Re: [h2o-discuss] P.R. wars

["Jon Garfunkel" <jgarfunk@bellatlantic.net>]

John Wilbanks wrote:
>Between this, the cybersquatting bill, and the passage of UCITA, it's
>not been a good week for the end-users...any thoughts on the
>adminstration proposal to sniff out the bad guys by listening to
>everyone?


Is that really what the proposal says? From the outset it appears to me that
FIDNEt looks like the ol' White House soft leak, which spreads the impact
over time to soften the opposition. The CDT has virtually nothing against
the proposal, only that it's vague.

Here's the final verdict on the FIDNET proposal. It was leaked to CDT on
7/27. On 7/30, Reuters reported that the $36B budget for the DoJ, Commerce,
State for FY2000 {which was just passed the House Approriations Committee}
specifically denied funding for FIDNET. Reuters noted that the committee
questioned the necessity of the system, which might duplicate other agency
initiatives.

I don't know yet what effect the CDT had in a mere three days to lobby the
Committee. Would that have been possible, or what else was at work? We await
more information from the Congress website. Apparently, after a bill is
approved by committee, it takes a week or two to write the report (which
includes details about the amendments), and to post online. Keep checking
here:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/global/legislative/appover.html

Working for a company that has long been a network security contractor for
the U.S. government, you'd expect me to say that I'd welcome the work. At
the very least, I'd try to get an idea how FIDNET would conn. Probably just
a way to formalize de facto policies and procedures (cf. UCITA).

(Remember the "Know Your Customer" proposal from the FDIC? It led to a
record numbers of web-based citizen comments, which inspired Congress to
kill it. Still, it's reported that 85% of banks have a "KYC" policy. See
http://www.slate.com/HeyWait/99-05-12/HeyWait.asp)

Eric Eldred wrote [among other things]:
>Soon we will be able to look out at the new moon and see a giant Coke sign
>there, illuminated by proud U.S. laser technology (a spinoff of the Star
Wars >project). After all, isn't the moon U.S. property--the U.S. flag was
the only one >planted there by humans 20 years ago?

Indeed, when the federal government is concerned, one shouldn't limit their
imagination as to the astronomical terms by which money can be spent.

But if Coca-Cola wishes to lease the moon for rental, they wouldn't pay the
U.S. I believe we are bound by international treaty which designates the
moon and outer space in general for scientific use by all nations (same
status as Antarctica).

I will guess, by looking at the State Dept. list, that this is "18 UST
2410," but the Secretary does not provide the treaties online. I was in the
process of registering at the UN (to look for "610 UNTS 205"), but there
webserver is having problems. http://www.un.org/Depts/Treaty/treatreg.htm

Jon
Software Engineer
Route 128, Mass.