Homestead mailing list

["Toni Hawryluk" <tonihawr AT msn.com>]

> can you also tell *why* am I so bitter ?

I absolutely could not care less.
Warren

I was looking for philosophy and found a stone ....
>From tvoivozd AT infionline.net  Fri Oct  1 16:04:35 2004
Return-Path: <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
X-Original-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net
        [207.69.200.243])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19FE20014
        for <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri,  1 Oct 2004 16:04:34 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from sdn-ap-022dcwashp0435.dialsprint.net ([63.191.161.181]
        helo=[127.0.0.1])
        by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
        id 1CDTdp-0000GH-00
        for homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:04:33 -0400
Message-ID: <415DE690.9040407 AT infionline.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 16:21:52 -0700
From: Tvoivozhd <tvoivozd AT infionline.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Homestead] Diebold bug-riidden electronic voting machine
        whistleblowers safe
X-BeenThere: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
List-Id: homestead.lists.ibiblio.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead>
List-Post: <mailto:homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead>,
        <mailto:homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:04:35 -0000




Email this to a friend
<http://info.mgnetwork.com/emailthisstory.cgi?url=http%3A//ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBX6Y4RSZD.html&oaspagename=www.tbo.com/ap/story.htm&image=tbologo80x60.jpg>


Judge Rules E-Voting Vendor Misrepresented Law

*By Matthew Fordahl* The Associated Press
Published: Oct 1, 2004

        Advertisement


SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - A manufacturer of electronic voting equipment
knowingly misrepresented its claims when it sent threatening letters to
the Internet providers of people who had posted the company's internal
documents online, a federal judge has ruled.

Diebold Inc.'s letters claimed the leaked documents violated its
copyrights under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and demanded
their immediate removal. But the same law bars making such threats when
the copyright holder knows no infringement occurred.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose issued a
summary judgment in favor of two Swarthmore College students who posted
the material, as well as their Internet provider, Online Privacy Group,
which declined to comply with Diebold's demands.

They sued Diebold in November 2003, seeking $5,185.50 in damages and
attorneys' fees. Fogel will determine later the amount of damages to be
awarded.

"This decision is a victory for free speech and for transparency in
discussions of electronic voting technology," said Wendy Seltzer, an
Electronic Frontiers Foundation attorney who represented OPG in the case.

David Bear, a spokesman for North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold, said the
company was still reviewing the ruling and would not comment. In
December, the company said it would not sue anyone who posted the
documents.

Electronic voting has come under attack by activists who fear the
equipment is vulnerable to hacking, software bugs and hardware failures.

In March 2003, a hacker broke into Diebold's servers using an employee's
ID number, and copied a 1.8-gigabyte file of company announcements,
software bulletins and internal e-mails dating to January 1999.

Most of the file contained banal employee e-mails, software manuals and
old voter records. But several items seemed to reinforce e-voting
concerns that advocates had been trying to publicize for more than a year.

Diebold responded by sending dozens of cease-and-desist orders to people
who had posted the documents and to their Internet providers.

In his ruling, Fogel disagreed with the company's legal claims.

"No reasonable copyright holder could have believed that the portions of
the e-mail archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold's
voting machines were protected by copyright," he wrote.

The decision also has implications for people who receive so-called
takedown letters on matters outside the current e-voting debate, said
Will Doherty, OPG's executive director.

"This ruling means that we have legal recourse to protect ourselves and
our clients when we are sent misleading or abusive takedown notices,"
Doherty said.

AP-ES-10-01-04 1548EDT