Brian W. Carver -- Share Alike

Judge Rules Some File-Sharing Software Legal

In a masterfully well-written decision that shows a keen understanding of the underlying technologies, Federal District Court Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled on Friday that the file-sharing software distributed by StreamCast and Grokster was legal. Specifically he found them not guilty of contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. First, what's the difference?

From Judge Wilson's Decision:

Contributory copyright infringement "stems from the notion that one who directly contributes to another's infringement should be held accountable." ... Traditionally, one is liable for contributory infringement if with knowledge of the infringing activity, (he or she) induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another....

Vicarious copyright infringement extends liability for copyright infringement to cases in which a defendant "has a right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities. There are two elements required for vicarious infringement: (1) financial benefit, and (2) the defendant's right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct."

On the issue of contributory infringement, the judge said,

The critical question is whether Grokster and StreamCast do anything, aside from distributing software , to actively facilitate - or whether they could do anything to stop - their users infringing activity.

Judge Wilson found that Grokster could not stop their users activity for several reasons. An interesting one is that they license their P2P software from Kazaa and are not the authors of Kazaa's proprietary software. As a result,

Grokster does not have access to the source code for the application, and cannot alter it in any way. ... When users search for and initiate transfers of files using the Grokster client, they do so without any information being transmitted to or through any computers owned or controlled by Grokster.

So, in a coup for free-software-loving file-sharers, proprietary software did some good here! But, when Judge Wilson turns to StreamCast's Morpheus software he says,

StreamCast, unlike Grokster, has access to the source code for its software, and can modify the software at will. ...Morpheus is based on the open-source Gnutella peer-to-peer platform and does not employ a proprietary protocol...

Judge Wilson doesn't put it like this, but he sees a dilemma for StreamCast: First, if StreamCast changed their open-source software to try to control their users, nothing would force users to "upgrade" who could simply carry on with current versions. Secondly, since StreamCast uses software licensed under the GPL, they must distribute the source code with their Gnutella-based P2P client. But then, if users have access to the source code, the amount of time it would take hackers to undo any modifications StreamCast introduced and to re-release a non-crippled version on the internet would be measured in minutes. He says,

Neither Grokster nor StreamCast provides the "site and facilities" for direct infringement. Neither StreamCast nor Grokster facilitates the exchange of files between users in the way Napster did. Users connect to the respective networks, select which files to share, send and receive searches, and download files, all with no material involvement of Defendants. If either Defendant closed their doors and deactivated all computers within their control, users of their products could continue sharing files with little or no interruption.

The really interesting point that I haven't seen people getting is the implications this ruling has for Kazaa. 1) Kazaa controls the proprietary software that Grokster uses. Hence, Kazaa could modify their software to try to prevent copyright infringement. (Update 4/30: I see now that I should have read further, because the amazing Matt gets it.) 2) Kazaa apparently operates "super-nodes" that I get the impression this Judge might consider sufficient to constitute "material involvement" in the copyright infringement of users. (Update 4/30: While I still get this impression from the decision, Derek at A Copyfighter's Musings has convinced me that if running a supernode constitutes contributory infringement, then we're on the slippery slope to merely connecting to the network constituting contributory infringement. This then is a reductio of the view.) And this judge's opinion matters because he will likely end up ruling on Kazaa's future. He's the one who said the RIAA can sue Kazaa in a U.S. court despite Kazaa's bizarre bases of operation. Judge Wilson's summary may show Kazaa a path to continued operations though:

Defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends. Grokster and StreamCast are not significantly different from companies that sell home video recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are used to infringe copyrights. While Defendants, like Sony or Xerox, may know that their products will be used illegally by some (or even many) users, and may provide support services and refinements that indirectly support such use, liability for contributory infringement does not lie "merely because peer-to-peer file-sharing technology may be used to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights. "

The choice for Kazaa seems simple: Stop operating super-nodes by switching to a true P2P Gnutella-based (open-source) software. Then you'll be like Xerox: You're providing a product that users can choose to use for legal or illegal purposes, without yourself contributing to or being able to stop their illegal activity.

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Declare Them Enemy Combatants

The U.S. government will not give Zacarias Moussaoui, who is charged in the 9/11 attacks, access to individuals that could prove his innocence. "The judge in the case, Leonie Brinkema, ruled in January that Mr Binalshibh, who is being detained at a secret location overseas, could be questioned through closed-circuit video transmission." The US rejected that reasonable compromise.

Earlier this month, Ms Brinkema said she was disturbed by the "shroud of secrecy" which was being drawn around the case of Mr Moussaoui.

She said that so many of the case's documents had been classified as secret that she agreed with Mr Moussaoui's scepticism about whether he could receive a fair trial in open court.

The authorities have indicated the hearings could be moved to a military tribunal where greater secrecy is allowed.

I guess the attitude of the US government now is, "Listen judge, if you don't let us win, then we'll just take our prisoner to our own secret court where we know we can win!" That's justice in America today. Read the rest of the BBC News article.

Bricklin on How the Artists Will Get Paid

Dan Bricklin, best known as a co-creator of VisiCalc, the first electronic spreadsheet, has posted a great essay entitled How will the Artists Get Paid?. Bricklin looks at the issue from a historical perspective and is optimistic that new technologies do not doom creative people to a penniless existence. Here's a little taste:

In computers, we've seen that fluid, general purpose programs like word processors and spreadsheets have usually prevailed over the more structured systems. People do with them what they want, not what the creator envisioned. (I can tell you that first hand with the spreadsheet...) DRM systems we hear about are based on a particular model of use, with an aim for absolute control to that model.

With art, which is usually used or experienced by others for their own purposes, there must be generality and lack of control to let others do what they want with it. An ecosystem with many ways for unintended free-release is a requirement. Therefore, an ecosystem which looks to a mixture of the traditional amateur, performance, patronage, and commission forms of payment is a requirement. Depending upon rigid enforcement of performance payments will disrupt the balance.

Listening to representatives from the recording and movie industries, you would think that selling fixed artifacts is the only way that artists can get paid. That has never been the case, and should not be in the future or else society and art itself will suffer. Those publishing businesses may be based on that one form of payment, but the artists' livelihood need not.

Oops! Now what?

Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, are reporting that the US is growing worried as Iraqi Shiites gain clout. State department officials are admitting that they were just focused on removing Saddam Hussein, and had not given careful enough thought to what would replace him. Now, as the Shiite majority is demonstrating that it is highly organized (without telephones, TV, radio, or power they were able to stage an enormous pilgrimage to Karbala) US officials fear that the Shiite majority will seek to install an Islamic fundamentalist government. Well, the administration has been saying that the Iraqi people will get a government of their choosing. Now what will the US do when it turns out that Iraqis want a government worse (so far as US interests are concerned) than the one they had? Oops! Can we back up to March and listen to those who suggested this war could increase the likelihood of terrorism, not decrease it? Doh!

USA Holding Children at Guantanamo Bay

The story is just breaking today, but US officials have admitted that they are holding around 6 children (under age 16) as prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Given that most of these detainees were taken prisoner two years ago, this would mean that, when captured, the juveniles were even younger than they are now! Let us say again, in unison: The Federal Government Has Gone Stark Raving Mad. You can read the story all these additional places: Annova story, Guardian story, Winnipeg Sun story, Kansas City Star story, CNN Europe story, ABC Online Australia story, San Francisco Chronicle story, Edmonton Sun story, Edinburgh Evening News story, and a Tuscaloosa News story. Keep track of more stories as they develop with this Google News search.

Siva Vaidhyanathan on Cultural Democracy

Readers may recall a Slashdot interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan, Professor at NYU, and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs. Vaidhyanathan is working on a new book, The Anarchist in the Library, and was interviewed on the blog, Eyeteeth. This is a brilliant and amazing interview where Vaidhyanathan discusses how creative communities share, the DMCA, the American industrial production of culture, the USA Patriot Act, the importance of libraries and librarians, and the policies of the FCC. It is a must-read for those who care about the future of creative and democratic culture. (Thanks to BoingBoing for the pointer.)

Update 4/24: This was a Slashdot submission of mine and was accepted as part of Slashback. (Third bolded item from the top.)

The Federal Government Has Gone Stark Raving Mad

A Washington Post article describes how the city council of Arcata, CA has passed a law making it illegal for the top nine managers of the city to comply with a request for information under the USA Patriot Act. The small town's 16,000 residents favor this form of non-violent disobedience to a Federal Government that they believe has "gone stark raving mad". That was the platform on which the most recently elected city council member ran on and won. Arcata is just one of 89 city councils that have passed such a resolution. You should contact your local officials too. (I contacted mine!) Perhaps enough local action will finally wake up our federal representatives.

Bad News for Your Online Privacy

Suppose a stalker wants to know where you live. The stalker can easily be a copyright holder by, for instance, publishing anything on the web. (Since anyone who fixes anything original in tangible form has a copyright on it.) Then the stalker just needs your e-mail address or your IP address. He gives that information to a court clerk (not a judge) falsely alleging that you were illegaly distributing his copyrighted works. The court clerk can then compel your Internet Service Provider (ISP) to provide the stalker with your address. What zany law makes all this possible? That's right: The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Of course, The EFF has been fighting for your rights here, but you also have what may seem an unlikely ally: Verizon Communications. They're a big ISP and they see all these requests from copyright-holders greatly increasing their costs. Guess who that cost is going to be passed on to? That's right. Once again, the end-user gets shafted.

Unfortunately a judge ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the DMCA so the only way we're going to fix this is with new legislation. Write your representative and tell them to re-think the DMCA and this time to remember the end-user.

Music Industry Shoots Self In Foot

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that they have learned of at least one radio station that cannot play copy-protected CDs using their current technology. That this would happen was predicted at the blog, mediageek, back in November 2001.

"Most commercial radio stations now run under some kind of automation and store most of their music on hard drives. Although they have the physical CDs, most of them are ripped to the automation system's drive (usually at full uncompressed quality). If copy protected CDs prevent this, then it's like telling radio stations 'please don't play this CD.'"

The promotional CDs in question came from EMI who has shipped over 16 million copy-protected CDs to date. One Australian who cannot play an EMI CD in his Marantz DVD player properly has written them to say he will never buy an EMI CD again.

The article does suggest that the CD contains software that might allow the CDs to be played, but apparently no technical information about what the software does is included and so the station manager refuses to allow its installation. (A wise security precaution given the past history of comanies including spyware that phones home.)

Patriot Act Signs For Your Library

Patriot Act Signs For Your Library from librarian.net are chilling, funny, and unfortunately necessary to raise awareness about the absurd and unconstitutional USA Patriot Act and how it invades your privacy. I love librarians. They get it. (Link from Education Librarian).

Why Technology Law Matters

Here's the point: New technologies can enable a breakthrough in the reach of information. Example: the printing press. Prior to Gutenberg's printing press, the average person simply had no access to books or to the accumulated knowledge of the world. By creating a technology that made distribution of that information faster and cheaper an enormous benefit accrued to the public. Information was within the reach of the average person because we got cheap books, public libraries, etc. We also created new businesses such as the publishing industry, the printing press manufacturing industry, the printing press repair industry, etc. This creates jobs such as "printing press operator' which also benefits the public. Old industries and jobs fade away or transform themselves though, as the need for hand-copiers of books diminishes. Those who continue to work in such an area must distinguish themselves by offering a value-added service, such as more elaborately detailed renderings of books, or finer inks, etc. No one seriously thinks any loss suffered by the old book-copiers outweighs the enormous benefits that have accrued to humankind as a result of this technological breakthrough and information sharing expansion.

Fast forward to the present: New technologies continue to enable breakthroughs in the reach of information. Examples abound. But this time the industries that would fade away or would need to transform themselves are far more powerful than any book copier ever was. They seek to stifle innovation and keep their current profits secure. They have no interest in transforming themselves to distinguish their product offerings by offering value-added services. Instead they use their legal might to outlaw their competition.

Sometimes it's hard to get up in arms about the technology issues of today, especially in light of the suffering of Iraqi children or some other such tragedy that certainly deserves our attention. But, if we think about these issues carefully, we will see that as much or more is at stake. Imagine a world where the book-copiers guild was extremely powerful and they were able to outlaw the printing press. The devastating effect on the entire course of human history is unfathomable. We live in such a time, where the powers that be seek to stifle technological innovation for their own monetary gain. This is a dangerous path. We must alert people to those dangers.

A Mighty Wind Opens Today

Christopher Guest, the genius behind This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, and Best In Show, has a new docu-comedy out called: A Mighty Wind. It opens today in select theaters. See the trailer here.

Speaks for Itself

Nabhal Amin, deputy director of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities, discovers the losses and damage done by looters to its ancient holdings.

Photograph by: Lucian Perkins -- The Washington Post
More about Post photographer Lucian Perkins

Political Spin

Twice today I couldn't believe my ears. On NPR of all places, I heard two different guest "experts" casually remark something to the effect of, "...to liberate the Iraqi people, which was why we went to war in the first place." And neither of the hosts even blinked at these amazing assertions. It's stunning how the Bush administration is able to use the Jedi mind trick on journalists and the American public. [Ben Kenobi voice ON]"The war is going according to plan. You have nothing to worry about."[Ben Kenobi voice OFF]

Since when did we go to war "to liberate the Iraqi people'?

This was never the primary reason given. A strong case could be made that a "primary reason" was NEVER clearly given, but if ANY reasons were given they went like this:

1. Al Qaida would like nothing more than to use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in an attack on Americans or their allies.

2. Al Qaida is unlikely to produce these weapons on their own, but could acquire them from a "rogue" state, like Iraq, who (allegedly) does have them.

3. If Iraq will not satisfy the United States and Britian right away that it has no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, then a war is necessary (and justified!) to guarantee that Iraq has no such weapons.

Add in a premise about Iraq not satisfying the US and you end up where we are now.

Now, I think this argument is full of holes. Premise 2 is dubious. No link between Iraq and Al Qaida was ever demonstrated. Osama Bin Laden himself called Saddam Hussein an infidel and hates him. Al Qaida could acquire these weapons much more easily from some place like Russia that has countless nuclear warheads laying around under the flimsiest of security. Muslim Chechnyans would be more likely to assist them in such an effort than Saddam. North Korea already has nukes and hates us and was even caught red-handed shipping missles to Yemen! So, singling out Iraq for this treatment is absurd.

Given the problems with premise 2, premise 3 becomes even more problematic. There are countless options to war that could have successfully guaranteed our security from the tiny threat posed by Iraq's alleged weapons. These options were not fully explored. This is why the rest of the world hates us. We don't listen. We do what we want and make up justifications later.

That's what is happening now. All of a sudden, this was a war "to liberate the Iraqi people". Huh? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? And if George W. Bush cares so much about liberating people, then tell him that liberty starts at home. Not since the McCarthy era has there been a more chilling roll-back of the civil liberties of American citizens. And if we're looking for oppressed people to liberate, Iraq would be stop #3 at best. We should've started liberating people in North Korea, who has the world's worst living dictator running its show. Next stop would be Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from anyway. The crown princes there repress their people like it's going out of style. Only after "liberating" the people of these countries should we bother with Iraq. And a stop at Liberia to end a brutal regime there would have been easier and would have made more sense.

No, this was never a war "to liberate the Iraqi people". It was never sold to the American people that way. It was never sold to the UN that way. Whatever the Bush administration chooses to call it right now doesn't matter, because only time will tell why we really fought this war. And I'm betting the real reason, if we ever learn it, won't be nearly so noble as so many have apparently been lulled into thinking.

State Super-DMCAs Stifle Security Research

SecurityFocus.com has an article explaining that new so-called "Super-DMCA" laws (more restrictive versions of the federal Digital Millenium Copyright Act) stifle the legitimate research of Ph.D. students in Computer Science. Niels Provos is a graduate student in Michigan who studies steganography (techniques for concealing messages) and HoneyPots (a technique for detecting mailicious intruders). He's worried by Michigan's recent passage of such a Super-DMCA law. So, in an attempt to protect himself from criminal charges he has moved all of his web pages to the Netherlands and set up a questionaire that tries to discern if you are from a country like the U.S. that would make it illegal to learn about his research. Ed Felten, a Professor at Princeton, has raised the alarm about these laws on his Freedom to Tinker blog. You can write your state representatives and support the EFF if these MPAA-written laws sound ridiculous to you. The craziest thing about the laws is that they are so vague that they could actually outlaw your running a firewall to protect yourself from intruders. Almost every company on the planet runs a firewall and in seven states they may now be breaking the law. Nutty.

Words of the Day

emolument \i-'mäl-y&-m&nt\ noun
*1 : the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
2 archaic : ADVANTAGE

Example sentence:
"The president, one of the old trustees, had a right to his office, salary, and emoluments, subject to the twelve trustees alone." (Select Speeches of Daniel Webster The Dartmouth Case, p. 42.)

I just came across this word, hadn't heard it, and so made it my own word of the day. Merriam Webster's web site linked above has its own Word-of-the-day that you can have e-mailed to you daily. It's interesting about a third of the time.

That Daniel Webster is full of good words. Here's another:
eleemosynary \e-li-'mä-s&n-"er-E\ adjective
: of, relating to, or supported by charity

Example sentence:
"The eleemosynary sort of corporations are such as are constituted for the perpetual distributions of the free alms or bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed." (Select Speeches of Daniel Webster The Dartmouth Case, p. 45-46.)

Sen. Norm Coleman Proud of Self

Minnesota Senator, Norm Coleman, who replaced Sen. Paul Wellstone after his tragic death, seems to think pretty highly of himself. In the Congressional Mag, Roll Call (subscription required), Coleman is quoted as saying,

"To be very blunt and God watch over Paul's soul, I am a 99 percent improvement over Paul Wellstone. Just about on every issue."

The San Francisco Chronicle writes about the incident, adding,

After the Roll Call story appeared Monday, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., called for Coleman to apologize, saying his remarks were inappropriate, disrespectful and "an unnecessary attack on a leader our state continues to mourn."

Wellstone's former spokesman, Jim Farrell, called Coleman's comment a "shameful, self-serving assertion."

Coleman issued a statement Monday night, saying he should have made clear in his remarks that he was comparing his relationship to the Bush administration to Wellstone's. "I would never want to diminish the legacy or memory of Senator Paul Wellstone, and I will accept full responsibility for not having been more accurate in my comments," Coleman said.

I'm not sure how saying you are 99% better than someone on "Just about every issue" could be construed as merely saying you are better than Wellstone on the single issue of having a cozy relationship with the President. Wellstone got along just fine with former President Clinton, as do most within their own parties. If the only thing Coleman has to toot his horn about is getting along well with a fellow Republican, then he should shut up, step down, and the voters of Minnesota should find themselves a more useful Senator.

Pre-Installed Linux Laptops

Regular Slashdot readers know from a previous story that they can get a cheap desktop with Mandrake, Lycoris, or Lindows pre-installed from Wal-Mart.com, and the more savvy readers might know about Linux desktops from Pogo Linux or Penguin Computing. But, if you wanted a laptop with Linux pre-installed I only knew of Emperor Linux and their cheapest laptops are about $2000.00, not what your average fiscally-minded geek has in mind. Now, PC Club, who operates retail stores primarily in the Western United States, is offering Red-Hat pre-installed on a laptop that starts at $899. It is rare to hear of a physical retailer where you could walk in and play with a laptop with Red Hat on it and then take it home. In doing research for this, I also found Los Alamos Computers, who will pre-install Debian, Slackware, Mandrake, SuSE, or Red Hat on a Laptop that starts under $1000! They also will deliver your computer running the file-system of your choice, and pre-install Apache and Samba if you request it. Wow! I also found Qli Linux willing to install all of the above, plus Gentoo or Xandros on their laptops. Things seem to be getting better for those who'd like to buy mobile hardware with Linux on it already ready-to-go. I'd be pleased to hear of other low-cost laptops with Linux pre-installed like those from Los Alamos Computers and Qli. While PC Club offers me a local retailer, I get the impression that these other guys are Linux experts and so the service down the road will be much more enjoyable. (This was a Slashdot submission, but they rarely post my stories. They have selected each of these in the past though.)

Virginia Tech Regains Senses

In a previous entry here, I ranted about Virginia Tech's Board resecinding affirmative action, dropping anti-discrimination protection of gays and lesbians, and prohibiting anyone who had "participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and/or terrorism" from meeting on the campus unless they obtained permission from the president. (The attorney general of Virginia who opposes affirmative action even said that the last prohibition was illegal.) Well, they've faced such continuing opposition from faculty, students, alumni, citizens of Virginia, and the governor of Virginia, that the board had to eat its words and take back all three resolutions. This is good news. But, there are apparently a number on the board who still don't get it. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports,

The board voted 8 to 5 to rescind the resolution on affirmative action, which it had passed at its March 10 meeting... The board's rector, or chairman, Mr. Rocovich was one of five members who voted against reversing the decision, along with William C. Latham, Mitchell O. Carr, Donald R. Johnson, and A. Ronald Petera. While he stopped short of calling Sunday's reversal a mistake, Mr. Rocovich said that eliminating affirmative action at the university was "the right thing to do" and denied that the decision had been made hastily. "I accept the judgment of the board, and we will move forward in a unified manner," Mr. Rocovich said.

So, this is still a mess. We've got five board members who still don't get it and who are not responsive to the community they serve. The Governor still needs to look at getting some new blood in there, and I see five spots that look available.

Inter-Faith Peace Organization asks International Criminal Court To Indict Bush

An inter-faith peace organization, FOR, is collecting signatures of those who would like to ask the International Criminal Court to indict George W. Bush as a war criminal. The U.S. would not recognize such an indictment were it to occur. Read about the many useles legal options (Courtesy Jon Bonne). Here's the text they ask people to sign:

With heavy hearts, with faith-based convictions, and with shock at recent events, we, citizens of the United States of America, respectfully request that consideration be given to indicting our own President, George W. Bush, as a war criminal, for unleashing a basically unprovoked war upon a populace that has already suffered immeasurably from over a decade of economic sanctions. We do not make this request lightly, or unmindful of possible consequences, but out of deep, though varied, spiritual faiths, we believe it is time for people and organizational entities of conscience to take the strongest possible stand against easy resort to imposing the horrors of modern warfare upon innocent people.

I find this interesting given President Bush's very public faith. One of the things they mention on their site is that virtually every religious organization out there is opposed to the war. The mainstream media rarely mentions this. Instead anti-war protestors are portrayed as a small ragtag group of ex-hippies. On the contrary, from the Pope down to average preachers, religious authorities are saying: this is wrong.

No One Is Above Suspicion

It Could Happen To You

Another U.S. Citizen has been whisked away by the FBI and held incommunicado without facing charges or having access to an attorney. (If you've been sleeping, we got rid of the Bill of Rights a while back...) Story from Boing Boing. Here's an excerpt:

In an open letter to senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Intel SVP Steven McGeady writes:

On Thursday morning, March 20, a long-time employee of mine, Mike (Maher) Hawash, was arrested outside Intel's Hillsboro offices and taken into custody by the FBI and members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. We later learned he was being "detained" as a material witness. Simultaneously, FBI agents in bulletproof vests and carrying M-16s woke Mike's wife and three children in their Hillsboro home, searched it for four hours, and presented Mrs. Hawash with a grand jury subpoena.

All of the court documents in this case are sealed. Mike was held incommunicado from his wife and attorneys for several days. When they did contact him, neither he, his attorneys, nor anyone else knows why he is being detained. Mike is a long-time U.S. citizen, originally of Palestinian birth and previously of Jordanian nationality. He has been a U.S. citizen for many years, having attended college in Texas. He worked for me at Intel on and off for 10 years. (...)

The only thing anyone can think of is that, long before 9/11/01, Mike and his wife donated to Global Relief, a once-respected international aid organization that since October 2002 has fallen into disrepute. But there is no way Mike could have known this at this time. My wife is a recently-naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Northern Ireland, another victim of terrorism. If our donations to Northern Irish aid were to be mis-directed, without our knowledge, would I have FBI agents kicking down my door? Would my wife be put into federal prison?

Read the rest of the letter, and read more about the case via The Register