Yet it’s being bandied about by Democratic State Assemblyman Charles Calderon, whose Assembly Bill 1956 would expand the state’s sales tax to digital goods–music downloads, e-books, pornography and what-not. “The notion of taxing tangible, physical property is really an industrial-era construct when we made widgets and sold widgets,” Calderon argues. “Now it’s not about widgets, it’s about information, and selling information and moving information.”

It certainly is, but is it really prudent to slap an iTax of 8.25% to 8.75% on such information? Especially when those who peddle it could pretty easily create a separate entity out-of-state and avoid it altogether? Driving away e-commerce certainly isn’t going to do California’s budget any good. “When you charge these taxes, all these e-commerce [companies] are going to move outside of California,” said Michelle Steel, a member of the California State Board of Equalization. “California is the high-tech state; why would you want to kick them out?”

Good question. Because if you do force them out, who’s going to provide the state with its massive tax windfalls? From an Associated Press report from January, 2007:

After cashing in more than 9 million shares valued at $3.7 billion last year, 16 Google insiders will owe the Golden State as much as $380 million in taxes–enough to cover the salaries of more than 3,000 state workers.”

Yet it’s being bandied about by Democratic State Assemblyman Charles Calderon, whose Assembly Bill 1956 would expand the state’s sales tax to digital goods–music downloads, e-books, pornography and what-not. “The notion of taxing tangible, physical property is really an industrial-era construct when we made widgets and sold widgets,” Calderon argues. “Now it’s not about widgets, it’s about information, and selling information and moving information.”

It certainly is, but is it really prudent to slap an iTax of 8.25% to 8.75% on such information? Especially when those who peddle it could pretty easily create a separate entity out-of-state and avoid it altogether? Driving away e-commerce certainly isn’t going to do California’s budget any good. “When you charge these taxes, all these e-commerce [companies] are going to move outside of California,” said Michelle Steel, a member of the California State Board of Equalization. “California is the high-tech state; why would you want to kick them out?”

Good question. Because if you do force them out, who’s going to provide the state with its massive tax windfalls? From an Associated Press report from January, 2007:

After cashing in more than 9 million shares valued at $3.7 billion last year, 16 Google insiders will owe the Golden State as much as $380 million in taxes–enough to cover the salaries of more than 3,000 state workers.”

Anyway, together with NBC and Disney, AT&T has invested a combined $10 million in Vobile, a company whose VideoDNA is rumored to be the gold standard of video content recognition systems and is considering deploying it at the network level.

The mechanics of the initiative haven’t all been sorted out, but sources tell BusinessWeek that one scenario involves traffic on AT&T’s network being routed through racks of Vobile servers that would scan it for NBC Universal and Disney content. And perhaps child pornography as well, you know, just to make the idea of network-level monitoring a bit more palatable to the masses.

Such a strategy, if AT&T were to pursue it, would make the company the first major Internet carrier to implement a network solution to copyright enforcement. And it would beg a number of questions: Will AT&T police the Internet traffic of its customers alone? Or will it police traffic over all its backbones and peering points (IE: traffic from other ISPs)? The answers could be troubling.

Suffice to say privacy advocates who’ve been railing against AT&T over the NSA debacle and issues of Net neutrality aren’t exactly thrilled with the company’s latest move. “They better be very careful,” warned Lee Tien, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “This is serious, serious stuff, to basically invade the privacy of all of your subscribers.”

Do I need antivirus or antispyware software on a Macintosh running the Leopard operating system?

The Macintosh isn’t inherently invulnerable to malicious software. In fact, last week it was reported that there is a new scam on the Web that can plant a malicious “Trojan horse” program on the Mac. However, this is a rare event. There have been practically no viruses, spyware or other malicious programs written for the Macintosh that have actually spread outside the laboratory.

For that reason, most Mac users don’t run security software, and security software companies don’t make much of an effort to sell it for Macs. I don’t believe it is necessary, so far, for all except the most paranoid (and those who run Windows on their Macs). In fact, freedom from the burdens of running and updating security software has been one of the Mac’s big advantages.

Even the new Trojan Horse apparently relies on tricking the user, rather than on sneaking through holes in the Mac operating system. According to reports, to get infected you must go to a pornography site, and agree to download a program allegedly needed to view the porn. Next, the Mac will require that you type in your administrator ID and password to complete the installation, thus agreeing to install the program a second time. If you do all that, you get a program that supposedly redirects your Web browser to bogus Web sites. My advice: even if you frequent porn sites, don’t agree to download any programs from them (that goes for Windows users as well).

Some interpret the appearance of this new Trojan Horse as a sign that the Mac’s increasing market share will begin to attract a flood of viruses and spyware, and that Mac users will soon have to start running security software. If it happens, and the threats are more insidious than the latest one, I will be ready to change my recommendation. But not yet.

In reply to a question last week, you mentioned that there are free security programs available for Windows. Could you please suggest where to download such alternatives?

There are a number of them, but ones that I like are free, basic antivirus and antispyware programs called AVG from a company called Grisoft, which also makes more elaborate security software. You can download these programs at free.grisoft.com/doc/5390/us/frt/0.

I don’t have Microsoft PowerPoint but I occasionally get PowerPoint files as email attachments. Somewhere I read that one can download a free PowerPoint program so you can read these files. Can you help me with this, please?

I don’t know of any free versions of PowerPoint, but Microsoft does offer a free program that will let you view, but not create or edit, PowerPoint files. You can download it here.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online for free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com

“We’ve been made aware that a small number of Web sites attempt to trick Mac OS X users to install malicious software on their Macs,” said Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox. “Apple has a great track record for keeping Mac OS X users secure, and as always, we encourage people to install software only from trusted sources.”

And be sure to stay away from porn sites that require you to install software to view them.

So is OSX.RSPlug.A an anomaly or a harbinger of things to come? Security researcher Gadi Evron says it’s the latter. “Apple’s day has finally come, and Apple users are going to get hit hard,” Evron told Wired. “OS X is the new Windows 98. … It’s Mac season. The next two years will be interesting.”

Understandably embarassed by Wood’s achievement, the Australian government began distributing a second filter. Wood cracked that one in 40 minutes. This time the government had only rhetoric to offer in response. “Sadly, just as a seatbelt will never prevent every fatal car crash, as the government has always maintained, no filter is foolproof,” said Communications Minister Helen Coonan. “But a computer with a filter is infinitely safer than one without.”