Politics Blog Directory

Subscribe to "CodeWarriorz Thoughts Feed" ..click on the orange XML button

Loading...
CodeWarriorZ BlueZ

CodeWarriorz Thoughts recognizes the right of Fair Use of copyrighted materials, and hereby authorizes and encourages others , to make copies of this material for non-commercial, non-legal, non-litigious uses, under the Fair Use doctrine. We do request that those copying, give acknowledgement of the source of this material. Thank you.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com



....NOT MY PRESIDENT...NOT NOW...NOT EVER !!!!!!!!!!

DON'T BLAME ME...I VOTED FOR KERRY !!!!!!



...... "Too many good docs are getting out of the business.

......Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their...their love with women all across the country."�GEORGE BUSH

Sept. 6, 2004, Poplar Bluff, Mo.

TIME TO STOP THE MADNESS. END THE "STOP LOSS" ORDER. BRING OUR MEN AND WOMEN HOME. SAVE THEIR LIVES! SAY NO TO THE DRAFT !



Mr. "BRING IT ON" Man, got his ass kicked by his own bicycle!

Scientific experiment to PROVE the economy is "ON FIRE" and there are lots of
high paying jobs being created. Heck, you can't even turn around without being offered a six figure CEO position, right? LOLOLOL...MORE of "THE BIG LIE"!
FULL MOON BLUEZ, FROM CODEWARRIORZ THOUGHTS
Loading...
eXTReMe Tracker
Google
CodeWarriorz Thoughts
Cost of America's Noble Iraq Crusade:
(JavaScript Error)
Here is Where Our Money is GOING !

Copyright Notice -
All original comments are © Copyright 2004 by CodeWarrior. All rights are reserved. All quoted material unless in public domain, are the copyrighted works of the respective copyright holders, and all referenced trademarks are respectively owned by the relevant trademark holder. No attempt nor intention is made by this author to dilute any trademark or infringe any copyrighted material. All materials used on this page not copyrighted by CodeWarrior, are held to be used for non-commercial , personal, fair use purposes. All declaratoy statements not manifestly,contextually or perceptually, intended to be sarcastic, ironic, or parody in nature, are asserted to be true and correct by the author of this blog, as far as could be determined given the information available to the author at the time the post was written. Unauthorized reproduction of material on this page is prohibited, unless such limited reproduction falls under fair use, and such use is authorized if proper attribution of the source of the material, and author is credited in all instances of its usage.

SEARCH THIS SITE USING KEYWORDS

Powered by:

CodeWarriorz Thoughts: Monday, June 07, 2004 CodeWarriorZ BlueZ

CodeWarriorz Thoughts

Day to day musings of free speech activist CodeWarrior.

CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE OF MY PAL SHMOO

Monday, June 07, 2004

 

GAO report and Universities...Intellectual Property and Copyright Infringement

"a GAO United States General Accounting Office
Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2004 FILE SHARING
Selected Universities Report Taking Action
to Reduce Copyright Infringement

GAO-04-503

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-503.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at
(202) 512-6240 or koontzlj@gao.gov.
Highlights of GAO-04-503, a report to congressional requesters

May 2004
FILE SHARING
Selected Universities Report Taking
Action to Reduce Copyright Infringement

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of
these applications, and they are taking steps to reduce the use of these applications on their networks. All of the officials interviewed indicated that their colleges or universities routinely monitor their networks, and most of
them indicated that the institutions also actively monitor their networks specifically for the use of these file-sharing applications.

When infringing use is discovered, all of the representatives stated that enforcement actions are
taken against the individuals responsible. These actions included issuing a warning to the user or users, banning them from the network for a period of time, and managing the bandwidth available for a group of users.

Federal law enforcement officials have been taking action to investigate and prosecute organizations involved in significant copyright infringement.

These groups use a wide range of Internet technologies to illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the Internet. Federal law enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative barriers to investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer networks. According to the Department of Justice officials, the department’s recently created
Intellectual Property Task Force will examine how the department handles intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, if needed.

U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during Operation Buccaneer

The emergence of peer-to-peer filesharing applications that allow networks to share computer files among millions of users has changed the way copyrighted materials, including digital music,videos, software, and images can
be distributed and has led to a dramatic increase in the incidence of copyright infringement (piracy) of these digital materials. These applications enable direct
communication between users, allowing users to access each
other’s files and share digital music, videos, and software.

According to a coalition of intellectual property owners in the entertainment industry, an increasing number of students are using the fast Internet connections
offered by college and university networks to infringe copyrights by illegally downloading and sharing massive volumes of copyrighted materials on peer-to-peer networks.
GAO was asked to describe
(1) the views of major universities on the
extent of problems experienced with student use of file-sharing applications as well as the actions that the universities are taking to deal with them and (2) the actions that federal enforcement agencies have taken to address the issue of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer
networks as well as agency views on any legislative barriers to dealing with the problems.

Page i GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Letter 1
Results in Brief 2
Background 4
Selected Universities Report Taking Action to Reduce Illegal File Sharing on Campus Networks 8
Federal Enforcement of Copyright Infringement through File
Sharing Focuses on Organized Groups 15
Summary 19
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22
Appendix II Description of File Sharing and Peer-to-Peer
Networks 24
Appendix III Key and Supporting Federal Agencies Involved
in the Investigation and Prosecution of Copyright
Infringement 30
Investigating Agencies 30
Prosecuting Agencies 31
Supporting Agencies 32
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice 34
Glossary 38
Table
Table 1: Federal Entities and Supporting Agencies and
Organizations Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Intellectual Property Rights Violations and
Copyright Infringement 7
Contents
Page ii GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figures
Figure 1: Average Percentage of Bandwidth Used for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing (Selected universities) 9
Figure 2: Number of Notifications and Ability to Trace to an Individual Student (Selected universities) 10
Figure 3: Expenses Associated with Responding to Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: Amount of Reported Additional Funding and Categories of Expense (Selected universities) 11
Figure 4: Educational Activities: Planned and Completed (Selected universities) 13
Figure 5: Enforcement Activities Used (Selected universities) 14
Figure 6: U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during
Operation Buccaneer 17
Figure 7: Peer-to-Peer Models 26
Figure 8: Topology of a Gnutella Network 29
Abbreviations
CIO chief information officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
IM Instant messaging
IP Internet Protocol
VNS virtual name space

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.

Page 1 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
May 28, 2004
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid
Assistant Minority Leader
United States Senate
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Howard P. McKeon
Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives
File sharing—the use of peer-to-peer1 networks to distribute computer files among millions of users—has dramatically changed the way copyrighted materials, including digital music, videos, software, and
images can be distributed. By permitting fast, cheap, and easy production of identical copies, file-sharing applications have facilitated both the legitimate distribution of copyrighted materials by the copyright holder and the illegal copyright infringement (piracy) and distribution by unauthorized users. According to a coalition of intellectual property owners in the recording industry, an increasing number of students are
using fast Internet connections offered by college and university networks to infringe copyrights by illegally downloading and sharing massive volumes of copyrighted songs, movies, and video games on peer-to-peer
networks.

As requested, our objectives were to describe (1) the views of major universities on the extent of problems experienced with student use of 1Peer-to-peer file-sharing network programs enable direct communication between users,
allowing them to access each other’s files and share digital music, software, images, and videos.

United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
file-sharing software applications, as well as the actions that the universities are taking to deal with them and (2) the actions that federal enforcement agencies have taken to address the issue of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks, as well as agency views on any
legislative barriers to dealing with the problems.
To address the first objective, we conducted structured interviews with a judgmentally selected group of 13 officials that oversee the computer systems of major postsecondary educational institutions. The selected
colleges and universities were located in each of eight geographic regions of the United States. All of these institutions provided Internet access to students in university-administered housing and were large public or
private degree-granting colleges and universities. In this analysis, we provide details on the responses of the 13 college or university officials we interviewed; however, because we did not randomly select interviewees, our results are not generalizable to all colleges or universities.

To describe federal law enforcement efforts and agency views related to copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks, we analyzed budget and program documents from the Department of Justice (Justice) Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Cyber Division; and the Cyber Crimes Center of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We also interviewed officials from these organizations.
We performed our work from May 2003 to April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Further details on our objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I.

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of file-sharing software applications on their networks; and almost all of them report that they have experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of these applications, therefore, they are taking steps to reduce the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing technology on their networks. Specifically, several of the college or university officials
interviewed stated that, on average, a significant amount of bandwidth on their networks appeared to be used for file-sharing applications; several of the respondents estimated that a sizable portion of the students at the
college or university were using file-sharing applications to download or share music, images, and video files during the 2003 to 2004 academic term. Further, most of the officials interviewed stated that their

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-04-503 File Sharing

institutions had experienced either network performance problems or security incidents as a result of the use of the file-sharing applications on their networks, and almost all indicated that they had spent additional
funds to deal with the problems associated with the use of these applications, including two respondents who indicated that they had spent between $250,000 and $749,999.

At the same time, all the college and university officials we interviewed stated that they have implemented technical controls to limit the use of file-sharing technology on their networks and that they have either undertaken or plan to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to
limit student copyright infringement. Further, most of the officials interviewed stated that they felt they had the right tools and knowledge to address the issue and that they thought the approaches they have used have been either somewhat or very successful at controlling the problem.

Federal law enforcement officials are taking actions to investigate and prosecute organized software-piracy groups that use a wide range of Internet technologies—including file sharing over peer-to-peer networks— to illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the Internet. Two recent examples of major federal law enforcement action that has focused on international piracy groups are (1) the Operation Fastlink coordinated by Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and (2) Operation Buccaneer, led by the U.S.Customs Service and Justice. These operations resulted in the identification of individuals engaged in online piracy and the seizure of tens of thousands of pirated copies of software, music, and computer
games worth millions of dollars.

Federal law enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative barriers to investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-topeer
networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s recently created Intellectual Property Task Force will examine how the department handles intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, assuming there is a need for such changes. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General provided information on a recent international law enforcement effort against online piracy and presented additional detail on the department’s policy on investigating and prosecuting intellectual property
rights infringers on the Internet and on the peer-to-peer networks. These comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, have been incorporated into this report as appropriate.

Page 4 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
In addition, we received comments (via e-mail) from the unit chief of the Cyber Crime Center on behalf of DHS. The unit chief clarified the center’s approach to investigations of individual copyright infringers and provided
various technical comments, which have been incorporated into this
report as appropriate.
U.S. copyright law protects books, photographs, videos, movies, sound
recordings, software code, and other creative works of expression from
unauthorized copying. A copyright gives its owner the exclusive right to
reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license a work, and the
exclusive right to produce or license the production of derivative works.2
Copyright protection attaches as soon as the work is “fixed in a tangible
medium of expression,” thus covering both published and unpublished
works. However, there are some limits to the protections afforded by
copyright law, such as in the use of a copyrighted work for purposes such
as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.3
File-sharing software applications work by making selected files on a
user’s computer available for downloading by anyone using similar
software, which, in turn, gives the user access to selected files on
computers of other users on the peer-to-peer network. The growing
popularity and proliferation of file-sharing applications such as KaZaA has
had a profound effect on the dissemination of copyrighted works, by both
the copyright holder and infringers.
The use of file sharing has grown steadily over the past few years. For
example, by May 2003, KaZaA had become the world’s most downloaded
software program of any kind, with more than 230 million4 downloads.
According to the Recording Industry Association of America, the
217 U.S.C. §§ 106, 201(d).
3For example, a copyright holder’s exclusive right to distribute and perform the work,
make reproductions, and create derivative works is limited by the fair-use doctrine. The
fair-use doctrine operates as a limitation on and exception to the rights granted by
copyright by permitting the copying of copyrighted works for certain uses that include
criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Use of
copyrighted work is not an infringement if the use falls within the scope of “fair use,” based
on a case-by-case analysis of four factors identified by statute.
4Testimony of Cary Sherman, President, Recording Industry Association of America before
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, September 17, 2003.
Background
File Sharing Is a Principal
Tool for Distribution of
Copyrighted Works
Page 5 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
increased use of peer-to-peer networks has contributed to an increase in
copyright infringement, with millions of users downloading more than 2.6
billion copyrighted files (mostly sound recordings) each month via various
peer-to-peer networks.
The widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on peerto-
peer systems is a concern not only for copyright owners but also for
those who administer the networks on which the file-sharing applications
run. Because of their high-bandwidth connections and the concentration
of large groups of young, computer-literate users, college and university
networks are particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts from the use of
file-sharing applications. In 2002, a committee of representatives from
education and the entertainment industry—the Joint Committee of Higher
Education and Entertainment Communities—was convened to discuss and
address matters of mutual concern, including the misuse of university
networks for copyright infringement. In addition, the Recording Industry
Association of America has conducted searches for copyrighted material
being illegally shared on peer-to-peer networks and has sent more than
30,000 notices to colleges and universities regarding files that are being
shared on systems connected to university networks.
Congress has moved to address piracy issues that have been raised by
developments in computer and Internet technology. With regard to the
widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on peer-topeer
systems, the crime of felony copyright infringement has four essential
elements:
1. A copyright exists;
2. The copyright was infringed by the defendant, specifically by
reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work, including by
electronic means;
3. The defendant acted “willfully.” Under the law, evidence of
reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, is not
sufficient to establish willful infringement; and
Page 6 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted
works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day
period.5
In addition to criminal liability, significant civil remedies are available to
copyright holders for infringement. Copyright holders are entitled to
receive either “actual damages and profits” from an infringer, or they can
elect to receive “statutory damages” ranging from $750 to $30,000 for each
infringed work, increasing to $150,000 if the copyright holder proves the
infringement was willful. In addition, a court can order an injunction
against further infringement, the impoundment and disposition of
infringing articles, and attorneys’ fees and costs.6
Several federal entities are responsible for enforcing the federal statutes
pertaining to intellectual property protection and copyright infringement.
Table 1 shows these agencies, along with other key organizations involved
in efforts to protect intellectual property rights and combat copyright
infringement, including illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer networks.
5Generally, the criminal infringement statute provides that where the offense consists of
willful infringement of a copyright with a retail value of at least $2,500 over a 180-day
period, the penalty is not more than 5 years imprisonment if the offense was for the
purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, that is, there is an attempt to
gain an advantage or profit (violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)). If the infringement consists
of willful distribution and reproduction of copyrighted materials with no aspect of
commercial advantage or private financial gain (violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)), the
penalty is not more than 3 years imprisonment.
617 U.S.C. § 502-505.
Federal Agencies Have
Law Enforcement
Responsibilities Regarding
Illegal File Sharing
Page 7 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Table 1: Federal Entities and Supporting Agencies and Organizations Involved in the Investigation and Prosecution of
Intellectual Property Rights Violations and Copyright Infringement
Agency Unit Focus
Investigating agencies
Department of Homeland
Security
Cyber Crimes Center, U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Investigates international criminal activity conducted on or facilitated by
the Internet, including money laundering, drug trafficking, intellectual
property rights violations, arms trafficking, and child pornography, and
provides computer forensics support to other agencies.
Department of Justice Cyber Division, Federal
Bureau of Investigation
Investigates federal violations, including intellectual property rights
violations, in which the Internet, computer systems, and networks are
exploited as the principal instruments or targets of criminal activity.
Prosecuting agencies
Department of Justice Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property section
Consists of specialized attorneys who prosecute cybercrime and
intellectual property cases worldwide.
Computer Hacking and
Intellectual Property units
Consist of prosecutors in select U.S. Attorneys Offices dedicated
primarily to prosecuting high-technology crimes, including intellectual
property offenses.
Computer and
Telecommunication
Coordinator network
Consists of prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys Offices specifically trained to
address the range of novel and complex legal issues related to high-tech
and intellectual property crime.
U.S. Attorneys Offices Serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the U.S.
Attorney General.
Supporting agencies
Department of Commerce International Trade
Administration
Monitors foreign governments’ compliance and implementation of
international trade agreements, especially those pertaining to intellectual
property rights enforcement.
Department of Homeland
Security
Intellectual Property Rights
Coordination Center, U.S.
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Coordinates the investigation of leads provided by the general public and
industry pertaining to intellectual property rights infringement. The Center
is a joint effort of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the
Federal Bureau of Investigations.
Department of Justice Criminal Division Provides, through its Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance
and Training Office and its International Criminal Investigation Training
Assistance Programs, training and assistance to foreign law enforcement
and foreign governments to foster the robust protection of intellectual
property rights in foreign countries.
Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Fosters the protection of intellectual property rights in foreign countries
and assists U.S. prosecutions of intellectual property violations
originating in foreign countries through its legal attaches located in
foreign countries.
Department of State International Law
Enforcement Academies
Provides specialized training courses in fighting intellectual property
rights crime.
National Intellectual
Property Law Enforcement
Coordination Council
Interagency Coordination
Council
Coordinates domestic and international intellectual property law
enforcement among federal and foreign entities (including law
enforcement liaison, training coordination, industry and other outreach)
and increases public awareness.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Page 8 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
The federal law enforcement agencies work with state and local law
enforcement agencies, including state police and local district attorneys, in
the investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crime. In
addition, industry organizations, such as the Recording Industry
Association of America, the Business Software Alliance, and the Software
and Information Industry Association, provide federal law enforcement
organizations with information and documentary evidence in support of
federal investigations and prosecutions. (See app. III for a detailed
description of federal organizations involved in investigating and
prosecuting copyright infringement.)
The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of
file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have
experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of
these applications, and they are taking steps to reduce the use of peer-topeer
file-sharing technology on their networks.7
All of the college and university officials we interviewed stated that they
have implemented technical controls to limit the use of file-sharing
technology on their networks and that they have either undertaken or plan
to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to limit student
copyright infringement. Most of the officials interviewed stated that they
felt they had the right tools and knowledge to deal with the use of peer-topeer
file-sharing applications to download or share copyrighted material
on university networks, and almost all of the officials stated that they
thought the approaches they have used to address the problem have been
either somewhat or very successful at controlling the problem.
All of the university officials we interviewed indicated that their colleges
or universities routinely monitor their networks and most of them
indicated that the institutions also actively monitored their networks
specifically for the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications during the
2003 to 2004 academic term. For those colleges and universities that
monitored specifically for the use of file-sharing technology (10 of 13
respondents), university officials stated that the amount of bandwidth that
7Although we provide details on the responses of the 13 college or university officials we
interviewed, our results are not generalizable to all colleges or universities.
Selected Universities
Report Taking Action
to Reduce Illegal File
Sharing on Campus
Networks
University Officials We
Interviewed Are Aware of
the Use of File-Sharing
Applications on Their
Networks
Page 9 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
appeared to be used by file-sharing applications varied, from as low as 0 to
9 percent to as high as 90 to 100 percent. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Average Percentage of Bandwidth Used for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing
(Selected universities)
While several university officials were unable to estimate the percentage
of students using file-sharing applications to download or share music,
images and video files, several estimated that 30 percent or more of
students were doing so during the 2003 to 2004 academic term. One
official estimated that between 90 and 100 percent of the students at the
institution were using file-sharing applications.
In addition, all of the college and university officials interviewed indicated
that they had received notices from representatives of copyright holders
alleging file-sharing copyright violations by students, with more than half
of the interview respondents indicating that they had received more than
100 notifications. In most or all of these cases, university officials were
able to trace the infringement notification to an individual student. (See
fig. 3.)
Page 10 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figure 2: Number of Notifications and Ability to Trace to an Individual Student (Selected universities)
Overall, most of the college and university officials we interviewed
indicated that they had experienced some network performance or
security problems as a result of the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing
applications on their institutions’ networks. Specifically, two officials
interviewed stated that their institution had experienced network
performance problems somewhat often as a result of student use of filesharing
applications, and six officials indicated that they had experienced
few network performance problems. Further, of the 13 institutions whose
officials we interviewed, 9 indicated that they had experienced security
problems as a result of file sharing or downloading. For those who
indicated that they had experience problems, the most common types of
security incidents reported were the introduction of viruses or malicious
code (eight interview respondents) and temporary loss of network
resources (five interview respondents).
In addition, almost all of the officials that were interviewed stated that
their institutions had spent additional funding during the 2003 to 2004
Use of Peer-to-Peer
Technology Has
Reportedly Had a Negative
Impact on University
Networks
Page 11 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
academic year to deal with the effects of the use of peer-to-peer filesharing
applications on their networks, with the median amount of
additional spending being between $50,000 and $99,999;8 two officials
stated that their institutions had spent between $250,000 to $749,999. This
additional funding was spent on a variety of network infrastructure and
operational areas, including bandwidth expansion, bandwidth
management software/hardware, system management, and system
maintenance. (See fig. 3.)
Figure 3: Expenses Associated with Responding to Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: Amount of Reported Additional Funding and
Categories of Expense (Selected universities)
8A median is the value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal
number of values; if there is no one middle number, it is the value that is the arithmetic
mean of the two middle values.
Page 12 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
All of the colleges and universities whose officials we interviewed
indicated that they are taking steps to reduce or eliminate the use of peerto-
peer file-sharing technology for copyright infringement on their
networks. Specifically, all of the officials interviewed stated that they have
implemented technical controls to limit the use of file-sharing technology.
These technical controls include (1) limiting access to file-sharing
applications, both among internal users of the network and between
internal and external users; (2) reducing or limiting the amount of
bandwidth available to network users seeking to download or share files;
and (3) segregating the portion of the network serving college or
university administered housing from the rest of the university network.
In addition, all of the officials interviewed stated that they have either
undertaken or plan to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to
limit student copyright infringement. All of the officials that were
interviewed stated that they have undertaken educational efforts, such as
issuing or revising network use policies and student codes of conduct; and
12 of the 13 officials that were interviewed stated that they plan to
undertake educational activities regarding intellectual property violations
or illegal file sharing of copyrighted materials. (See fig. 4.)
Universities Report Taking
Steps to Reduce Copyright
Infringement on Peer-to-
Peer Networks
Page 13 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figure 4: Educational Activities: Planned and Completed (Selected universities)
Further, all the officials interviewed stated that they have undertaken
enforcement efforts to address copyright infringement on peer-to-peer
networks. During the 2002 to 2003 academic year, all of the college and
university officials interviewed stated that they had either discovered or
had been made aware of individuals using file-sharing applications such as
KaZaA or peer-to-peer network indexes9 on their institution’s network.
When file downloading was discovered, all the officials stated that
9Peer-to-peer network indexes are high-capacity searchable indexes of files located on
other computers on a local area network (similar to the original Napster; see app. II). These
indexes are sometimes also referred to as “mini-Napsters” and use software such as Phynd
to create and maintain searchable indexes of files shared on a peer-to-peer network.
Page 14 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
enforcement actions were taken against the individuals responsible. These
actions included issuing a warning to the user or users, banning them from
the network for a period of time, and shaping the bandwidth available for
a group of users. (See fig. 5.)
Figure 5: Enforcement Activities Used (Selected universities)
Most of the officials interviewed stated that they felt they had the right
tools and knowledge to deal with the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing
applications to download or share copyrighted material. Further, almost
all of the officials stated that they thought the approaches they have used
to address the problem have been either somewhat or very successful at
controlling the use of peer-to-peer applications for downloading and
sharing copyrighted materials.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Other actions
Disciplined
the users
Banned users
from the networks
permanently
Banned users
from the networks
for a period of time
Shaped the
bandwidth for a
group of users
Reduced the
bandwidth available
to the users
Issued warning
to users
Took no action
0 2 4 6 8 10
Other actions
Disciplined Node
owners
Banned Node
owners from the
networks permanently
Banned Node owners
from the networks for
a period of time
Reduced the bandwidth
available to the
Node owners
Removed the
Node from
the networks
Issued warning
to owners
Took no action
Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.
0
10
6
10
10
3
9
3
0
4
3
0
1
0
2
1
Actions taken regarding students who were using file sharing
applications to download or share copyrighted files
Actions taken regarding students who were operating file
sharing Nodes or "mini-Napsters"
Page 15 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Federal law enforcement officials told us that they have been taking
actions to investigate and prosecute organizations involved in significant
copyright infringement, such as the warez10 groups—loosely affiliated
networks of criminal groups that specialize in “cracking” the copyright
protection on software, movies, game and music files. These groups use a
wide range of Internet technologies—including file sharing over peer-topeer
networks—to illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the
Internet. According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Justice, the top warez
groups serve as major suppliers of the infringed works that eventually
enter the stream of file sharing on peer-to-peer networks.
Two recent examples of major federal law enforcement actions that have
focused on international piracy groups are the Justice’s Operations
Fastlink and the U.S. Customs Service’s Operation Buccaneer.
Operation Fastlink is an international investigation coordinated by
Justice’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the FBI.
According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property Computer Crime
and Intellectual Property Section, Fastlink is the largest international
enforcement effort ever undertaken against online piracy. As part of
Operation Fastlink, on April 21, 2004, U.S. and foreign law enforcement
officials executed more than 120 simultaneous searches across multiple
time zones. In addition to the United States, searches were executed in
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands,
Singapore, Sweden, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. As a result, more
than 100 individuals believed to be engaged in online piracy have been
identified, many of them high-level members or leaders of online piracy
release groups that specialize in distributing high-quality pirated movies,
music, games, and software over the Internet. More than 200 computers
were seized worldwide, including more than 30 computer servers that
function as storage and distribution hubs for the online piracy groups
targeted by this operation.
Operation Buccaneer was an international investigation and prosecution
operation led by the U.S. Customs Service and Justice. The operation
resulted in the seizure of tens of thousands of pirated copies of software,
10Warez refers to software applications that have had all copy protection removed or
circumvented, and are therefore available for unlimited copying, free of charge, in violation
of the software owner’s or publisher’s copyright.
Federal Enforcement
of Copyright
Infringement through
File Sharing Focuses
on Organized Groups
Page 16 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
music, and computer games worth millions of dollars and led to 30
convictions worldwide. Operation Buccaneer targeted a number of highly
organized and sophisticated international criminal piracy groups that had
cracked the copyright protection on thousands of software, movie, and
music files and distributed those files over the Internet.
As part of Operation Buccaneer, on December 11, 2001, the U.S. Customs
Service and law enforcement officials from Australia, Finland, Norway,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom simultaneously executed approximately
70 search warrants worldwide. Approximately 40 search warrants were
executed in 27 cities across the United States, including several at
universities. Pursuant to the search warrants, law enforcement seized 10
computer “archive sites” that contained tens of thousands of pirated
copies of software, movies, music, and computer games worth millions of
dollars. According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property Computer
Crime and Intellectual Property Section, as of April 1, 2004, 27 defendants
had been convicted in the United States, with 2 awaiting sentencing and 1
other under indictment. Internationally, six defendants have been
convicted in Finland and the United Kingdom, with four additional
defendants scheduled to go to trial in the United Kingdom in the fall of
2004.
Page 17 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figure 6: U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during Operation Buccaneer
According to DHS officials, the Cyber Crime Center of the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement does target individual violators
who are involved in cyber intellectual property piracy on a profit or
commercial basis. The officials noted that the center does not pursue
investigations of individual peer-to-peer file violators due to the statutory
dollar-value threshold limits and lack of a profit motive.
According to these officials, the statutory dollar-value threshold is very
difficult to meet in peer-to-peer cases, since most peer-to-peer
infringement is based on the sharing of music, and the major record labels
have set $0.80 as the dollar value of each copy of a song (the officials
noted that most successful prosecutions are based on copyright
infringement of software applications, because these tend to have a higher
dollar value than songs). Proving criminal intent is also often a problem in
these cases, since file sharing is a passive act, and in most cases there is
no profit motive.
Page 18 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
According to Justice officials, federal intellectual property protection
efforts do not focus on investigation and prosecution of individual
copyright infringers on peer-to-peer networks, but instead they focus on
organizations or individuals engaged in massive distribution or
reproduction of copyrighted materials. According to these officials, this
focus exists because:
• Federal law enforcement is best suited to focus on large-scale or
sophisticated infringers, including organized groups, large-scale
infringers, infringers operating out of numerous jurisdictions and foreign
countries, and infringers using sophisticated technology to avoid
detection, identification, and apprehension. By and large, individual
copyright holders do not have the tools or ability to pursue these types of
targets.
• Copyright holders do not have the legal tools or ability to tackle the
organized criminal syndicates and most sophisticated infringers, but
they have the tools and ability to target the individual infringer. While
federal law enforcement has the tools, ability, expertise, and will to tackle
the most sophisticated infringers, including those operating overseas who
are part of a large syndicate and those using sophisticated technology to
avoid detection, individual copyright holders have the tools to pursue
individual infringers. Congress has provided for civil enforcement actions.
Individual copyright holders, mostly through industry associations, have
been very active in their pursuit of individual infringers using peer-to-peer
applications.
• Focusing law enforcement and industry on their respective strengths
results in maximum impact. By using both the criminal and civil tools
given to law enforcement and industry by Congress, Justice can achieve a
more significant impact.
• Technological limitations pose a challenge. Given the technology
involved, it is challenging to gather the necessary evidence for a successful
criminal prosecution of individuals using peer-to-peer applications. For
example, it may be possible to prove that someone is offering copyrighted
material for download through a peer-to-peer application; but, according
to law enforcement officials, it is usually difficult or impossible to
determine the number of times files were downloaded.
• Burden of proof in criminal prosecutions is more onerous. The criminal
statute at issue requires proof of a willful intent and requires that each
element of the offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The willful
intent is a higher burden than is found in most criminal statutes. By
Page 19 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
contrast, the intent element and overall burden of proof is significantly
less onerous in civil enforcement.
• Statutory thresholds favor a federal criminal enforcement focus on the
more significant targets. The thresholds require a retail value of $2,500 or
more for the goods pirated by the infringer. With a valuation of $0.80 per
song that is traded on a peer-to-peer application, federal criminal law
enforcement could not be used to target individuals downloading fewer
than 3,100 music files, for example. The technological limitations
mentioned earlier, combined with the heightened burden of proof, make it
challenging to show criminal violations for each of the more than 3,100
downloads.
• The need for efficient use of resources suggests a focus on large-scale
sophisticated targets. The need for law enforcement to use resources
efficiently suggests that federal law enforcement should focus their efforts
in a way that yields the greatest impact. For many of the reasons detailed
above, federal law enforcement has determined that they can make the
biggest impact by focusing on the larger-scale, more sophisticated targets.
According to Justice officials, the recently created Intellectual Property
Task Force—headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the
Attorney General, and comprised of several of the highest-ranking
department employees who have a variety of subject matter expertise—is
charged with examining all aspects of how Justice handles intellectual
property issues and with developing recommendations for legislative
changes and future activities. One of the issues to be addressed by the task
force is the most appropriate use of department resources to ensure that
the department has the most effective enforcement strategy.
Federal law enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative
barriers to investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-topeer
networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s Intellectual
Property Task Force will also recommend legislative changes, assuming
there is a need for such changes.
The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of
file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have
experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of
these applications; therefore, they are taking steps to reduce the use of
peer-to-peer file-sharing technology on their networks. All of the officials
interviewed indicated that their colleges or universities routinely monitor
Summary
Page 20 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
their networks; and most of them indicated that the institutions also
actively monitor their networks, specifically for the use of peer-to-peer
file-sharing applications. When infringing use was discovered, all of the
officials stated that enforcement actions were taken against the
individuals responsible. These actions included issuing warnings to the
users, banning them from the network for a period of time, and shaping
the bandwidth available for a group of users.
Federal law enforcement officials have been taking action to investigate
and prosecute organizations involved in significant copyright
infringement. These groups use a wide range of Internet technologies to
illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the Internet. Federal law
enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative barriers to
investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer
networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s recently created
Intellectual Property Task force will examine how the department handles
intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, if needed.
In providing comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, provided
additional information on a recent international law enforcement effort
against online piracy, coordinated by the department’s Computer Crime
and Intellectual Property Section and the FBI, and presented a detailed
description of the department’s policy on investigating and prosecuting
intellectual property rights infringers on the Internet and on peer-to-peer
networks. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General also noted that the
department’s recently created Intellectual Property Task Force will
examine how the department handles intellectual property issues and
recommend legislative changes, if needed. We have incorporated this
information into this report.
We also received comments (via e-mail) from the unit chief of the Cyber
Crime Center on behalf of DHS. The unit chief provided additional details
on the number of investigations conducted by the Cyber Crime Center and
clarified the center’s approach to investigations of individual copyright
infringers. Specifically, the unit chief stated that, while the center targets
individual violators who are involved in cyber intellectual property piracy
on a profit or commercial basis, it does not pursue investigations of
individual peer-to-peer file violators, due to the difficulties in meeting the
statutory dollar-value threshold in peer-to-peer infringement cases and the
lack of a profit motive. We have incorporated these details into this report.
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 21 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Senate and House
committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction and oversight
responsibility for Justice and DHS. We are also sending copies to the
Attorney General and to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Copies will
be made available to others on request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)
512-6240 or Mirko J. Dolak, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6362. We can
also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and dolakm@gao.gov,
respectively. Key contributors to this report were Jason B. Bakelar,
Barbara S. Collier, Nancy E. Glover, Lori D. Martinez, Morgan F. Walts,
and Monica L. Wolford.
Linda D. Koontz
Director, Information Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 22 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Our objectives were to describe (1) the views of major universities on the
extent of problems experienced with student use of file-sharing software
applications, as well as the actions that the universities are taking to deal
with them and (2) the actions that federal enforcement agencies have
taken to address the issue of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer
networks, as well as agency views on any legislative barriers to dealing
with these problems.
To describe the views of college and university officials, we conducted
structured interviews with a judgmental sample of large colleges and
universities. The interview contained 35 questions referring to (1) the
extent to which the college or university monitors its network or networks
and the impact of the use of file-sharing applications on the network, (2)
estimates of the number of students using file-sharing applications and the
number of files shared or transferred over the network, (3) the discovery
of nodes or mini-Napsters on the network and response of the university
to their existence, (4) the discovery of file-sharing applications on the
network and response of the university to their use, and (5) the actions
taken by the college or university to address copyright infringement and
the use of file-sharing applications on its networks.
We pretested the content of the interview with chief information officers
(CIO) of four major colleges and universities. During the pretest, we asked
the CIOs to judge the following:
• how willing the CIOs would be to participate in the interview, particularly
given the sensitive nature of some of the information requested;
• whether the meaning and intent of each question was clear and
unambiguous;
• whether the CIOs were likely to know the information asked, and if the
questions should be addressed to someone in a different position; and
• whether any of the questions were redundant.
We made changes to the content and format of the final structured
interview based on pretest results.
To administer the structured interviews, we selected 45 colleges and
universities from the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System. The colleges and universities were judgmentally
selected from among large public and private degree-granting colleges and
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 23 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
universities in each of eight geographic regions of the United States that
provide Internet access to students in university administered housing.1 Of
the 45 colleges and universities selected and contacted, 13 agreed to
participate in the interview. We then analyzed the interview responses.
Our analysis provides details on the responses of the 13 college and
university officials we interviewed; however, because we did not randomly
select interviewees, our results cannot be generalized to all colleges and
universities.
To describe federal law enforcement efforts and agency views related to
copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks, we analyzed budget and
program documents from the Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Cyber
Division; and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Cyber
Crimes Center, under the Department of Homeland Security. We also
reviewed agency documents related to the efforts of other organizations
that support the investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement,
including the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement
Academies; the Department of Commerce’s International Trade
Administration; and the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
and the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination
Council.
We performed our work between May 2003 and April 2004 in Washington,
D.C. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
1The universities that were involved in pretesting the interview questions were not included
in the interviews.
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 24 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs represent a major change in the way
Internet users find and exchange information. Under the traditional
Internet client/server model, the access to information and services is
accomplished by the interaction between users (clients) and servers—
usually Web sites or portals. A client is defined as a requester of services,
and a server is defined as the provider of services. Unlike the client/server
model, the peer-to-peer model enables consenting users—or peers—to
directly interact and share information with each other’s computer
without the intervention of a server. A common characteristic of peer-topeer
programs is that they build virtual networks with their own
mechanisms for routing message traffic.1
The ability of peer-to-peer networks to provide services and connect users
directly has resulted in a large number2 of powerful applications being
built around this model.3 Among the uses of peer-to-peer technology are
the following:
• File sharing, which includes applications such as Napster and KaZaA,
along with commercial applications such as NextPage.4 File-sharing
applications work by making selected files on a user’s computer available
for download by anyone else using similar software.
• Instant messaging, which includes applications that enable online users
to communicate immediately through text messages. Commercial vendors
include America Online, Microsoft, and Jabber.
• Distributed computing, which includes applications that use the idle
processing power of many computers. The University of California–
1Matei Ripenau, Ian Foster, and Adriana Iamnitchi, “Mapping the Gnutella Network:
Properties of Large Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems and Implication for System Design,” IEEE
Internet Computing, vol. 6, no. 1 (January–February 2002).
(people.cs.uchicago.edu/~matei/PAPERS/ic.pdf)
2Zeropaid.com, a file-sharing portal, lists 88 different peer-to-peer file-sharing programs
available for download. (http://www.zeropaid.com/php/filesharing.php)
3Geoffrey Fox and Shrideep Pallickara, “Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Web Brokering
Systems,” Ubiquity, vol. 3, no. 15 (May 28–June 3, 2002) (published by Association of
Computer Machinery). (http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/g_fox_2.html)
4NextPage provides information-intensive corporations with customized peer-to-peer filesharing
networks. It enables users to manage, access, and exchange content across
distributed servers on intranets and via the Internet.
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 25 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Berkeley’s SETI@home project uses the idle time on volunteers’
computers to analyze radio signal data.
• Collaboration applications, which enable teams in different geographic
areas to work together and increase productivity. For example, the Groove
application can access data on traditional corporate networks and on
nontraditional devices such as personal digital assistants and handheld
devices.
As shown in figure 7,5 there are two main models of peer-to-peer networks:
(1) the centralized model, based on a central server, or broker, that directs
traffic between individual registered users and (2) the decentralized
model, based on the Gnutella6 network, in which individuals find and
interact directly with each other.
5Illustration adapted by Lt. Col. Mark Bontrager from original by Bob Knighten, “Peer-to-
Peer Computing,” briefing to Peer-to-Peer Working Groups (August 24, 2000), in Mark D.
Bontrager, Peering into the Future: Peer-to-Peer Technology as a Model for Distributed
Joint Battlespace Intelligence Dissemination and Operational Tasking, Thesis, School of
Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (June 2001).
6According to LimeWire LLC, the developer of a popular file-sharing program, Gnutella was
originally designed by Nullsoft, a subsidiary of America Online. The development of the
Gnutella protocol was halted by America Online management shortly after the protocol
was made available to the public. Using downloads, programmers reverse-engineered the
software and created their own Gnutella software packages.
(http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/p2p)
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 26 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figure 7: Peer-to-Peer Models
Note: Adapted from Mark Bontrager’s adaptation of original by Bob Knighten.
As figure 7 shows, the centralized model relies on a central server/broker
to maintain directories of shared files stored on the respective computers
of the registered users of the peer-to-peer network. When user C submits a
request for a file, the server/broker creates a list of files matching the
search request by checking the request with its database of files belonging
to registered users currently connected to the network. The broker then
displays that list to user C, who can then select the desired file from the
list and open a direct link with user D’s computer, which currently has the
file. The download of the actual file takes place directly from user D to
user C.
The broker model was used by Napster, the original peer-to-peer network;
it facilitated mass sharing of copyrighted material by combining the file
names held by thousands of users into a searchable directory that enabled
users to connect with each other and download MP3 encoded music files.
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 27 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
The broker model made Napster vulnerable to legal challenges7 and
eventually led to its demise in September 2002.
Although Napster was litigated out of existence and its users fragmented
among many alternative peer-to-peer services, most current-generation
peer-to-peer networks are not dependent on the server/broker that was the
central feature of the Napster services, so, according to Gartner,8 these
networks are less vulnerable to litigation from copyright owners.
In the decentralized model, no brokers keep track of users and their files.
To share files using the decentralized model, user A starts with a
networked computer equipped with a Gnutella file-sharing program, such
as KaZaA or BearShare. User A connects to user B, user B to user C, user
C to user D, and so on. Once user A’s computer has announced that it is
“alive” to the various members of the peer network, it can search the
contents of the shared directories of the peer network members. The
search request is sent to all members of the network, starting with user B,
who will each, in turn, send the request to the computers to which they are
connected, and so on. If one of the computers in the peer network (for
example, user D) has a file that matches the request, it transmits the file
information (name, size, type, etc.) back through all the computers in the
pathway toward user A, where a list of files matching the search request
appears on user A’s computer through the file-sharing program. User A
will then be able to open a connection with user D and download the file
directly from user D’s computer.9
One of the key features of Napster and the current generation of
decentralized peer-to-peer technologies is their use of a virtual name
space. A virtual name space dynamically associates user-created names
with the Internet address of whatever Internet-connected computer users
happen to be using when they log on.10 The virtual name space facilitates
point-to-point interaction between individuals, because it removes the
need for users and their computers to know the addresses and locations of
7A&M Records v. Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
8Lydia Leong, “RIAA vs.Verizon, Implications for ISPs,” Gartner (Oct. 24, 2002).
9LimeWire, Modern Peer-to-Peer File sharing over the Internet.
(http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/p2p)
10S. Hayward and R. Batchelder, “Peer-to-Peer: Something Old, Something New,” Gartner
(Apr. 10, 2001).
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 28 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
other users; the virtual name space can, to a certain extent, preserve users’
anonymity and provide information on whether a user is or is not
connected to the Internet at a given moment.11
The file-sharing networks that result from the use of peer-to-peer
technology are both extensive and complex. Figure 8 shows a map, or
topology, of a Gnutella network whose connections were mapped by a
network visualization tool.12 The map, created in December 2000, shows
1,026 nodes (computers connected to more than one computer) and 3,752
edges (computers on the edge of the network connected to a single
computer). This map is a snapshot showing a network in existence at a
given moment; these networks change constantly as users join and depart
them.
11Peer-to-peer users may appear to be, but are not, anonymous. Law enforcement agents
may identify users’ Internet addresses during the file-sharing process and obtain, under a
court order, their identities from their Internet service providers.
12Mihajlo A. Jovanovic, Fred S. Annexstein, and Kenneth A. Berman, Scalability Issues in
Large Peer-to-Peer Networks: A Case Study of Gnutella, University of Cincinnati Technical
Report (2001). (http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mjovanov/Research/paper.html)
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and
Peer-to-Peer Networks
Page 29 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Figure 8: Topology of a Gnutella Network
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal
Agencies Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
Page 30 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
The emergence of the Internet as a principal medium for copyright
infringement and other crimes has led to the development of new divisions
within the federal government that are specifically trained to deal with
cybercrime issues. These divisions, as well as other entities that are
involved in combating copyright infringement, fulfill three main roles:
investigation, prosecution, and support. The investigation role includes
activities related to gathering and analyzing evidence related to suspected
copyright infringement, while the prosecution role includes activities
related to the institution and continuance of a criminal suit against an
offender. The support role includes activities that are not directly involved
in either investigation or prosecution, but which assist other organizations
in these activities. Support activities include providing specialized training,
producing reports specifically pertaining to intellectual property rights and
copyright infringement, observing international trade agreements, and
providing investigation leads and supporting evidence.
Federal agencies involved in the investigation process of copyright
infringement include the following:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Cyber Crimes Center. The
Cyber Crimes Center, independently or in conjunction with Immigration
and Customs Enforcement field offices, investigates domestic and
international criminal activities conducted on or facilitated by the Internet.
The organization’s responsibilities include investigating money laundering,
drug trafficking, intellectual property rights violations, arms trafficking,
and child pornography cases, and they provide computer forensics
support to other agencies. For fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Customs Service1
referred 57 investigative matters related to intellectual property rights
cases to the U.S. Attorneys Offices. Of these cases, 37 involving 54
defendants were resolved or terminated.
FBI Cyber Division. The Cyber Division coordinates, supervises, and
facilitates the FBI’s investigation of federal violations in which the
Internet, computer systems, and networks are exploited as the principal
1On March 1, 2003 the U.S. Customs Service was reconfigured into two agencies within
DHS, at which time the Office of Investigations and the Cyber Crimes Center became part
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal
Agencies Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
Investigating Agencies
Department of Homeland
Security
Department of Justice
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal
Agencies Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
Page 31 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
instruments or targets of criminal, foreign intelligence, or terrorism
activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to that activity.
For fiscal year 2003, the Cyber Division investigated 596 cases involving
intellectual property rights. Of these cases, 160 were related specifically to
software copyright infringement and 111 were related to other types of
copyright infringement. The results of these investigations include 92
indictments and 95 convictions/pretrial diversions.
Federal agencies involved in the prosecution process of copyright
infringement include the following:
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. The Computer Crime
and Intellectual Property Section consists of 38 attorneys who focus
exclusively on computer and intellectual property crime, including (1)
prosecuting cybercrime and intellectual property cases; (2) advising and
training local, state, and federal prosecutors and investigators in network
attacks, computer search and seizure, and intellectual property law; and
(3) coordinating international enforcement and outreach efforts to combat
intellectual property and computer crime worldwide.
Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units. Computer Hacking
and Intellectual Property units are comprised of highly trained prosecutors
and staff who are dedicated primarily to prosecuting high-tech crimes,
including intellectual property offenses. There are 13 Computer Hacking
and Intellectual Property units located in U.S. Attorneys Offices across the
nation. Each unit is comprised of between four and six prosecutors and
dedicated support staff.
Computer and Telecommunication Coordinator Network. The Computer
and Telecommunication Coordinator program consists of prosecutors
specifically trained to address the range of novel and complex legal issues
related to high tech and intellectual property crime, with general
responsibility for prosecuting computer crime, acting as a technical
advisor and liaison, and providing training and outreach. The Computer
and Telecommunication Coordinator program is made up of more than
200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with at least one prosecutor who is part of
the program in each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices.
U.S. Attorneys Offices. The U.S. Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal
federal litigators under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General. U.S.
Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a
Prosecuting Agencies
Department of Justice
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal
Agencies Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
Page 32 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
party and have responsibility for the prosecution of criminal cases brought
by the federal government, the prosecution and defense of civil cases in
which the United States is a party, and the collection of debts owed the
federal government which are administratively uncollectible. There are 94
U.S. Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. For fiscal year
2002, the U.S. Attorneys Offices received 75 referrals involving
investigative matters for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2319—Criminal
Infringement of a Copyright—and 28 cases involving 56 defendants were
resolved or terminated.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Intellectual Property
Rights Coordination Center. The Center is a multiagency organization
that serves as a clearinghouse for information and investigative leads
provided by the general public and industry, as well as being a channel for
law enforcement to obtain cooperation from industry.
The Criminal Division, through its Overseas Prosecutorial Development,
Assistance and Training Office and its International Criminal Investigation
Training Assistance Programs, provides training and assistance to foreign
law enforcement and foreign governments to foster the robust protection
of intellectual property rights in foreign countries.
Through its legal attaches located in foreign countries, the FBI fosters the
protection of intellectual property rights in foreign countries and assists
U.S. prosecutions of intellectual property violations that have foreign
roots.
International Law Enforcement Academies. The academies foster a
cooperative law enforcement partnership and involvement between the
U.S. and participating nations to counter the threat of international crime
within a specific region. The academies develop foreign police managers’
abilities to handle a broad spectrum of contemporary law enforcement
issues, including specialized training courses in fighting intellectual
property rights crime, and increases their capacity to investigate crime and
criminal organizations. As of 2003, academies were operating in Roswell,
Supporting Agencies
Department of Homeland
Security
Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Department of State
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal
Agencies Involved in the Investigation and
Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
Page 33 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
New Mexico; Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Gaborone,
Botswana.
International Trade Administration. The administration monitors foreign
governments’ compliance and implementation with international trade
agreements, especially those pertaining to intellectual property rights
enforcement.
National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council.
The Council’s mission is to coordinate domestic and international
intellectual property law enforcement among federal and foreign entities,
including law enforcement liaison, training coordination, industry and
other outreach, and to increase public awareness. The Council consists of
members from several agencies, including the Director of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (co-chair); the Assistant Attorney General of the
Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (co-chair); the Undersecretary
of State for Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs; the Deputy U.S.
Trade Representative; the Commissioner of Customs; and the
Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade. The council is
required to report annually on its coordination activities to the President
and to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees of the House and
Senate.
U.S. Department of
Commerce
Others
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
Page 34 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Appendix IV: Comments from the
Department of Justice
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
Page 35 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
Page 36 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
Page 37 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
Glossary
Page 38 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
A file-sharing program for Gnutella networks. BearShare supports the
trading of text, images, audio, video, and software files with any other user
of the network.
In the peer-to-peer environment, an intermediary computer that
coordinates and manages requests between client computers.
A networking model in which a collection of nodes (client computers)
request and obtain services from a server node (server computer).
A file-sharing program based on the Gnutella protocol. Gnutella enables
users to directly share files with one another. Unlike Napster, Gnutellabased
programs do not rely on a central server to find files.
Decentralized group membership and search protocol, typically used for file sharing. Gnutella file-sharing programs build a virtual network of participating users.
A popular method of Internet communication that allows for an instantaneous transmission of messages to other users who are logged into the same IM service. America Online’s Instant Messenger and the Microsoft Network Messenger are among the most popular instant messaging programs.
IP address. A number that uniquely identifies a computer connected to the Internet to other computers.

A file-sharing program using a proprietary peer-to-peer protocol to share files among users on the network. Through a distributed self-organizing
network, KaZaA requires no broker or central server like Napster. A file-sharing program running on Gnutella networks. It is open standard software running on an open protocol and is free for public use.
Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) MPEG-1 Audio Layer-3. A widely
used standard for compressing and transmitting music in digital format
across Internet. MP3 can compress file sizes at a ratio of about 10:1 while
preserving sound quality.
A computer or a device that is connected to a network. Every node has a
unique network address.
Glossary
BearShare
broker
client-server
Gnutella
Gnutella protocol
Instant messaging (IM)
Internet Protocol (IP) address
KaZaA
LimeWire
MP3
node
Glossary
Page 39 GAO-04-503 File Sharing
A network node that may function as a client or as a server. In the peer-topeer
environment, peer computers are also called servents, since they
perform tasks associated with both servers and clients.
A computer that interconnects client computers, providing them with
services and information; a component of the client-server model. A Web
server is one type of server.
Search for extraterrestrial intelligence at home. A distributed
computing project, SETI@home uses data collected by the Arecibo
Telescope in Puerto Rico. The project takes advantage of the unused
computing capacity of personal computers. As of February 2000, the
project encompassed 1.6 million participants in 224 countries.
The general structure—or map—of a network. It shows the computers and
the links between them.
Having the properties of x while not being x. For example, “virtual reality”
is an artificial or simulated environment that appears to be real to the
casual observer.
Internet addressing and naming system. In the peer-to-peer environment,
VNS dynamically associates names created by users with the IP addresses
assigned by their Internet services providers to their computers.
A worldwide client-server system for searching and retrieving information
across the Internet. Also known as WWW or the Web.
peer
server
SETI@home
topology
virtual
virtual name space (VNS)
World Wide Web
(310369)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail
alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Public Affairs"

 

Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush

'Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT

Published: June 8, 2004


WASHINGTON, June 7 — A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"The April document was about interrogation techniques and procedures," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. "It was not a legal analysis."

Mr. Di Rita said the 24 interrogation procedures permitted at Guantánamo, four of which required Mr. Rumsfeld's explicit approval, did not constitute torture and were consistent with international treaties.

The March memorandum, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.

A Jan. 22, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department that provided arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated was used extensively as a basis for the March memorandum on avoiding proscriptions against torture.

The previously disclosed Justice Department memorandum concluded that administration officials were justified in asserting that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war.

Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the administration's top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice Department's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002, noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.

The March memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, was prepared as part of a review of interrogation techniques by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes. The group itself was led by the Air Force general counsel, Mary Walker, and included military and civilian lawyers from all branches of the armed services.

The review stemmed from concerns raised by Pentagon lawyers and interrogators at Guantánamo after Mr. Rumsfeld approved a set of harsher interrogation techniques in December 2002 to use on a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot.

Mr. Rumsfeld suspended the harsher techniques, including serving the detainee cold, prepackaged food instead of hot rations and shaving off his facial hair, on Jan. 12, pending the outcome of the working group's review. Gen. James T. Hill, head of the military's Southern Command, which oversees Guantánamo, told reporters last Friday that the working group "wanted to do what is humane and what is legal and consistent not only with" the Geneva Conventions, but also "what is right for our soldiers."

Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush

Published: June 8, 2004


(Page 2 of 2)



Mr. Di Rita said that the Pentagon officials were focused primarily on the interrogation techniques, and that the legal rationale included in the March memo was mostly prepared by the Justice Department and White House counsel's office.

The memo showed that not only lawyers from the Defense and Justice departments and the White House approved of the policy but also that David S. Addington, the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, also was involved in the deliberations. The State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV, dissented, warning that such a position would weaken the protections of the Geneva Conventions for American troops.

The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith," the report said. "Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control."

The adjective "severe," the report said, "makes plain that the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture. Instead, the text provides that pain or suffering must be `severe.' " The report also advised that if an interrogator "has a good faith belief his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture."

The report also said that interrogators could justify breaching laws or treaties by invoking the doctrine of necessity. An interrogator using techniques that cause harm might be immune from liability if he "believed at the moment that his act is necessary and designed to avoid greater harm."

Scott Horton, the former head of the human rights committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, said Monday that he believed that the March memorandum on avoiding responsibility for torture was what caused a delegation of military lawyers to visit him and complain privately about the administration's confidential legal arguments. That visit, he said, resulted in the association undertaking a study and issuing of a report criticizing the administration. He added that the lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.

Jamie Fellner, the director of United States programs for Human Rights Watch, said Monday, "We believe that this memo shows that at the highest levels of the Pentagon there was an interest in using torture as well as a desire to evade the criminal consequences of doing so."

The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction.'


Re-read this...
"Jamie Fellner, the director of United States programs for Human Rights Watch, said Monday, "We believe that this memo shows that at the highest levels of the Pentagon there was an interest in using torture as well as a desire to evade the criminal consequences of doing so."


Yeah...we NEED to vote this paranoid sociopath OUT of office!

 

Another Good Reason NOT to be a Scout

Falling tree kills sleeping Cub scout

"GARDNERS, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A 40-foot pine tree fell in a state park, killing a 7-year-old Cub scout and injuring his father and another boy while they slept in tents during a father-son weekend.

Owen R. Lentz, a first-grader from Camp Hill, was killed when the tree fell early Sunday, Pine Grove Furnace State Park manager Kenneth J. Boyles said.

Boyles said the accident was "against all odds." The weather was calm, but the tree was diseased, he said.

Owen's father, Lee Lentz, who was asleep in the same tent, was struck on the head. He was treated at Carlisle Medical Center and released.

Another scout in a tent next to the Lentzes, Christopher Carey, suffered a broken pelvis. He was in satisfactory condition at the medical center on Monday, a spokeswoman said.

The scouts were part of a group of 11 from Camp Hill on a father-son weekend outing at the park in central Pennsylvania.

Owen was a model student and a friend to other students at Schaeffer Elementary, said Kelly Collingsworth, his teacher. "He was a teacher's dream. He loved learning," she said."
==========================Comment------------------------------------
This is a sad story, and condolences to the young boy's family and friends.

The bottom line is this young man would still be alive if he hadn't been
pushed into this scouting nonsense!

 

And starring Dubya Bush as Captain Queeg

A recent news story which talks about our "Fearless Leader" as a paranoid ,foulmouthed religious nut, also made me think of the Captain Queeg character from The Caine Mutiny.

I can just see G W B on the stand trying to explain who leaked the identity of the female secret agent intentionally, as payback for her husband, the ambassador, having the audacity to reveal the emperor has no clothes. Can't you just see Bush, steel balls in the right hand, rolling them around , and mumbling about how the "enemies of the state" were fighting him at every turn, and how, him firing Tenet, was by order of God himself.

Other characters from the bowels of mythology come to mind though. Of course, Captain Bligh from Mutiny on the Bounty comes to mind, with Kerry playing the Fletcher Christian character, overthrowing the inhuman evil of Bligh. Perhaps the setting now, would be Abu Ghraib prison, and Bush could be denying them clear water like Bligh did in the Marlon Brando version, but of course, Kerry resembles Honest Abe more than he does Marlon "the horror" Brando.

Or, Bush could be Ahab, and Osama could be the tall, kidney failing, white Whale.

The bottom line though, is that more and more folks on the "Patriot radio" talk programs, are talking about Bush being crazy and dangerous...apparently roaming about the oval office enumerating his enemies list, and worrying incessantly about doing the best bangup job of destroying Kerry on his political ads. Apparently, Osama is safe as long as Kerry haunts the inner recesses of Dubya's mind...or what masquerades as Bush's mind.

 

Bush Military Records?

 

Did Ronald Reagan try to join the Communist Party?

:"


Samsonite Traditional Delegate 5" Attache
$82.50 Sale $55.00
eBags

More Briefcases & Attaches
crapshoot Dumb ideas exposed here.



The Third Edmund Morris
More fantasies from Reagan's fictographer.
By Franklin Foer
Posted Friday, Oct. 8, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT


Even if you haven't cracked Dutch, you know about Edmund Morris and his semi-fictional namesake. And you probably haven't avoided a third Edmund Morris: the tireless promoter who dogs your channel-surfing. Strangely, this Edmund Morris on the gab-show circuit begs to differ with Edmund the Writer. Where Edmund the Writer can be cleareyed about his subject, calling Reagan "banal" and an "airhead," Edmund the Promoter fawns like a Reaganaut, constantly trumpeting a "great president." Whereas Edmund I claims he only made up Edmund II, Edmund III weaves tales that are flatly contradicted in Edmund I's book.

A striking instance of inter-Edmund strife comes from last Friday's Larry King Live. There, Edmund the Promoter told how Ronald Reagan almost joined the Communist Party. And why didn't he? "The party elders heard about his desire to join, realized at once that Reagan was not doctrinary material. He was too open and too honest, and he couldn't be trusted to keep party secrets. So they asked him politely to stay the hell away." "

 

Dave Baugh, a victim of the system

Interesting site. Keeping speaking truth to power Dave.

 

Under the "WTF IS GOING ON" Department....

"7 June 2004
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register: June 7, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 31830-31831]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn04-65]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY


Science and Technology Directorate; Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
for the National Biosecurity Analysis and Countermeasures Center
Facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announces its intent
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the
construction and operation by DHS of the proposed new National
Biosecurity Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) facility, at
Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. This EIS is being prepared and
considered in accordance with requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, regulations of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Army
Regulation 200-2, Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (32 CFR 651),
29 March 2002. The U.S. Army, as owner of the site of the proposed
NBACC facility, is a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of this EIS.

DATES: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, a Public
Scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 22, 2004, 7 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is Frederick Community College, 7932

[[Page 31831]]

Opossumtown Pike, Frederick, MD 21702.
Comments on the scope of the EIS for the proposed project should be
received no later than July 8, 2004. Additional information on how to
submit comments is included in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the DHS, as stated in the
Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. 107-296), is to prevent terrorist
attacks within the United States, to reduce America's vulnerability to
terrorism, and to minimize the damage and assist in recovery efforts
from attacks that may occur. DHS has the specific responsibility to
identify and develop countermeasures to biological threats in support
of this mission. In accordance with specific national policy directives
and DHS strategic policy, construction of the NBACC facility is
proposed to support the DHS goals by countering bioterrorism threats
through the conduct of research and operational programs.
To accomplish this mission, the proposed NBACC facility will
provide the research laboratory and office space to meet program
requirements for biological threat characterization and bioforensic
operations and research.
Biological Threat Characterization reduces the nation's
vulnerabilities to biological threats by conducting research to better
understand current biological threats as well as future threats.
Additionally, this program will conduct science-based comprehensive
risk assessments to anticipate, prevent, respond to and recover from an
attack through the execution of an integrated science program at the
NBACC facility.
Bioforensics Operations and Research provides a validated,
authoritative assessment of collected materials subject to forensic
analysis. This same material may then be linked through identification
of the biochemical fingerprint to the source.
The proposed NBACC facility will include laboratories designed and
constructed to Biosafety Levels -2, -3, and -4 standards that will
enable DHS researchers to safely conduct these research and forensics
programs to accomplish this work. ``Biosafety Levels'' is a system of
well-defined facilities, equipment, and procedures established to
minimize risk of exposure to potentially hazardous agents for
laboratory workers and the outside environment. The research conducted
at NBACC will be solely defensive in nature, serving to understand and
attribute the threats that may be used against the United States in a
biological attack.
The proposed location is on an approximately 7-acre plot within the
National Interagency Biodefense Campus on Area A of Fort Detrick,
Maryland, near facilities of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute
of Infectious Diseases, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
planned National Institutes of Health Integrated Research Facility.
Issues to be analyzed in the EIS will include safety of laboratory
operations; public health and safety; handling, collection, treatment,
and disposal of research wastes; and analysis of other risks, as well
as concerns for pollution prevention and impacts of the proposed action
on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water
resources, land use, and socioeconomic resources. The EIS will address
several alternatives, including citing the proposed NBACC facility at
another location on the grounds of Fort Detrick; locating the proposed
NBACC facility on other existing government-owned property outside of
Fort Detrick; siting the proposed NBACC facility on privately-owned
property outside Fort Detrick; and a No-Action alternative, under which
the proposed NBACC facility would not be built. Additional alternatives
may be identified in the Public Scoping process.
Public Participation: The DHS and the U.S. Army invite full public
participation to promote open communication and better decision-making.
All interested persons and organizations, including minority, low-
income, disadvantaged, and Native American groups, are urged to
participate in this NEPA environmental analysis process. Assistance
will be provided upon request to anyone with special needs to
facilitate their participation in the NEPA process.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed
action and the scope of this EIS are addressed, oral and written
comments are invited from all interested parties, including appropriate
federal, state, and local agencies, and private organizations and
citizens.
Public comments are welcome throughout the NEPA process and should
be directed to Kevin Anderson, Department of Homeland Security, 7435
New Technology Way, Suite A, Frederick, MD 21703. Additional formal
opportunities for public participation after the Public Scoping are
tentatively scheduled as follows:
Review and comment on the Draft EIS (including a public meeting),
August-September 2004.
Public meeting on the Draft EIS, August 2004.
Notices of Availability for the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record of
Decision will be provided through direct mail, the Federal Register,
and other media. Notifications also will be sent to federal, state, and
local agencies and persons and organizations that submit comments or
questions throughout the NEPA process. Precise schedules and locations
for public meetings will be announced in the local news media.
Interested individuals and organizations may request to be included on
the mailing list for public distribution of meeting announcements and
associated documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Anderson, 301-846-2156.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (National Environmental Policy
Act).

Dated: June 3, 2004.
Maureen I. McCarthy,
Director, Research and Development, Science and Technology Directorate.
[FR Doc. 04-12908 Filed 6-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-10-U"

Archives

Monday, May 03, 2004   Tuesday, May 04, 2004   Sunday, May 09, 2004   Tuesday, May 11, 2004   Wednesday, May 12, 2004   Friday, May 14, 2004   Saturday, May 15, 2004   Sunday, May 16, 2004   Monday, May 17, 2004   Tuesday, May 18, 2004   Wednesday, May 19, 2004   Thursday, May 20, 2004   Friday, May 21, 2004   Monday, May 24, 2004   Tuesday, May 25, 2004   Wednesday, May 26, 2004   Thursday, May 27, 2004   Friday, May 28, 2004   Saturday, May 29, 2004   Sunday, May 30, 2004   Tuesday, June 01, 2004   Wednesday, June 02, 2004   Thursday, June 03, 2004   Friday, June 04, 2004   Saturday, June 05, 2004   Sunday, June 06, 2004   Monday, June 07, 2004   Tuesday, June 08, 2004   Wednesday, June 09, 2004   Thursday, June 10, 2004   Friday, June 11, 2004   Sunday, June 13, 2004   Monday, June 14, 2004   Wednesday, June 16, 2004   Thursday, June 17, 2004   Friday, June 18, 2004   Sunday, June 20, 2004   Monday, June 21, 2004   Tuesday, June 22, 2004   Wednesday, June 23, 2004   Thursday, June 24, 2004   Friday, June 25, 2004   Saturday, June 26, 2004   Sunday, June 27, 2004   Tuesday, June 29, 2004   Wednesday, June 30, 2004   Thursday, July 01, 2004   Friday, July 02, 2004   Saturday, July 03, 2004   Sunday, July 04, 2004   Monday, July 05, 2004   Tuesday, July 06, 2004   Wednesday, July 07, 2004   Thursday, July 08, 2004   Friday, July 09, 2004   Saturday, July 10, 2004   Sunday, July 11, 2004   Monday, July 12, 2004   Tuesday, July 13, 2004   Wednesday, July 14, 2004   Thursday, July 15, 2004   Friday, July 16, 2004   Saturday, July 17, 2004   Sunday, July 18, 2004   Monday, July 19, 2004   Tuesday, July 20, 2004   Wednesday, July 21, 2004   Friday, July 23, 2004   Friday, July 30, 2004   Monday, August 02, 2004   Tuesday, August 03, 2004   Wednesday, August 04, 2004   Thursday, August 05, 2004   Friday, August 06, 2004   Saturday, August 07, 2004   Sunday, August 08, 2004   Tuesday, August 10, 2004   Wednesday, August 11, 2004   Thursday, August 12, 2004   Friday, August 13, 2004   Saturday, August 14, 2004   Sunday, August 15, 2004   Monday, August 16, 2004   Tuesday, August 17, 2004   Friday, August 20, 2004   Saturday, August 21, 2004   Tuesday, August 24, 2004   Wednesday, August 25, 2004   Thursday, August 26, 2004   Friday, August 27, 2004   Sunday, August 29, 2004   Monday, August 30, 2004   Wednesday, September 01, 2004   Thursday, September 02, 2004   Friday, September 03, 2004   Saturday, September 04, 2004   Sunday, September 05, 2004   Monday, September 06, 2004   Tuesday, September 07, 2004   Wednesday, September 08, 2004   Thursday, September 09, 2004   Friday, September 10, 2004   Saturday, September 11, 2004   Sunday, September 12, 2004   Monday, September 13, 2004   Tuesday, September 14, 2004   Wednesday, September 15, 2004   Friday, September 17, 2004   Saturday, September 18, 2004   Sunday, September 19, 2004   Tuesday, September 21, 2004   Wednesday, September 22, 2004   Thursday, September 23, 2004   Friday, September 24, 2004   Saturday, September 25, 2004   Monday, September 27, 2004   Tuesday, September 28, 2004   Wednesday, September 29, 2004   Thursday, September 30, 2004   Friday, October 01, 2004   Saturday, October 02, 2004   Sunday, October 03, 2004   Monday, October 04, 2004   Tuesday, October 05, 2004   Wednesday, October 06, 2004   Thursday, October 07, 2004   Friday, October 08, 2004   Saturday, October 09, 2004   Sunday, October 10, 2004   Tuesday, October 12, 2004   Wednesday, October 13, 2004   Thursday, October 14, 2004   Friday, October 15, 2004   Saturday, October 16, 2004   Sunday, October 17, 2004   Monday, October 18, 2004   Tuesday, October 19, 2004   Wednesday, October 20, 2004   Thursday, October 21, 2004   Friday, October 22, 2004   Saturday, October 23, 2004   Sunday, October 24, 2004   Monday, October 25, 2004   Tuesday, October 26, 2004   Wednesday, October 27, 2004   Thursday, October 28, 2004   Friday, October 29, 2004   Saturday, October 30, 2004   Sunday, October 31, 2004   Monday, November 01, 2004   Tuesday, November 02, 2004   Wednesday, November 03, 2004   Thursday, November 04, 2004   Friday, November 05, 2004   Saturday, November 06, 2004   Sunday, November 07, 2004   Monday, November 08, 2004   Tuesday, November 09, 2004   Wednesday, November 10, 2004   Thursday, November 11, 2004   Friday, November 12, 2004   Saturday, November 13, 2004   Sunday, November 14, 2004   Monday, November 15, 2004   Tuesday, November 16, 2004   Wednesday, November 17, 2004   Thursday, November 18, 2004   Friday, November 19, 2004   Saturday, November 20, 2004   Sunday, November 21, 2004   Monday, November 22, 2004   Thursday, November 25, 2004   Friday, November 26, 2004   Saturday, November 27, 2004   Sunday, November 28, 2004   Tuesday, November 30, 2004   Wednesday, December 01, 2004   Thursday, December 02, 2004   Friday, December 03, 2004   Saturday, December 04, 2004   Tuesday, December 07, 2004   Wednesday, December 08, 2004   Thursday, December 09, 2004   Friday, December 10, 2004   Saturday, December 11, 2004   Sunday, December 12, 2004   Monday, December 13, 2004   Tuesday, December 14, 2004   Wednesday, December 15, 2004   Thursday, December 16, 2004   Friday, December 17, 2004   Sunday, December 19, 2004   Monday, December 20, 2004   Friday, December 24, 2004   Saturday, December 25, 2004   Sunday, December 26, 2004   Wednesday, December 29, 2004   Thursday, December 30, 2004   Friday, December 31, 2004   Monday, January 03, 2005   Wednesday, January 05, 2005   Thursday, January 06, 2005   Saturday, January 08, 2005   Sunday, January 09, 2005   Tuesday, January 11, 2005   Wednesday, January 12, 2005   Thursday, January 13, 2005   Saturday, January 15, 2005   Wednesday, January 19, 2005   Friday, January 21, 2005   Saturday, January 22, 2005   Sunday, January 23, 2005   Monday, January 24, 2005   Wednesday, January 26, 2005   Thursday, January 27, 2005   Friday, January 28, 2005   Saturday, January 29, 2005   Monday, January 31, 2005   Thursday, February 03, 2005   Friday, February 04, 2005   Saturday, February 05, 2005   Sunday, February 06, 2005   Monday, February 07, 2005   Tuesday, February 08, 2005   Wednesday, February 09, 2005   Thursday, February 10, 2005   Friday, February 11, 2005   Saturday, February 12, 2005   Sunday, February 13, 2005   Tuesday, February 15, 2005   Thursday, February 17, 2005   Saturday, February 19, 2005   Sunday, February 20, 2005   Wednesday, February 23, 2005   Saturday, February 26, 2005   Sunday, February 27, 2005   Monday, February 28, 2005   Wednesday, March 02, 2005   Thursday, March 03, 2005   Sunday, March 06, 2005   Tuesday, March 08, 2005   Wednesday, March 09, 2005   Thursday, March 10, 2005   Friday, March 11, 2005   Saturday, March 12, 2005   Sunday, March 13, 2005   Monday, March 14, 2005   Tuesday, March 15, 2005   Wednesday, March 16, 2005   Thursday, March 17, 2005   Friday, March 18, 2005   Saturday, March 19, 2005   Thursday, March 24, 2005   Friday, March 25, 2005   Saturday, March 26, 2005   Sunday, March 27, 2005   Wednesday, March 30, 2005   Thursday, March 31, 2005   Friday, April 01, 2005   Saturday, April 02, 2005   Sunday, April 03, 2005   Wednesday, April 06, 2005   Thursday, April 07, 2005   Saturday, April 09, 2005   Sunday, April 10, 2005   Monday, April 11, 2005   Thursday, April 14, 2005   Saturday, April 16, 2005   Sunday, April 17, 2005   Monday, April 18, 2005   Wednesday, April 20, 2005   Thursday, April 21, 2005   Friday, April 22, 2005   Saturday, April 23, 2005   Sunday, April 24, 2005   Tuesday, April 26, 2005   Friday, April 29, 2005   Saturday, April 30, 2005   Sunday, May 01, 2005   Monday, May 02, 2005   Tuesday, May 03, 2005   Wednesday, May 04, 2005   Thursday, May 05, 2005   Friday, May 06, 2005   Sunday, May 08, 2005   Wednesday, May 11, 2005   Thursday, May 12, 2005   Friday, May 13, 2005   Sunday, May 15, 2005   Monday, May 16, 2005   Wednesday, May 18, 2005   Thursday, May 19, 2005   Friday, May 20, 2005   Saturday, May 21, 2005   Sunday, May 22, 2005   Monday, May 23, 2005   Tuesday, May 24, 2005   Wednesday, May 25, 2005   Thursday, May 26, 2005   Friday, May 27, 2005   Saturday, May 28, 2005   Sunday, May 29, 2005   Monday, May 30, 2005   Tuesday, May 31, 2005   Wednesday, June 01, 2005   Thursday, June 02, 2005   Friday, June 03, 2005   Saturday, June 04, 2005   Sunday, June 05, 2005   Monday, June 06, 2005   Tuesday, June 07, 2005   Wednesday, June 08, 2005   Thursday, June 09, 2005   Friday, June 10, 2005   Sunday, June 12, 2005   Tuesday, June 14, 2005   Thursday, June 16, 2005   Friday, June 17, 2005   Saturday, June 18, 2005   Sunday, June 19, 2005   Monday, June 20, 2005   Tuesday, June 21, 2005   Thursday, June 23, 2005   Saturday, June 25, 2005   Sunday, June 26, 2005   Tuesday, June 28, 2005   Wednesday, June 29, 2005   Thursday, June 30, 2005   Friday, July 01, 2005   Saturday, July 02, 2005   Monday, July 04, 2005   Wednesday, July 06, 2005   Thursday, July 07, 2005   Saturday, July 09, 2005   Sunday, July 10, 2005   Friday, July 15, 2005   Sunday, July 17, 2005   Tuesday, July 19, 2005   Wednesday, July 20, 2005   Thursday, July 21, 2005   Saturday, July 23, 2005   Sunday, July 24, 2005   Tuesday, August 02, 2005   Thursday, August 04, 2005   Friday, August 05, 2005   Saturday, August 13, 2005   Wednesday, August 24, 2005   Friday, August 26, 2005   Saturday, August 27, 2005   Saturday, September 03, 2005   Wednesday, September 07, 2005   Thursday, September 08, 2005   Saturday, September 24, 2005   Wednesday, September 28, 2005   Wednesday, October 19, 2005   Thursday, October 20, 2005   Friday, October 21, 2005   Sunday, October 23, 2005   Wednesday, November 02, 2005   Monday, November 21, 2005   Wednesday, November 23, 2005   Friday, December 02, 2005   Saturday, December 10, 2005   Saturday, December 17, 2005   Sunday, December 18, 2005   Monday, December 19, 2005   Wednesday, December 21, 2005   Wednesday, January 04, 2006   Friday, January 06, 2006   Monday, January 09, 2006   Monday, January 16, 2006   Tuesday, January 17, 2006   Friday, January 20, 2006   Sunday, January 22, 2006   Saturday, January 28, 2006   Tuesday, January 31, 2006   Wednesday, February 01, 2006   Thursday, February 02, 2006   Wednesday, February 08, 2006   Thursday, February 09, 2006   Friday, February 10, 2006   Saturday, February 11, 2006   Sunday, February 12, 2006   Monday, February 13, 2006   Tuesday, February 14, 2006   Wednesday, February 15, 2006   Thursday, February 16, 2006   Saturday, February 18, 2006   Monday, February 20, 2006   Wednesday, February 22, 2006   Thursday, February 23, 2006   Sunday, March 05, 2006   Tuesday, March 07, 2006   Friday, March 24, 2006   Saturday, March 25, 2006   Wednesday, April 05, 2006   Thursday, April 06, 2006   Friday, April 07, 2006   Saturday, April 08, 2006   Tuesday, April 11, 2006   Monday, April 17, 2006   Tuesday, April 25, 2006   Thursday, April 27, 2006   Tuesday, May 09, 2006   Friday, May 12, 2006   Saturday, May 13, 2006   Sunday, May 14, 2006   Monday, May 15, 2006   Tuesday, May 16, 2006   Thursday, May 18, 2006   Friday, May 26, 2006   Sunday, May 28, 2006   Monday, May 29, 2006   Wednesday, May 31, 2006   Thursday, June 01, 2006   Sunday, June 04, 2006   Monday, June 05, 2006   Friday, June 09, 2006   Saturday, June 10, 2006   Sunday, June 11, 2006   Friday, June 16, 2006   Monday, June 19, 2006   Friday, June 23, 2006   Sunday, June 25, 2006   Tuesday, June 27, 2006   Wednesday, June 28, 2006   Friday, June 30, 2006   Sunday, July 09, 2006   Thursday, July 13, 2006   Friday, July 14, 2006   Saturday, July 15, 2006   Monday, July 17, 2006   Tuesday, July 18, 2006   Wednesday, July 19, 2006   Tuesday, July 25, 2006   Wednesday, July 26, 2006   Friday, July 28, 2006   Sunday, July 30, 2006   Monday, July 31, 2006   Thursday, August 03, 2006   Friday, August 04, 2006   Sunday, August 06, 2006   Monday, August 07, 2006   Wednesday, August 09, 2006   Thursday, August 10, 2006   Sunday, August 13, 2006   Tuesday, August 15, 2006   Thursday, August 17, 2006   Friday, August 18, 2006   Wednesday, September 06, 2006   Friday, September 08, 2006   Monday, September 11, 2006   Wednesday, September 13, 2006   Thursday, September 14, 2006   Friday, September 22, 2006   Saturday, September 23, 2006   Sunday, October 01, 2006   Tuesday, October 03, 2006   Monday, October 30, 2006   Monday, November 06, 2006   Tuesday, November 07, 2006   Sunday, November 12, 2006   Tuesday, November 21, 2006   Wednesday, November 22, 2006   Thursday, November 23, 2006   Friday, December 01, 2006   Monday, December 04, 2006   Tuesday, December 05, 2006   Thursday, December 14, 2006   Wednesday, December 20, 2006   Thursday, December 21, 2006   Friday, December 29, 2006   Wednesday, January 10, 2007   Thursday, January 11, 2007   Saturday, January 13, 2007   Monday, January 15, 2007   Wednesday, January 17, 2007   Saturday, January 20, 2007   Tuesday, January 23, 2007   Tuesday, February 20, 2007   Saturday, February 24, 2007   Sunday, February 25, 2007   Friday, March 23, 2007   Wednesday, April 04, 2007   Tuesday, April 10, 2007   Thursday, April 12, 2007   Friday, April 13, 2007   Thursday, April 19, 2007   Friday, April 20, 2007   Tuesday, April 24, 2007   Tuesday, May 08, 2007   Thursday, May 10, 2007   Friday, May 11, 2007   Monday, May 14, 2007   Tuesday, May 15, 2007   Sunday, May 20, 2007   Monday, May 21, 2007   Tuesday, May 22, 2007   Wednesday, May 23, 2007   Thursday, May 24, 2007   Sunday, May 27, 2007   Wednesday, May 30, 2007   Thursday, May 31, 2007   Friday, June 01, 2007   Monday, June 04, 2007   Wednesday, June 06, 2007   Saturday, June 09, 2007   Sunday, June 10, 2007   Monday, June 11, 2007   Friday, June 15, 2007   Tuesday, June 19, 2007   Tuesday, June 26, 2007   Wednesday, June 27, 2007   Thursday, June 28, 2007   Saturday, June 30, 2007   Monday, July 02, 2007   Tuesday, July 03, 2007   Friday, July 06, 2007   Tuesday, July 10, 2007   Friday, July 13, 2007   Tuesday, July 24, 2007   Saturday, July 28, 2007   Sunday, July 29, 2007   Monday, August 13, 2007   Sunday, August 19, 2007   Saturday, August 25, 2007   Monday, August 27, 2007   Wednesday, August 29, 2007   Friday, August 31, 2007   Friday, September 07, 2007   Wednesday, September 12, 2007   Wednesday, September 19, 2007   Friday, September 21, 2007   Friday, September 28, 2007   Tuesday, October 02, 2007   Thursday, October 11, 2007   Saturday, October 27, 2007   Thursday, November 01, 2007   Saturday, November 03, 2007   Monday, November 05, 2007   Wednesday, November 28, 2007   Tuesday, December 04, 2007   Tuesday, December 11, 2007   Friday, December 14, 2007   Friday, December 21, 2007   Tuesday, December 25, 2007   Saturday, December 29, 2007   Monday, January 07, 2008   Thursday, January 10, 2008   Saturday, January 12, 2008   Sunday, January 13, 2008   Tuesday, January 15, 2008   Friday, January 18, 2008   Saturday, January 19, 2008   Friday, January 25, 2008   Sunday, January 27, 2008   Monday, January 28, 2008   Tuesday, January 29, 2008   Sunday, February 03, 2008   Wednesday, February 06, 2008   Friday, February 08, 2008   Sunday, February 10, 2008   Monday, February 11, 2008   Tuesday, February 12, 2008   Monday, February 25, 2008   Tuesday, February 26, 2008   Monday, March 03, 2008   Tuesday, March 04, 2008   Saturday, March 22, 2008   Saturday, April 19, 2008   Wednesday, April 23, 2008   Saturday, April 26, 2008   Wednesday, April 30, 2008   Monday, May 05, 2008   Tuesday, May 13, 2008   Wednesday, May 14, 2008   Saturday, May 17, 2008   Tuesday, May 20, 2008   Saturday, May 24, 2008   Sunday, May 25, 2008   Thursday, June 12, 2008   Tuesday, June 17, 2008   Saturday, July 05, 2008   Tuesday, July 08, 2008   Monday, August 04, 2008   Thursday, August 28, 2008   Thursday, September 11, 2008   Saturday, September 20, 2008   Monday, September 22, 2008   Tuesday, September 23, 2008   Wednesday, September 24, 2008   Friday, September 26, 2008   Monday, September 29, 2008   Saturday, October 04, 2008   Wednesday, October 08, 2008   Thursday, October 09, 2008   Sunday, October 12, 2008   Wednesday, October 15, 2008   Wednesday, October 22, 2008   Thursday, October 23, 2008   Friday, October 24, 2008   Tuesday, October 28, 2008   Wednesday, October 29, 2008   Monday, November 03, 2008   Tuesday, November 04, 2008   Thursday, November 06, 2008   Saturday, November 08, 2008   Monday, November 10, 2008   Wednesday, November 19, 2008   Thursday, December 18, 2008   Monday, December 22, 2008   Sunday, January 11, 2009   Thursday, January 22, 2009   Monday, January 26, 2009   Thursday, February 19, 2009   Tuesday, February 24, 2009   Friday, February 27, 2009   Monday, March 02, 2009   Thursday, March 05, 2009   Wednesday, March 11, 2009   Thursday, March 12, 2009   Friday, March 13, 2009   Thursday, March 19, 2009   Monday, March 23, 2009   Friday, March 27, 2009   Saturday, March 28, 2009   Sunday, March 29, 2009   Thursday, April 02, 2009   Tuesday, April 07, 2009   Tuesday, April 14, 2009   Tuesday, April 21, 2009   Thursday, April 23, 2009   Saturday, April 25, 2009   Sunday, May 03, 2009   Wednesday, May 06, 2009   Tuesday, May 12, 2009   Wednesday, May 13, 2009   Thursday, May 14, 2009   Sunday, May 17, 2009   Tuesday, May 26, 2009   Wednesday, June 03, 2009   Thursday, June 04, 2009   Tuesday, June 09, 2009   Friday, June 12, 2009   Saturday, June 13, 2009   Sunday, June 14, 2009   Monday, June 22, 2009   Thursday, June 25, 2009   Saturday, July 11, 2009   Tuesday, July 14, 2009   Friday, July 24, 2009   Tuesday, August 18, 2009   Wednesday, August 19, 2009   Friday, August 21, 2009   Monday, August 24, 2009   Thursday, September 03, 2009   Wednesday, September 09, 2009   Thursday, September 10, 2009   Sunday, September 13, 2009   Monday, September 14, 2009   Tuesday, September 15, 2009   Wednesday, September 23, 2009   Friday, September 25, 2009   Sunday, September 27, 2009   Tuesday, September 29, 2009   Monday, November 02, 2009   Tuesday, November 10, 2009   Thursday, November 12, 2009   Tuesday, November 24, 2009   Thursday, February 25, 2010   Thursday, March 04, 2010   Wednesday, March 17, 2010   Tuesday, March 23, 2010   Friday, April 09, 2010   Friday, April 16, 2010   Wednesday, April 21, 2010   Thursday, April 22, 2010   Friday, April 23, 2010   Thursday, April 29, 2010   Sunday, May 02, 2010   Friday, May 07, 2010   Sunday, May 09, 2010   Monday, May 10, 2010   Tuesday, May 11, 2010   Tuesday, June 15, 2010  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?