So so so, this article is on a blackhat, right-winged hacker by the name of Colorx who hacked into the Boulder IMC site (among others) only to find ou that there are many savvy a-hacker among IMC-istas, who hacked back, found out his identity and this eventually got him in trouble with the FBI
(and though the exact mechanism is unknown, there is something a little ironic in having the IMC work lead to FBI investigation not on them, as is usually the case, but on some other hackers).

There is a section in the article that was eerily resonant with one of the all time great books on hackers, The Hacker Crackdown by Bruce Sterling.

So compare:

On the bright side, says Clorox, his run-in with the feds reinforced his idea of a dream job: working for the FBI.

“There were a few times during the conversation I was like, wow, this has to be the coolest job. I would probably get the same thrill out of that that I do out of the black-hat stuff,” he says. “How ironic is that. I’ve always wanted to be the one who catches the bad guy, even if sometimes I am the bad guy.” Mahon, however, has some bad news for clorox.

“He’s deluding himself into thinking that we would hire him,” he says. “There’s a lot of good things a person like that can do that make them stand out that doesn’t involve criminal activity.”

With this section from the Hacker Crackdown:

“In my opinion, any teenager enthralled by computers, fascinated by the ins and outs of computer security, and attracted to the lure of specialized forms of knowledge and power would do well to forget all about hacking and set his (or her) sights on becoming a fed. Feds can trump hackers at almost every single thing hackers do, including gathering intelligence, undercover disguise, trashing, phone-tapping,building dossiers, networking, and infiltrating computer systems” (1993: 207).

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new clothes. They’re beautiful!” … “What a marvellous train!” A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage. “The Emperor is naked,” he said. ”

In the world of IP and politics, there is a now a child who says “The Emperor is naked” although it is not really a boy but a movement of laboring bodies who have chosen to produce software without the restrictions of IP law. In the process, and without stating it, they have punctured holes through the ossified assumptions justifying a regime that has only become more powerful and intrusive in the last twenty years. The logic is not so water tight anymore, water rushing through, a wave that more than anything has brought in debate over the future direction of IP law.

FOSS by acting like this kid, has not pronounced a blanket statement that has changed minds but has opened a debate and a debate it is. Along with the prolific rise of new technologies like p2p, the debate is ever more fiercer especially as different parties fight it out in America’s top court.

The coverage on the MGM vs. Grokster case in the mainstream news (look above) and the blogsphere has been steady and excellent. Worth checking out are Mako’s, and Timothy’s blog and Corante who have good on the ground summaries and all the right links.

What I was somewhat surprised by was at the NYT’s editorial “When David Steals Goliath’s Music.” It is as if the media relations staff from the Emperor’s entourage wrote it. Presenting the issue as in a black and white tone, this deserves a much more complicated hue of colors..

So India has moved to adopt a new patent law. Necessary to gain admittance in the WTO, it may act as a new hurdle and barrier for the delivery of low cost drugs in India. The news is pretty dismal, as is the reporting, which is pretty appalling. Either the new law is still in amorphous mode, many of the key provisions left unspecified, or reporters are doing a lackluster job (probably a bit of both).

For example in the New York Times article, the author explains:

“Under the new law, a maker of generics can apply to copy a patented drug, but only after it has been marketed for three years. In addition, the patent owner can object.”

“the patent owner can object…” And what may this mean? Of course they object. That is a given. But can they easily strike down the application nearly every time? Or just voice a resounding, NO WAY, keep away from my patents? I mean, of course the patent owner can object if the maker of generics must apply but a sense of the procedure of objection may help, a little.

Via Mako, us ladies can rest assured… WIPO is forging links between women and IP. My favorite part of the page are the pictures, especially the ballet shoes. Very female, very intellectual propertyish.

The Economist has a pretty good article summarizing a law school journal article by Benkler, called Sharing Nicely where he argues that we are seeing the rise of third economy based on sharing that exceeds the sharing of intangibles.

I am super excited to read the Benkler piece as he is probably my favorite lawyer/thinker/writer when it comes to issues about IP, speech, sharing etc in the digital domain. His thinking is sharp and his writing style is very accessible, a real plus when dealing with the complexities of this world.

Since I have not yet read the Benkler, I am reticent to comment. But according to the conclusion of the Economist, they state Benkler’s position as follows:

“Mr Benkler does not limit his analysis to computing and bandwidth, but tries to make a broader point in favour of sharing goods far beyond information technology.

I sort of can’t believe it is true, but the NIH has decided to give the public free access to federally funded research results. You can read the full article here

CHICAGO – (KRT) – After years of heated debates and under pressure from Congress, federal health officials announced Thursday a historic new policy to give the public free access to scientific findings funded with tax dollars.

The plan, unveiled by the National Institutes of Health despite sharp opposition by scientific publishers, calls on scientists to release electronic manuscripts of published research supported by NIH’s 27 institutes and centers “as soon as possible, and within 12 months of final publication.”

Currently, most publicly funded research studies are available only by buying expensive subscriptions to the journals that publish them or on a pay-per-article basis.

I would like to learn more about the contours of the debate: who was in support, in opposition, how long was this under consideration.

This decision follows the heels of another provocative NIH decision that regulates NIH scientist’s relationship to private industry. Notable among the new regulations are: “a strict ban on consulting work for biotech and drug companies, a prohibition on accepting fees for speaking at conferences, and a mandate that researchers divest their stock holdings in biotech companies. The latter requirement in particular produced several contentious moments yesterday at a meeting between senior NIH officials and researchers.”

The Europeans via the EU Parliment have put to rest the patent directive under consideration and are starting again, ground up.

So this morning, I received a notice about University of Chicago’s Counter-Inagural Ball organized by various centers like Gender Studies, Race and Culture etc. I have to say, I was somewhat surprised by this because it seemed that political activity over the elections was primarily sequestered to the student community. But this shows otherwise and it is exciting to see some of U of C’s brightest, engaging speakers confronting this head on, on the day, and even with a ball at the end of the day. So since activities span the day, see if you can stop down, for this political ho-down at the U of C.

So this has been one of my most prolonged silences on satoroams; the reasons for absence are many and not worth listing here. I think the hefty snow, swirling at high speeds to only gently land on the ground has stirred me out of this writing lull.

It is now storming hard out, its effect at once being one of intensity, the wind howling, bordering on an angry tone, yet the blanket of white, the empty streets ushers in a peaceful silence. This duality captures what I feel about the administration’s decision to provide full health insurance for all PhD Students funded with stipends in the Social Science division, which may also be soon adopted by the humanities division. I am happy that student protest has had an effect, yet not all that happy (one may say peeved) at how we were notified (we were not) and how a solution was found only for future students, leaving current ones out in the cold, bearing the brunt of high costs, surely only to go one way: up.

Last fall I help start SOSHI knowing that some noise, press, and dialogue might change the U of C’s problematic policy of giving all the biological and physical science PhD students health insurance (which they can do because those dept have larger budgets thanks ot US gov grants) while basically turning a blind eye to the SS, Humanities, and Divinity school students.

With sky rocketing rates and general student ignorance about this policy, we provided some information, made some noise, and eventually the administration and board of trustees noticed although they basically refused to dialogue with us, in fact, for the past months they have told us that the administration was doing nothing to address this problem. And in the last few days, while we were hearing news of this new health insurance proposal, other administrators acted as if this was not happening. I find this entirely perplexing unless they woke up to this problem last week, and in one day drafted a proposal that was agreed to by the division deans the next day. In other words, highly unlikely.

On the one hand, this news is a clear victory. Future U of C Social Science PhD students who are funded won’t have to worry that by the time they finish their tenure at U of C they will be paying the price of a small Eastern European (or now Chinese) car for health insurance. On the other hand, their policy sends a message that current students don’t matter; they are left to entirely fend for themselves, including future unfunded students. Why not find a solution that positively impacts the entire U of C community? Why not provide subsidies for current students (or those in the first three-four years of the program); Why not cap the rate of increase so at least student can realistically know their costs? There are many

Yesterday, I headed to the Business School’s new “home” an architectural wonder built on the corner of 58th and Woodlawn. The building is stunning, a purely absorbing wonder largely because of an obscenly huge atrium that leaves no doubt about the weather outside and the shape of the clouds. I can’t wait to go there during a massive Chicago snow storm.

Along with the starkly stunning architecutre, using this building reminds me of flying first class. The extravagent perks are everwhere: a gracious dining hall, a rec room with multiple pool tables, security guards wearing spiffy maroon coats and equipped with the latest walkie-talkie technology, parking for the profs, wireless throughout the building, some insane antique piece of furniture that serves no purpose except to give a sense of tradition and time to this otherwise postmodern structure, and my favorite, tons of indoor plants, including bromeliads by the hundreds. Really pretty bormeliads.

Now, in this day and age of the “service economy” the “B-school” students are a little closer to customers than students. They pay out of the roof so it is no surprise the roof in thier new building is so high and the accoutrements so lavish.

But there is still something that bothers me about the surplus of elegance, of resources of this building in relation to the rest of the university. Spatially, it inscribes the reality of the assymetries of value in our universities, which also are almost direct mirror reflection of broader social assymetries and social values. That is while U of C has some motto “Let knowledge grow from more to more; and so be human life enriched” some types of knowledge makers clearly are able to command pretty flowers and glass ceilings in a way that others can’t.

Now again the b-students are more like b-customers. They pay and I and many PhD student don’t (though some do as do most of the terminal masters students). At this time, everyone is allowed in so the perks are there to be most shared (though I am not sure if this will last or if the wireless netwokr is open to all).

I also realize the University as a whole is spending a huge amount of money to spruce up the campus and bulk up our resources. Already they have built a new gym, parking lot, hospital wings. But really the GSB buidling takes the cake. They can add the golden touch because they are awash in resources given business school alumni are awash in resources.

What I find so interesting is not really the fact of assymetry but its presentation. There was once a day in which the b-school was smaller, less important. And it also seems there was once a time when the ideology of “valuing all” types of knowledge may have still been ideological but closer to its message. Ideology I think still comes in degrees.

And I know there was never an Eden, a time when the University was impervious to the reality of market forces. After all the University was established by one of the captains of the industry, John Rockefeller and then home to Milton Friedman’s free market fundamentalism. It has in different decades been strangled by the market. All private universities are quite beholden to the broader economy..

But ideology through the ages does not act with the same force. It is now acceptable to accept the assymetries and to even relish in them.. We accept them as fact: some of us get to fly first class, others don’t.

And though in some ways I am clearly bothered by this (I am after all writing about it) I am not entirely sure if this is a bad thing. Sometimes I think like the GSB glass architecture, such clarity is something that can maybe lead to some critical kernel… But necessary and what seems totally absent is more public discussion about the “future” of the University given real market demands and assymetries in funding. How if at all is money redistributed? At what point does the b-school evince such wealth and command of resources that it takes a life of its own, away from the larger “community? But at this time the only think that is speaking is the architecture…