I'm talking about four main things; profiling of people on the internet without their knowledge, companies that are trying to shove internet filtering software that does not work on libraries, Software companies pushing for UCITA, and the MPAA and RIAA's efforts at restricting fair use of your own property. All of these are invasive and against the basic principles that the United States were founded upon.

First off, profiling. DoubleCLick is the world's largest server of banner adds on the internet. Most of the adds you wee as you surf the web are courtesy of Doubleclick and actually reside on their servers and not the web site that is displaying them. These ads aren't just sent out in a random order; using cookies has allowed doubleclick to build profiles on users that allows them to target specific ads to people based on where they've been. Go to Sports Illustrated? Double click could be sending sports ads your way. Now, this may be a minor issue to you, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

DoubleCLick has recently started using Web Bugs to monitor traffic on web sites. Web bugs are designed to be so small that you can't see them on your screen. Doubleclick can now track you anywhere they arrange to have the web bugs placed. Still not worried? DoubleCLick owns Abacus Direct Corp, a direct marketing company (telemarkers) that maintains names, addresses, and puchasing habits of NINETY PERCENT of American households. Doubleclick announced earl in 2000 that they were going to merge their online profile data with Abacus's address book. Although quickly recanted after a large portion of the privacy-minded citizenry freaked (all the smart ones, anyway), the kept their options open and may do so again in the future.

Where does this all tie in? DoubleClick's web bugs are being served to porn and medical sites. What right do they have to monitor my goat porn habits (I don't have any, but why should they know that?)? Why should they know I'm surfing for information on prostate cancer? It's conceivable that they could strike a deal with insurance companies to monitor your surfing habits, so that the company could see what prescriptions you were ordering online or what medical diseases had your attention and worry? Could you be dropped from a policy or your rates raised because you were displaying dangerous behavior such as reading Cigar Afficianado online?

Another worrisome fact is that the information that these companies collect is an asset and is protected as their property. Since it is an asset they can sell it for profit. You have no control over this. Some companies have privacy statements stating for the record that all of the information they collect will never be distributed or sold. In a couple cases though, companies with such policies have been found to be selling their info to pay off creditors when they start to go under. Some aren't even waiting before they violate their privacy agreements. Imagine what might happen when planetrx.com sells it's database to a insurance or health company who finds you've been stocking up on something that will cause them to raise their rates...

NOTE:
a lot of this can be avoided by turning cookies off in your browser. You will lose the ability to use some sites with cookies off however, so this option isn't for everyone. If you want to opt out of DoubleClick's profiling and keep your cookies Click here.

Next up is UCITA, which stands for Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, and is the large software corporation's efforts to change contract law in their favor. UCITA is passed at the state level, not national, and is consequently a much quieter event. If UCITA is passed in your state companies like Microsoft have the right to connect into your computer and make changes, prevent you from writing a negative review of the product, or even donating the software to a needy school when you upgrade or move on. Additionally, e-mail would be allowed as a legal notification of contractual changes (what happens if you change address and the company doesn't have yours?). The software would also be licensed to you, not sold.

If UCITA Is passed in your state you could be FORCED to upgrade to the newest version of Office every time Microsoft releases a new version. You wouldn't know that at first though, because the UCITA allows microsoft to print out an End-User's License Agreement that says that by tearing off the shrinkwrap on the box you've agreed to all of the terms, even though you could not physically read the license before removing the packaging! If you'd like some more information on UCITA the LA Times had an excellent article posted here or you can read slashdot's article on how to Lobby against it. If you live in Virginia or Maryland you need to know about this; UCITA was passed through your governments and you live under its effects.

Next is the Motion Picture Association of America's and Recording Industry Artists of America's efforts at curtailing fair use. If you own something you are allowed to make a copy as backup. If you own a CD you can make a tape copy to listen to in your car or walkman. The MP3 file format allows your computer to digitally compress music so that it has near-CD quality at one tenth the size. You can burn your entire CD collection to store on your computer and use players such as Winamp, Kjofol, or the Windows Media player to listen to the music, make a playlist that plays songs in the order you want or even shuffles them. Burn a CD if you are so equipped and take it to work; you can fit around SEVEN HOURS of music on a CD if it's in MP3 format (Note, you'll need a computer or MP3 player to listen to it). There are even portable MP3 players that connect to your computer so that you can transfer music in and listen to it on the bus ride to work or during your daily workout of run. Imagine crisp clear music with no bobble caused by your jogging.

Not if the RIAA has it's way though. When Diamond released the first personal MP3 player the RIAA attempted to sue them for marketing a product that "could ruin the marketplace for commercially legitimate online distribution of music." Don't personal rights matter? Not only that, the Proprietary format the RIAA is working on would require that software manufacturers introduce code that would disable the MP3 format totally at a future date decided upon by the RIAA. Doesn't matter if the MP3 file is Granpa's rendition of "I'm in the mood for love;" if it's not the RIAA's SDMI format it's dead. This goes way legitimate business; this is illegal protection of a business model at your expense.

In fact, Napster, a company targetted by the RIAA for releasing software that enables users to trade illegal and legitimate copies of music, filed suit against the RIAA for monoplolistic practices, arguing that the RIAA is using copyright to protect a business model and has set up a monopoly on music distribution. Under US laws, if this is found to be the case the RIAA loses the ability to enforce copyright. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The RIAA has released studies stating that records sales near colleges are down because college students have high bandwidth and use napster more. Others have postulated that the depressed sales are because students are more likely to buy online so the sales have shifted. Indeed, independant studies indicate that Napster users tend to buy MORE music. While the RIAA is stating that use of Napster is costing them money, their sales rose 10.8% percent in the 1999 year. That's a total of $1,400,000,000 for the increase alone and an increase of 90 million CD's!.

Napster is not hurting the RIAA. Napster is hurting the way RIAA conducts it's business and they don't like it. They don't want you to dictate what you listen to or how you play it; you're supposed to be the good little consumer and listen to what they decide is hip and hot on the current technology and then upgrade to the new technology ten years later and buy everything all over again. The RIAA's line about Napter hurting the artists too is a line of hooey as well, if the RIAA and music companies cared about the artists they wouldn't allow the contracts that bands are forced into to exist.

Last in my rants is the MPAA. The MPAA, or Motion Picture Association of America is doing something similar to the RIAA with the DVD format. DVD is a new method of recording data and stands for digital video disc. Using DVD disc's and CCS encoding and encryption, the MPAA can release high quality films to the general public and have enough room left over on the disc to provide us with some fun goodies. With the high-quality recording, the studios feared pirating and naturally tried to circumvent it with the use of encryption. With this Encryption people can't tape perfect copies of a movie to pass around to their friends or rent out and that makes it so that the companes can make enough money off of DVD's to make it worth their time (and then some). That's the good part. The bad parts are more numerous.

This encryption and format also allow a lot of new "features" to be added. The first is region codes; which ensures that you can no longer watch foreign films unless they were released specifically for the US market, or european market, or Japanese market, whichever resion you live in. So teachers can no longer use foreign films as aids in teaching foreign languages or appreciation for foreign cultures. There have been players released that work under multiple region codes, but the MPAA, through the DVD Copy Control Association (which controls the encryption and therefore who gets to release to DVD or make players) puts pressure and has them withdrawn.

Another worrisome aspect of DVD's is the provision for data inserted between frames; the only reason for this that I can think of this is something that has been seen on only one disc so far; subliminal messages. "The March Is Over" was found to have some messages in place that did not appear when the movie was paused or the frames advanced individually but we visible when the output was taped by a video camera and that tape paused. There are debates on the effectiveness of subliminal messages, but the very idea that it was planned that they could use this without us having any choice in the matter is something I find repugnant.

One of the most annoying aspects of DVD's is the control it takes from your hands and puts into the disc maker's. Used to forwarding through the FBI warning? You can't any more. Used to skipping the five to ten minutes of previews before every movie? YOu can't do that any more if they don't want you to. EVERY TIME you go to watch that movie you'll have to see commercials for movies that were released long ago, are already in your collection, etc. Isn't this a bit unreasonable? What if you have a kid and they want to watch the Pokemon-S & M movie for the 13th time today.... you up to listening to all the adds that will creap into their heads about what they have to buy next?

The MPAA and CCA have put too many controls on the DVD format. Not only are they trying to encroach and toss out basic consumer rights, but they are activly prosecuting people who try and excercise them. Fair use allows backups copied for your own use. It also allows that you actually are able to WATCH what you buy. This basic consumer right was set down in the Berne convention on copyright back in the early 1980's

I'm ending this with a last soapbox paragraph. Every company has a responsibility to the people the serve. Every company should be aware of their customers rights and treat them as full fledged human beings and not just as a source of income. You don't change the public's rights to suit your business. You don't treat your investors as more human than the general public who "merely" buys your product or service and keeps you in business. You do what's right, for the public, your company, your employees, and then the investors.

These companies and corporations are not behaving responsibly and are trying to strip away the rights and freedoms that Americans have grown up with and rightfully enjoy. We are being bent over, and these companies aren't even going to spring for the KY Jelly before they take us up the rear.