually contained perfectly legal material. One website was set up with one of the most established US ISPs, and another with a major UK-based ISP. The identity of the person who uploaded the site was fictitious.

For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship. This content is clearly in the public domain, because it was published in 1869, and subsequently its posting does not constitute any form of copyright infringement.

The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately

The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.

ISPs are acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time. They not only have to make a judgement whether a website is illegal or not - they also have to act as a private detective agency, investigating the accusations and deciding on the merits of the evidence they gather. Nevertheless, when an ISP removes content it invokes the cyber equivalent to the death sentence. When an ISP acts it can effectively destroy a business or censor a political campaign, by making access to that website impossible.

Measured against the potential impact of the actions of an ISP on accessibility of information and on freedom of expression and speech, the legal situation under which ISPs operate notice and takedown should raise concerns. Neither the European Cypercrime Convention nor national laws in the European Union (EU) specify in detail the process of notice and takedown, leaving ISPs in an uncertain legal environment.

As a consequence, this has the potential for injustices that would be intolerable in other media. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which documents notice and takedown in the USA notes on its chillingeffects.org website (2), even though the law in the USA seems to be much clearer: 'Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users?and to "chill" legitimate activity.'

However, the point is not that internet self-regulation is a bad form of regulation in itself. Instead, it is that the power an ISP has over content on the internet necessitates a clarification of the legal and governance framework. There ought to be rules about process. In other areas of governance it matters who governs and under what terms - this is also the case in borderless cyberspace.

Just because it is difficult to regulate the internet, this is no reason to resort to badly crafted forms of regulation, which move the entire burden on to unaccountable actors. Drink driving is also difficult to police, but we wouldn't shift responsibility for this on to private companies, would we?

International conference targets Internet hate speech

PARIS, France (AP) -- European neo-Nazis post online pictures of paint-smeared mosques. Web sites of Islamic radicals call for holy war on the West. Aliases like "Jew Killer" pop up on Internet game sites.

International experts met Wednesday in Paris to tackle the tricky task of fighting anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic propaganda on the Internet -- seen as a chief factor in a rise in hate crime.

Purveyors of hate have found a potent tool in the Internet, spreading fear with such grisly images as the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.

The new technology has proven to be a boon for hatreds of old, many experts say.

"Our responsibility is to underline that by its own characteristics -- notably, immediacy and anonymity -- the Internet has seduced the networks of intolerance," French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said in opening remarks at the two-day conference.

France, which is spearheading the effort, has faced a surge in anti-Semitic violence in the last two years. Some fault the growth of Internet use among hate groups.

But differing views about the limits of free speech and the ease of public access to the nebulous, anonymous Web largely stymied officials hoping to find common ground in Wednesday's talks.

A sticking point was whether the United States, which has championed nearly unfettered free speech, would line up with European countries that have banned racist or anti-Semitic speech in public.

The dilemma is all the more acute because the Internet is global, easy to use and tough to regulate -- as shown by widespread sharing of music online, an illegal practice that has confounded record companies. Terror groups have also used the Internet to plot attacks.

American approach differs
There are no easy solutions, delegates said. Many urged more youth education, better cooperation between governments and Internet service providers, or new studies on links between Web racism and hate crimes.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a 55-country body that promotes security and human rights, organized the conference with the backing of the French government. Six countries in the Middle East and North Africa also sent envoys. The meeting is one of three OSCE conferences on anti-Semitism and racism this year.

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Dan Bryant acknowledged the American approach differs from that of other countries.

"We believe that government efforts to regulate bias-motivated speech on the Internet are fundamentally mistaken," Bryant said. "At the same time, however, the United States has not stood and will not stand idly by, when individuals cross the line from protected speech to criminal conduct."

He said the United States believes the best way to reduce hate speech is to confront it, by promoting tolerance, understanding and other ideas that enlighten.

Robert Badinter, a former French justice minister, said that of 4,000 "racist sites" counted worldwide in 2002, some 2,500 were based in the United States.

Growing problem
There are signs that online hate is getting worse.

The French foreign minister cited a recent report in Britain that showed the number of "violent and extremist sites" had ballooned by 300 percent in the last four years in 15 OSCE countries surveyed.

France last year banned a Web site responsible for thousands of daily racist messages, one of which claimed responsibility for dousing mosques with paint in the colors of the French flag, the International Network Against Cyber Hate wrote in a report released Wednesday.

Christopher Wolf, chairman of the Internet Task Force of the U.S. Anti-Defamation League, pointed out how one student on a blog site at Brandeis University described playing an Internet video game against a rival who had nicknamed himself "Jew Killer."

In Egypt, some sites have shown pictures of American soldiers in Iraq to dredge up anti-U.S. feeling; one purportedly showed the June 8 killing of American civilian Robert Jacobs in Saudi Arabia.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group based in Los Angeles, said one strategy is for Internet service providers in the United States to honor anti-racism language in their own contracts.

But even that won't stamp out Internet hate, he said.

"Will this put the (Ku Klux Klan) out of business? No. They will be able to find some way of getting their messages back online," he said. "But it will put a crimp in that subculture on the Internet."

Permissions on Digital Media Drive Scholars to Lawbooks

When some 20,000 first-year American medical students reported to their schools last summer, they received a free 20-minute multimedia collage of music, text and short video clips from television doctor dramas, past and present, burned onto a CD-ROM.

"The patients you meet in the coming years may have doubts about you because of the doctors they see on prime-time television," the introduction reads. "The aim of this presentation is to explore why that is, and suggest what you can do about it."

But the CD was perhaps more of an education for its developer, Joseph Turow, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.

"It's crazy," Professor Turow said of the labyrinth of permissions, waivers and fees he navigated to get the roughly three minutes of video clips included on the CD, which was paid for by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The process took months, Professor Turow said, and cost about $17,000 in fees and royalties paid to the various studios and guilds for the use of clips. The film used ranged from, for example, a 1961 episode of "Ben Casey" to a more-recent scene from "ER."

This Friday, Professor Turow and other experts will meet at a conference sponsored by the Annenberg School to debate how digital media fits into the concept of "fair use" - a murky safe harbor in copyright law that allows scholars and researchers limited use of protected materials for educational or commentary purposes.

The conference title itself is a lament: "Knowledge Held Hostage: Scholarly Versus Corporate Rights in the Digital Age." Many scholars, librarians and legal experts see rich promise for the use of multimedia materials in research and education. But the possibility of litigation over file-sharing and confusion over digital copyright protections have scholars feeling threatened about venturing beyond the more familiar world of printed texts, Professor Turow said.

"It's a pain in the tuchis, frankly," said Rachel Durkin-Drga, the production manager at the Performing Arts Center at the University of Texas at Austin, recalling 10 years of attempting to secure permission to use various pieces of music. Even when educators seek to pay for use, she said, simply finding and contacting all of the people and agencies necessary to get clearance can be prohibitively daunting.

In one instance, she tried unsuccessfully for months to secure permission to use a song to accompany a piece choreographed by a faculty member for students in an undergraduate dance program. The dance was performed in silence.

Edward W. Felten, a professor of computer science at Princeton University, was at the center of a legal battle in 2001, when representatives of the recording industry threatened to sue him and the university over the publication of a paper analyzing a set of digital watermarking technologies designed to secure music files. The recording industry based its claim on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which makes it a crime to circumvent antipiracy measures built into digital media.

"After a long legal fight involving withdrawal and later resubmission of our paper, and our filing of a lawsuit against the parties who tried to suppress our work," Professor Felten wrote in response to a call from conference moderators for tales of copyright woe, "we won the right to publish our paper. Attempts to create a research exemption to the D.M.C.A. have failed thus far."

Whether academia's difficulties in navigating the world of multimedia copyrights is entirely the result of corporate bullying is a matter of debate, however.

Bruce A. Lehman, who ran the federal patent and trademark office from 1993 to 1998 and who was at the forefront of the contentious battles over digital rights legislation, has long insisted that criticisms and complaints about copyright controls are overblown. He has argued that academia and industry simply need to find ways of streamlining the licensing process for digital media in the same way they have for printed material.

"There is an element in the user community that just wants to get it all for free," said Mr. Lehman, who is now senior counsel in Washington at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, a law firm. He added that demonizing copyright holders simply causes "fear where there really shouldn't be any."

That echoes the thinking of Peter Andrew Jaszi, a professor of law at American University's Washington College of Law and one of the panel members scheduled to speak at Friday's conference. Professor Jaszi concedes that "in some cases, the fair-use doctrine in copyright law may actually not be adequate in its present form for the uses of researchers," but he also believes part of the problem is that scholars are poorly informed about what they can and cannot do.

"The likelihood of litigation is low to begin with," Professor Jaszi said, but the lack of coordination in academia on these issues probably makes the confusion worse.

"There are no disciplinary rules of best practice for cultural historians or film scholars or medical historians," he noted. "And, in the absence of that kind of collective understanding, it's no wonder that individuals give up the game before it begins."

The conference is intended, in part, to change this situation. But persuading scholars to test the boundaries of fair use in the digital age will be an uphill battle.

"A lot of this is self-censorship," Ms. Durkin-Drga said, "but, frankly, who can afford to take a chance?" After all, she pointed out, the Recording Industry Association of America "is going after teenagers."

The Son of Patriot Act Also Rises

While activists and politicians work to repeal or change parts of the Patriot Act that they say violate constitutional rights, Patriot Act II legislation -- which caused a stir when it came to light last year -- is rearing its head again in a new bill making its way through Congress.

The bill would strengthen laws that let the FBI demand that businesses hand over confidential records about patrons by assigning stiff penalties (up to five years in prison) to anyone who discloses that the FBI made the demand. The bill would also let the FBI compel businesses to cooperate with record requests, and it would expand the government's secret surveillance powers over noncitizens in the United States.

"There is no reason for this legislation," said lawyer Chip Pitts, head of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee of Dallas and a former constitutional law professor. "Given the expanse of powers and secrecy already granted in the Patriot Act, and given the unclear security benefits and possible security detriments of that legislation, why do we need a further amendment of the law to grant more powers to the government?"

The bill, known as the Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003, or HR 3179, was introduced last September by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and was co-sponsored by Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a possible contender to replace departing CIA chief George Tenet.

It contains four sections that first appeared in a proposed piece of legislation dubbed Patriot Act II. That proposed law was discovered last year by the Center for Public Integrity just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. Patriot Act II, or "Son of Patriot" as critics called it, was written by the Justice Department to expand Patriot Act powers, but the department was forced to shelve the proposal after news of it created an uproar.

But critics, like conservative former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia), say that rather than abandoning the legislation altogether, the department has been extracting provisions and having sympathetic lawmakers slip them one by one into new bills to pass the legislation piecemeal. At least five other bills pending in Congress also contain provisions from Patriot Act II, but HR 3179 is the one that's in imminent danger of being passed under the radar.

Last year, a Patriot Act II provision was slipped into the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 at the last minute and passed quickly before legislators opposed to it had time to fully examine it. The Intelligence Authorization Act, an annual bill that allocates funds for intelligence agencies, is a must-pass bill that generally gets drafted and passed quickly in secrecy.

The new bill, HR 3179, was set to pass through Congress without a hearing last year, but the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sensenbrenner, changed its mind and held a hearing May 18. The bill is waiting for markup in that committee, but critics fear that Rep. Goss and the House Intelligence Committee will slip the bill into this year's Intelligence Authorization Act during a closed-door hearing on June 16, and pass it quickly before lawmakers can revise or further debate it.

Proponents of HR 3179 say critics are overreacting to the bill. They say the bill will simply "plug a few gaps" in the Patriot Act by establishing penalties for noncompliance that were never specified in the Patriot Act.

But opponents say the bill grants the government more power to investigate people without probable cause and to do so under a cloak of secrecy. As a result, individuals being investigated will have no chance to protest unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Under the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II provisions passed in the Intelligence Authorization Act last year, the FBI doesn't need a court order or probable cause to obtain the transaction records for patrons of libraries, Internet service providers, telephone companies, casinos, travel agents, jewelers, car dealers or other businesses.

The FBI can simply draft a "national security letter" stating records are needed for a national security investigation, without being specific about the data being sought or the people being investigated. A nondisclosure provision prevents the letter recipient from telling anyone about it, including patrons whose records may be investigated.

Under HR 3179, anyone who knowingly violates the secrecy clause could be imprisoned for up to a year, and anyone who violates it with "the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding" could be imprisoned up to five years. The bill also lets authorities force individuals and companies to comply with security letters under contempt-of-court threats.

Jeff Lungren, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee where the bill currently resides, said HR 3179 simply gives teeth to the Patriot Act.

"Right now you can't disclose if you receive a national security letter," he said. "But if you do disclose it, there is no penalty for that. There's (also) no stick to deal with a person that refuses to comply with a national security letter."

But Jim Dempsey, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the bill tips the balance of power further into government hands while hampering the ability of people "to push back" and provide balance to government powers.
Currently, if government investigators request data that is too broad or intrusive, a company has some wiggle room to protect patrons' Fourth Amendment rights by resisting and negotiating a more targeted search, Dempsey said. But letting the FBI force cooperation while at the same time demanding secrecy and threatening imprisonment would make it unlikely that unreasonable secretive searches would ever be prevented or challenged.

"It's a way to increase the government's leverage," Dempsey said, noting that no company employee would want to go to jail for 30 days, let alone five years, to defend the privacy of the company's patrons.

Dempsey said he believes the original Patriot Act didn't specify penalties for disclosure because lawmakers were ambivalent about the act's powers and didn't want to eliminate opportunities for checks and balances.

Steve Lilienthal, director of the Center for Privacy and Technology Policy at the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said the gag rule is "a license for abuse."

"You have the right to talk to an attorney, but the attorney cannot talk to anyone else," he said. "You're prevented from going to the Department of Justice to communicate, or to the relevant congressional community to tell them when an abuse has taken place. It's almost un-American."

In addition to penalties for disclosure, HR 3179 expands surveillance of noncitizens by amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA. Currently FISA investigations involve individuals or groups acting on behalf of a foreign government or terrorist organization. But HR 3179 would let the government conduct secret domestic surveillance against noncitizens believed to be engaged in international terrorism, but who have no known affiliation with a foreign government or terrorist group.

Pitts, the attorney with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, said the amendment could be used to justify surveillance of noncitizens for criminal activity, for work with organizations like Amnesty International or for donating money to an environmental organization that stages protests.

"Because there is no accepted definition of international terrorism, and because they're eliminating the need for someone to be acting on behalf of a foreign government, you're relying on subjective and perhaps arbitrary or politically motivated definitions" to determine who could be secretly investigated, he said.

Barr, a member of the American Conservative Union who has been practicing law since leaving Congress last year, testified against the bill during the May hearing and said that Congress should not be passing new laws to strengthen the Patriot Act while there are concerns about how the legislation has been used to date. The FBI has admitted using the Patriot Act for nonterrorism investigations, such as cases involving corruption in a Las Vegas strip club, drug trafficking and other criminal activity.

Barr said the surveillance powers of the Patriot Act play "fast and loose" with the Constitution and that the secrecy penalties in HR 3179 would make its assault on the Fourth Amendment even worse.

"If the government is able to conduct its powers in secret, then we never know the extent to which its power is being used or being abused," he said. "If the government wants to conduct more of its business in secret and without probable cause, then (we should) just amend or repeal the Fourth Amendment, not allow the government to eat away at it in small steps and pretend it's still there."

Barr said the law should allow recipients of national security letters the right to challenge them, just as they can challenge grand jury subpoenas.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently discovered just how daunting the secrecy provisions can be when it was forced to file a lawsuit in secret that challenged the constitutionality of national security letters under the First Amendment. The organization was able to reveal the existence of the lawsuit only after negotiating with the government about what it could say about the suit.

The lawsuit was filed after the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information about how often and in what cases authorities have used national security letters to date, and the organization received six pages of blacked-out documents.

Pitts said that although HR 3179 is not yet on the radar screen of most congress members, activists are working to thwart what he calls a "stealth measure."

"The last time (a Patriot Act II provision) slipped through and got signed was on the day of Saddam Hussein's capture," Pitts said. "There was not a single activist who knew it was coming down the pike. At least this time we know about it in advance."

In total, six bills pending in Congress contain provisions taken from Patriot Act II. In addition to HR 3179, three other House bills (and two Senate companion bills) were introduced late last year:

• HR 3179: Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Tools Improvement Act of 2003
  
• HR 3037: Anti-Terrorism Tools Enhancement Act of 2003
  
• HR 2934 and S 1604: Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003
  
• HR 3040 and S 1606: Pretrial Detention and Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act of 2003.
  

Let poor smoke, says health secretary

The health secretary, John Reid, angered health campaigners and anti-smoking groups when he said yesterday that smoking is one of the few pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and in working men's clubs.
Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."

His statement provoked an angry reaction from anti-smoking campaigners. A spokesman for the anti-smoking group Ash said: "It's incredibly patronising to talk about smoking in this way. The argument is that we should have smoke-free work environments. John Reid has got this hang-up about the middle class imposing itself on the lower class, when it's the least empowered, people like bar workers, who are having smoking imposed on them."

According to Ash, men in socio-economic groups AB are twice as likely to reach the age of 70 as those in groups DE, with smoking being the biggest contributing factor. Women in social class 5 are almost twice as likely to die from lung cancer as women from social class 1.

Mr Reid's deliberately challenging remarks at a Labour Big Conversation event in south London suggests he will be cautioning against an outright ban on smoking in public places being included in the Labour manifesto.

He said he was an advocate of informed choice for adults, rather than bans, describing himself as favouring empowerment, rather than instruction. Mr Reid fears advocates of a ban are behaving as if members of the public are incapable of coming to their own sensible decisions.

Mr Reid's views were welcomed by Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest (Freedom of the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), who said: "We're not looking to encourage people to smoke. There's a lot of people out there for who smoking is a lot of pleasure and it's encouraging to see that John Reid recognises that."

Mr Reid's comments put him at some distance from Tony Blair, who said last week the government was considering measures to ban smoking in public places but hinted such measures could be left to local authorities. Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, has also made clear that legal bans would be a last resort.

Faced by calls for a ban at the meeting attended by health professionals and the local community, Mr Reid said: "Be very careful, that you do not patronise people because sometimes, as my mother used to say, people from those lower socio-economic backgrounds have very few pleasures and one of them is smoking. I worry slightly about the unanimity of the middle class professional activists on this."

Ministers are currently wrestling over whether to back a nationwide ban on smoking in public places, allowing councils to impose bans.

Mr Reid insisted the government had not come to any decision, but added that if the government imposed any smoking restrictions, it would be done "in the British way", and not ape the bans introduced in either New York or Ireland.

Dr Reid, who gave up a 60-a-day habit himself 18 months ago, is deeply suspicious of bans on choice for adults.

He argued these people really needed help by changing the fundamental social conditions which led them to smoke. "My argument is that empowerment is different from instruction. You have got to be very careful that you do not say to the 75-year-old that 'you are better off if you are not going to be able to go to a working men's club and smoke'."

The British Medical Association said that it was surprised by Mr Reid's remarks, but it would continue to lobby for a ban. "Quite apart from the individual damage to smokers, there's passive smoking to consider. It isn't just damage they do themselves, it's the damage they do to others."

The minister was more sympathetic to calls for compulsory simplified food labelling setting out the sugar, salt and fat content of products. He also recognised that children needed better advice on nutrition and better school diets.

Mr Reid also said he wanted to find a new way to involve the ethnic minorities and working class in their own health, including by opening health care centres in shopping centres, or by using health advice from football clubs. "We need to find places where people work, that are more accessible, more identifiable for them, less preachy, less hectoring, less dictatorial, then we may achieve success in the field of public health," he said.

The Red Light World

< We here at Elite Inc. think it's a Good Idea to offer adult services in seperated locations. This isn't for policing purposes (although those will unfortunately be forwarded as well), but because when such things are seperated, it's hard from anyone to ignore the old adage "if you don't like it, don't go there". The obvious problems of censorship may be overcome through this technique as well. If a system gets large enough, there will always be back alleys for things to happen in and anonymous ways to enter. Red Light World is one way to approach this kind of solution. Another under much debate is the .xxx or .adult (etc.) domains. >

The digital revolution is giving way to 'digital terror,' says Bruce Sterling

JUNE 09, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - The Internet is a "god-awful mess," but few U.S. government officials are willing to take action against virus writers, spammers and other scammers, author Bruce Sterling said at the Gartner IT Security Summit yesterday in Washington.
Disorder and corruption are winning on the Internet, and computer users need the U.S. government to crack down on online thieves, said Sterling, author of futuristic novels Heavy Weather and Islands in the Net and the nonfiction book The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier.

"We had a digital revolution in the 1990s -- now we've slid into digital terror," Sterling said during an hour-long critique on the state of cybersecurity. "Today's Internet is a dirty mess -- its revolution failed. E-commerce was extremely inventive for a while, but the financing model was corrupt. There was poor governance in the financial systems; there was worse industrial policy. The upshot was a spectacular industry-wrecking boom and bust."

Most of the advancements in Internet commerce since the dot-com bust have been illegal, Sterling noted, including spam, identity theft and "phishing" scams, in which credit card numbers or other personal information are stolen by directing people to bogus Web sites where they are told they have to change the settings of accounts they have with e-commerce companies. "If you advance into mayhem, that's not advancement; that's driving into a ditch," he said.

Sterling offered what he called a little good news about cybersecurity, the recent arrests of a handful of virus or worm writers, including the arrest in May of the 18-year-old German man who allegedly wrote the Sasser worm ,a href="http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,93040,00.html">(see story).

"The world is never going to run out of disaffected teenagers," said Sterling, who explained that he's not overly worried about bored 18-year-old worm writers who are unsophisticated enough to get caught. Instead, he's concerned about the creators of malicious code like that in Slammer, Code Red and Witty, because they haven't been caught.

The authors of the Witty worm targeted users of Internet Security Systems Inc.'s products, while the Bagel and Mydoom virus authors attempted to turn infected computers into spam-sending machines, Sterling said. "Bagel and Mydoom are the future of virus-writing because they have a business model," he said. "Those are organized-crime activities. ... These are crooks."
Virus- and worm-writing will grow as a weapon for terrorists and warring nations, he predicted. Terrorists operating in places with little central government control will begin to see cyberterrorism as an effective weapon because of a lack of international cooperation on cybersecurity enforcement, he said. He listed a dozen such countries, including Somalia, Bosnia and the Philippines.

"This is the birth of a genuine, no-kidding, for-profit ... multinational criminal underworld," he said. "I don't see any way it can't happen. We're going to end up getting pushed around by bands of international electronic thieves in a very similar way to the way we've been pushed around by gangs of international Mafia and international Mujahideen terrorists."

The new tools of terrorists and criminals will be "oil, narcotics, guns and broadband," he said.

With cyberthreats likely to rise, the U.S. government needs to focus on enforcement of existing laws, including antifraud laws, Sterling said. He praised New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who prosecuted Buffalo spammer Howard Carmack earlier this year (see story), as well as other white-collar criminals. Although virus-writers and many spammers break existing laws, most prosecutors seem reluctant to take on computer cases.

"In my opinion, we need a thousand guys like [Spitzer]," Sterling said. "We've got a ridiculous amount of computer laws."

Efforts such as the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, passed by Congress in late 2003, are "phoney-baloney gestures," Sterling said.

Instead of weak laws, the U.S. government needs to sponsor a multistate computer crime task force that enforces existing laws, he said. He also recommended that the U.S. post names of spammers and other Internet scammers on a Web site for everyone to see.

Sterling praised parts of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, released by the Bush administration in February 2003, calling it "modest and feasible." The document recommended that nations work together to combat cyberthreats, and such cooperation is needed to fight borderless cyberterrorism, Sterling said.

Should Doctors Help With Executions? No Easy Ethical Answer

ATLANTA, June 7 - Dr. Sanjeeva Rao used to look after the inmates at the state prison in Jackson, Ga., treating their high blood pressure and more serious ailments. When the state started using lethal injections in 2000, he took on another task: helping to execute them.

Dr. Rao does not administer the injections, but he monitors the process, and occasionally, he has testified, he helps out. If the prisoner's heart monitor has not flatlined after the injections meant to kill him, Dr. Rao orders up more poison.

In 2001, after a nurse spent 39 fruitless minutes stabbing needles into Jose High, a former drug addict, in search of a sound vein, Dr. Rao put in a line through his neck that allowed the deadly chemicals to flow.

Whether promoting health or hastening death, Dr. Rao refers to the prisoners in medical terms.

"I always say 'a patient,' " he testified in a 2002 case filed by a death row inmate that unsuccessfully challenged lethal injections as inhumane. "That's by habit."

Doctors who participate in executions violate the most fundamental tenet of medical ethics, some critics say. But others defend these doctors, saying that lethal injections, the almost-universal form of execution in the United States, can be performed humanely only by medical professionals.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the director of health research for the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, said Dr. Rao and others like him should be disciplined. "The state medical boards should just yank the licenses of these people," Dr. Wolfe said.

Dr. Kenneth Baum, the author of a law review article on the question, disagreed, saying that doctors can play a valuable role at executions. The alternative, he said, is having prison employees with little training perform the procedures.

"In the absence of competent medical oversight," Dr. Baum said, "many of these executions are unnecessarily painful. There is no reason, given that we are going to execute these people, to leave them defenseless."

About 25 states allow or require doctors to be present at executions. But information on the number of doctors who participate in executions is hard to come by, as states generally refuse to name anyone who does so, citing security and privacy concerns. The Georgia Department of Corrections, for instance, says execution records are "privileged and confidential state secrets.''

Dr. Rao's name was disclosed in the 2002 lawsuit challenging Georgia's use of lethal injections. He did not respond to several messages left at his office and his home seeking comment.

Many of the states that encourage doctors to participate in executions have seemingly contradictory laws that allow doctors to be disciplined by state medical boards for violating codes of medical ethics. Those codes almost universally forbid participation in executions.

The American Medical Association's ethics code, for instance, says that "a physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution."

The code forbids doctors to perform an array of acts at executions, including prescribing the drugs, supervising prison personnel, selecting intravenous sites, placing intravenous lines, administering the injections and pronouncing death.

"They're not allowed to determine that the execution has been unsuccessful so that the execution can be repeated," said Dr. Stephen H. Miles, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota and author of "The Hippocratic Oath and the Ethics of Medicine."

But a survey of doctors in 2001 found that more than 40 percent would be willing to perform at least one of the forbidden activities.

Scholars who have studied the matter said they knew of no state board action against a doctor for aiding in a lawful execution.

Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a retired professor of psychiatry at New York University and a former director of psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, aims to change that.

"My major thrust," he said, "is to identify physicians who have participated in executions in one way or another, with the objective of charging these physicians with professional misconduct for violating medical ethics."

Dr. Zitrin tried to have Dr. Rao expelled from the American College of Physicians, an internists' organization. The effort failed when the group determined that Dr. Rao was behind in his dues and was thus no longer considered a member.

Dr. Zitrin said he and two Georgia lawyers, Michael Mears and Matthew Rubenstein, would file a complaint against Dr. Rao with the Georgia medical authorities this month. "I'm also on the trail of a doctor in Virginia, and one in Illinois," he said.

The question of whether doctors should participate in executions is more difficult now that lethal injections are the dominant mode of execution in the United States. Firing squads and electric chairs did not require doctors to help in quite the same way, medical experts say.

"What's unique about this procedure is that it's specially designed to imitate medical procedures," said Dr. Jonathan I. Groner, a surgery professor at Ohio State University and the trauma medical director of the Columbus Children's Hospital .

In a unanimous decision on May 24 allowing a death row inmate to challenge lethal injections as cruel and unusual punishment, the United States Supreme Court appeared to suggest that a doctor should be required for at least some procedures.

The inmate in that case, David L. Nelson, had badly damaged his veins by long-term drug use, and went to court to fight a plan by Alabama prison officials to make a two-inch incision in his arm or leg to allow his execution to proceed. "There was no assurance," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the decision, "that a physician would perform or even be present for the procedure."

At least eight states, including Georgia, also seek to shield doctors from professional discipline through laws saying that aiding in executions is not the practice of medicine.

Dr. Baum, who supports letting doctors participate in executions, said such laws are dishonest.

"What about this is not the practice of medicine?" he asked. "It's inserting the I.V.; it's infusing medicine; it's monitoring vital signs; it's declaring death. These are practices that in any other setting are the practice of medicine."

Some of those opposed to allowing doctors to participate in executions concede that their real agenda is abolition of the death penalty.

"It is true that this is my small way to get at an abhorrent process," Dr. Wolfe of Public Citizen said.

Others say it is possible to oppose the death penalty and approve of doctors aiding in executions.

"The physician's role is to treat when you can and to comfort when that is all you can do," Dr. Baum said. "I wouldn't see any conflict in a physician who participates in executions being vocally anti-death-penalty. There's not a conflict in my mind, ethically, morally or politically."

Suicide by Pseudoscience

The Union of Concerned Scientists in a February report pointed out something the science press has known for years: The Bush administration has no respect for science. Ideologues prefer to make up the laws of nature as they go.

Presidential science adviser John Marburger complained that the UCS's account sounded like a "conspiracy theory report." That's because it is one. As the report amply documents, the Bush administration has systematically manipulated scientific inquiry into climate change, forest management, lead and mercury contamination, and a host of other issues. Even as Marburger addressed his critics, the administration purged two advocates of stem-cell research from the President's Council on Bioethics.

When politicians dictate science, government becomes entangled in its own deceptions, and eventually the social order decays in a compost of lies. Society, having abandoned the scientific method, loses its empirical referent, and truth becomes relative. This is a serious affliction known as Lysenkoism.

Trofim Lysenko was Joseph Stalin's top stooge in Soviet agricultural science, a field that was mercilessly politicized by fanatics. His specialty was inventing nutty schemes - things like stimulating the evolution of trees by overcrowding them to get them to cooperate, as though they were communist minions. This totalitarian huckster spent his whole career promising exciting results and bringing about only disaster. But the party never judged itself on results, so he always got a free pass.

Politics without objective, honest measurement of results is a deadly short circuit. It means living a life of sterile claptrap, lacquering over failure after intellectual failure with thickening layers of partisan abuse. Charlatans like Lysenko can't clarify serious, grown-up problems that they themselves don't understand.

State-sponsored pseudoscience always fails, but slowly, like a wheat field choked with weeds. (This is a particularly apt comparison, because Lysenko claimed that the weeds infesting Soviet wheat fields had evolved from the wheat itself.) It fails in predictable ways, and these are the very ways in which the Bush science policy is going to fail.

The rot begins to set in when honest local institutions, appalled by high-level misdeeds, denounce federal policy as corrupt and corrupting, just as the UCS has done. There will be much more of this: congressional investigations, high-minded committees. Government officials will temporize by getting scientists to "compromise" and "split the difference" between actual science and partisan jiggery-pokery. This will fail because science just isn't politics. You can't legislate that E=mc21¼2.

Before long, the damage will spread beyond our borders. International scientific bodies will treat American scientists as pariahs. This process has already begun in bioethics, meteorology, agriculture, nuclear science, and medicine, but doubts will spread to "American science" generally. (In Lysenko's heyday, when scientists abroad came across a halfway-decent Soviet scientist, they would charitably offer to publish his books offshore, then maybe help him defect to someplace where he could get serious work done.)

Meanwhile, gaps will open between research establishments in the US and other countries, much like the one that now yawns between American and Korean stem-cell producers. US science will come to have a stodgy, old-fashioned, commissar-style inability to think and act freely. Yankee initiative and ingenuity will bow to bulging pie-in-the-sky superprojects like unproven antimissile systems, hot-air broadband initiatives, and swashbuckling moon shots.

Eventually the whole vast bubble will burst of its own fairy-tale unreality. Few will be held accountable. The quackeries will be purged, forgotten, hushed up. Except, that is, for the lasting effect on the health, morale, and self-esteem of the American people.

Trofim Lysenko was a funny case. He had the authority to reduce a major scientific-research power to a dismal Burkina Faso with rockets; he left behind practically no scientific achievement or discovery. As a scientist, he was a nonentity, but his menace is universal. Wherever moral panic, hasty judgment, arrogance, fear, brutal partisan ignorance, slovenly standards of research, overcentralization of authority, conspiratorial policymaking, jingoism and xenophobia, and spin-centric travesties of disinformation can flourish, Lysenko's spirit will never die.

Physians vs. Gun owners

(thanks pistoleirao)

Physicians:
a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept.of Health & Human Services)

Guns:
a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.