Senator Orrin Hatch has proposed giving media companies the ability to destroy indivdual's computers if they engage in P2P piracy. Here are some of the quotes from a recent AP story:

[...] "No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy
Saaf of MediaDefender Inc., a secretive Los Angeles company that builds
technology to disrupt music downloads. One technique deliberately downloads
pirated material very slowly so other users can't.

"I'm interested," [Orrin] Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's
computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
The senator acknowledged Congress would have to enact an exemption for
copyright owners from liability for damaging computers. He endorsed
technology that would twice warn a computer user about illegal online
behavior, "then destroy their computer."

"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd
be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way,
then I'm all for destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred
thousand of those, I think people would realize" the seriousness of their
actions, he said. "There's no excuse for anyone violating copyright laws,"
Hatch said. [...]
--------------------------------

Hatch then amended his comments somewhat after receiving loads o' criticism, and his website now reads:

I am very concerned about Internet piracy of personal and copyrighted materials, and I want to find effective solutions to these problems.

I made my comments at yesterday's hearing because I think that industry is not doing enough to help us find effective ways to stop people from using computers to steal copyrighted, personal or
sensitive materials. I do not favor extreme remedies, unless nomoderate remedies can be found. I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies..
----------------------------

All said, I still had to fire him a letter.

Links and my letter follow:

AP Story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6241-2003Jun17.html

Hatch website commentary:
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=205147

My Letter:
Senator Hatch:

I read with shock your recent comments endorsing the right of media companies to "destroy" P2P users computers with impunity. Though limiting copyright infringement is a noble goal, means so drastic are not justified by that end.

In numerous circumstances (documented thoroughly by technology reporters such as Declan McCullagh, etc...) these same media companies have made erroneous allegations when users have been downloading information that is within the public domain or that is confusingly similar in name to their copyrighted works. With legislation giving them the right to "destroy" property that is not theirs, they will likely do so with little regard for individuals who use P2P networks legally and set off on the destruction of all users of the system.

The media companies can then factor the cost of destroying innocent users into the system and hand out small monies to those who can prove they were not downloading illegally. This burden of proof should not be shifted to the end-user, and further, no private entity should ever be given the right to use force against the citizenry by any means.

Please note my strongest objection to your comments and to the rights of any company to ever have the rights to "destroy" any item belonging to a member of the citizenry with impunity.

Respectfully,

Cheers --

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6531926p-7482574c.html -- Original Article

Letter
---------------------

Atty. General Lockyer:

After reading a brief article in the Sacramento Bee yesterday (http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6531926p-7482574c.html) I find it abhorrent that your office is pursuing charges against citizens in Chico for alleged water supply contamination.

Though I am sure the story did not highlight the entirety of the situation, it seems to me that the state is on a fishing expedition pursuing monies to cover expenses of a clean-up for which it is not sure of the root cause. The article in the Bee notes that some of the business owners contend that they never participated in any behavior that was illegal and that this suit could cause their financial ruin.

Your decision to scape-goat "Mom and Pop" businesses to fund a clean-up that's antecedents are still suspect is despicable and is why many people have a healthy distrust of the bureacracy in the first place.

I urge you to reconsider your position and look into alternate means for resolving this issue without attacking upstanding citizens for actions that may or may not have occurred years ago.

Respectfully,

In a nutshell, New Jersey's Director of the Office of Counter-Terrorism notes that individuals will be forbidden from doing anything that is "non-essential" (his definition of course...). So businesses will be closed, people will be confined to their homes, and civil liberties will be suspended. All in the name of fighting what may be....

Personally, I'd rather make my own decisions about my safety than have it dictated to me by a Counter-Terrorism Czar who is working based on an abitrary and capricious color coded system of threats. Has anyone actually ever noticed any difference in their daily lives based on whether the government calls today yellow, orange, or green? I would be happy (well, maybe not happy -- but at least understanding) to accept that the government may wish to cut access to a certain bridge, or building, or a handful of locations, due to a specific threat, but to allude to the fact that our "Free" government will shut down everything deemed "non-essential" due to some potential threat no matter how great is absurd and flys in the face of all the freedoms we are said to be protecting. I would venture to say that I would much rather die by some nut case blowing me up unexpectedly as I headed to the office rather than live a caged existence confined to my home, deprived of my work and livelihood.... without what makes me whole and takes me through my day, life is relatively meaningless anyway....

So, a large Fuck You to Mr. Casperson (NJ Czar) and to any other government official who wishes to confine the populace because some Allah worshipping freak MIGHT blow us up....

JM

Louise Sawyer and Grace Fuller have sued Southwest Airlines because a flight attendant uteered the following:

"Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a seat, we gotta go."

The two claim the "racist history" of the song caused them severe emotional distress, and are asking for "injunctive relief" and "unspecified" loot from the airline.

Wow.

The actual report delinieates that the women suing are a bit older (46 & 48) are likely not well to do (at least one has no health insurance) and that the insensitive flight attendant is 22. She indicates that she never heard any racist version of the rhyme before in her life.

I'd offer aditional commentary on this but I think its safe to say you can probably guess my sentiments.

Though people bitch and moan endlessly about the US and our own little Nanny-state, it is time to give pause that we do not live in the pathetic "One World" which is Europe... in the latest from across the ocean UK Farmers now must provide toys for their pigs... (I'm not making this up)...

In a decree that came from Brussels farmers are now forced to provide "toys" and playthings for their sows or face punishments of 3 months in prison and a $1000 fine.

Wow! How fucking bizarre is this? Supposedly, this originates from the fact that pigs in all habitats bite and chew at one another. Animal activists have urged giving them playtoys hypothesizing that the piggies will then bite the toys and no longer act out at the other pigs.

And this is now official government policy....

Get this quote from a spokesman from Rural Affairs, “We mean footballs and basketballs. Farmers may also need to change the balls so the pigs don’t get tired with the same one. Different colour ones will do. These rules are based on good welfare. We don’t want to come across as the nanny state, but the important thing is to see pigs happy in their environment and they like to forage with their noses.”

I forgot -- THE IMPORTANT THING is to SEE PIGS HAPPY -- not anything about farmer welfare, or their profits, or the like. Maybe the farmers in prison for violating this law can bite the other prisoners and thus get a ball or toy of their own....

The army relieved an honor guard because he issued a brief prayer before presenting a flag at burial services. The guard, Patrick Cubbage, did so only when prescribed by his manual (when the family requested religious services by having a minister etc... present) and the message was a simple and brief "God bless your family and God bless the United States." Hardly cause for consternation. Nevertheless, in a case of political correctness run amok, the department administration releived him of duties for his "breaking protocol." Here's the story in the Philly Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/5003947.htm

and my email to the Lt. Cnl. in charge:
niedtro@nj-arng.ngb.army.mil

Lt. Cnl. Roberta Niedt:

I am writing to you after reading a brief article about the dismissal of Patrick Cubbage carried in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Though I appreciate the need for protocol, and I am sure the report only presented a portion of the story, I find the actions highlighted within it to be a case of political correctness run amok. As such, I ask that you reconsider your stance regarding Mr. Cubbage and reinstate this capable and honorable veteran to his duties at the Doyle Veterans Memorial Cemetery.

I find it abhorrent that a gentleman such as Mr. Cubbage could serve his country admirably, and further follow the rules and protocols prescribed by his honor guard manual, and still be summarily dismissed when another guard feigns disgust. In the absence of complaints from families attending the services, I see absolutely no reason why Mr. Cubbage should have been relieved of his duties and I feel that doing so is a black eye on the department and administration that folded to the pressure of potential conflict.

Respectfully,

Anyway, the Daily News reports here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/52803p-49473c.html

And you can email the DA here:
District Attorney Charles J. Hynes

Here's my letter:

District Attorney Charles J. Hynes:

After reading the article on Ronald Dixon in the Daily News, I am writing to urge you to reconsider your current position.

I find the prosecution of a Navy Veteran and an upstanding family man who engaged in the act of self-defense abhorrent. Not only did Mr. Dixon have to protect his family from a career criminal whom the system failed to incarcerate, now he must also worry that he will be incarcerated for doing so. This defies common sense and is an appalling miscarriage of justice. Mr. Dixon should be commended for his actions in defense of his family, and at most be asked to register the "illegal firearm" (Which the article mentions he "legally" obtained in Florida and was in the process of registering in NY.) To force this man to spend time in prison, jeopardizing his career, family, and home, would be a terrible case of "blaming the victim" and should be avoided at all costs.

Respectfully,

Michael,

Thank you for the email clarifying the events of the evening. Though I am still somewhat ill at ease with officials enforcing "public drunkeness" statutes within the confines of a bar or restaurant (regardless of their classification) without a direct request from the owner or patrons of the establishment, I appreciate that you took the time to thoroughly explain the position of the county and the participating enforcement agencies. Further, I can now understand the police actions as more than an indiscriminate holiday raid as was conveyed in the "generic" media reports.

On an aside, I wanted to let you know that it is refreshing to receive correspondence back from government officials (especially those whom my vote will likely ne'er effect). I find that all too often the comments and criticisms of the public fall on deaf ears when they reach "city hall," as bureaucracies and governments tend to be well insulated from the governed, and are at times less than forthcoming unless forced to be so by the glare of the media spotlight.

So again, thanks for the email and your correspondence. I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my comments.