The Autumn 2004 edition of the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy is decicated to the subject of cybercrime and authors tackle the problems of fighting digital technology facilitated crime and the potential civil liberties implications of this.
A rich set of articles includes:
Architectural Regulation and the Evolution of Social Norms
BY LEE TIEN
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 1-Cy-2004
Transborder Search: A new perspective in law enforcement?
BY NICOLAI SEITZ
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 2-Cy-2004
The Fourth Amendment Unplugged: Electronic Evidence Issues & Wireless Defenses -
Wireless Crooks & the Wireless Internet Users Who Enable Them
BY TARA McGRAW SWAMINATHA
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 3-Cy-2004
Launch on Warning: Aggressive Defense of Computer Systems
BY CURTIS E. A. KARNOW
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 4-Cy-2004
Real World Problems of Virtual Crime
BY BERYL A. HOWELL
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 5-Cy-2004
Privacy vs. Piracy
BY SONIA K. KATYAL
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 7-Cy-2004
Technology, Security and Privacy:
The Fear of Frankenstein, the Mythology of Privacy and the Lessons of King Ludd
BY KIM A. TAIPALE
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 8-Cy-2004
Characteristics of a Fictitious Child Victim: Turning a Sex Offender’s Dreams Into His Worst Nightmare
BY JAMES F. MCLAUGHLIN
Reference: IJCLP Web-Doc 6-Cy-2004
For example, Beryl A. Howell's article on "Real World Problems of Virtual Crime" abstract:
"Theoretical debates about how best to address cybercrime have their place, but, in the real world, companies and individuals face harmful new criminal activity that poses unique technical and investigatory challenges. One of the greatest challenges posed by this new technology is how to combat wrongdoing effectively without netting innocent actors. This Article will present three case studies drawn from recent high-profile news stories to illustrate the pitfalls of legislating in the e-crimes arena."
Monday, January 24, 2005
How a fake doctor took £1½m and helped 1,000 people to get asylum from the Times and
UK gov ready to u-turn on passport-ID card link? at the Register.
John Lettice's piece at the Rgister requires a little concentration on the part of the reader but is well worth the effort, particularly if you're concerned about the proposed national ID card scheme.
UK gov ready to u-turn on passport-ID card link? at the Register.
John Lettice's piece at the Rgister requires a little concentration on the part of the reader but is well worth the effort, particularly if you're concerned about the proposed national ID card scheme.
Tony Blair against ID cards
By the way, who do you think might have said this:
"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards...let that money provide thousands more police offiers on the beat."
It was Tony Blair! It was in 1995, however, two years before he became prime minister.
"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards...let that money provide thousands more police offiers on the beat."
It was Tony Blair! It was in 1995, however, two years before he became prime minister.
Barriers to ID card suppliers
The draft legislation for the national ID card is being rushed through the committee stage in parliament, despite there being nearly 200 amendments already proposed. And Spyblog has pointed out a potentially interesting disincentive to organisations tempted to supply the technical infrastructure. They are stretching a point but Section 31 Tampering with the Register etc, could be interpreted to mean that anyone who supplies technology for the system which does not work perfectly could go to jail for 10 years.
Maybe someone should point that out to the many vendors scrambling for a piece of the ID card action.
On ID cards, the No2ID campaign have issued their latest newsletter, which as usual is very informative. The campaign are paticularly vexed about the government's response to their 3230-signature petition against ID cards.
Though I guess it is necessary, I'm not sure an irritated response to a re-hashed empty public relations statement is going to help progress their cause, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Essentially they need to get the newspapers, all the established civil liberties groups (who essentially agree with them anyway)and commerce and industry on their side to build up a head of steam. Pointing out the clear negative technical and economic effects of the ID card scheme and the industries which are going to be affected (all of them), would help get the trade associations and multinational companies on board. If major commerce were convinced to start rallying against the cards then New Labour would fold on the scheme overnight (probably to Gordon Brown's relief and Tony Blair's chagrin).
As to the government's notion that the ID card will help prevent ID fraud as a basis for making us more secure, any security specialist who knows their job will tell you that either the government are being economical with truth or they really don't understand what they are dealing with. As Bruce Schneier says,in the context of a possible ID card scheme in the US:
"In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to follow, either. It centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents ... all of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security system would have to be developed for people who lost their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system involves people... people who regularly make mistakes. We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show some promise here, but bring with them their own set of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of this magnitude secure, whether from outside hackers or the thousands of insiders authorized to access it.
And when the inevitable worms, viruses, or random failures happen and the database goes down, what then? Is America supposed to shut down until it's restored?
Proponents of national ID cards want us to assume all these problems, and the tens of billions of dollars such a system would cost -- for what? For the promise of being able to identify someone?
What good would it have been to know the names of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or the DC snipers before they were arrested? Palestinian suicide bombers generally have no history of terrorism. The goal is here is to know someone's intentions, and their identity has very little to do with that.
And there are security benefits in having a variety of different ID documents. A single national ID is an exceedingly valuable document, and accordingly there's greater incentive to forge it. There is more security in alert guards paying attention to subtle social cues than bored minimum-wage guards blindly checking IDs.
That's why, when someone asks me to rate the security of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can't give an answer. It doesn't even belong on a scale."
Maybe someone should point that out to the many vendors scrambling for a piece of the ID card action.
On ID cards, the No2ID campaign have issued their latest newsletter, which as usual is very informative. The campaign are paticularly vexed about the government's response to their 3230-signature petition against ID cards.
Though I guess it is necessary, I'm not sure an irritated response to a re-hashed empty public relations statement is going to help progress their cause, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Essentially they need to get the newspapers, all the established civil liberties groups (who essentially agree with them anyway)and commerce and industry on their side to build up a head of steam. Pointing out the clear negative technical and economic effects of the ID card scheme and the industries which are going to be affected (all of them), would help get the trade associations and multinational companies on board. If major commerce were convinced to start rallying against the cards then New Labour would fold on the scheme overnight (probably to Gordon Brown's relief and Tony Blair's chagrin).
As to the government's notion that the ID card will help prevent ID fraud as a basis for making us more secure, any security specialist who knows their job will tell you that either the government are being economical with truth or they really don't understand what they are dealing with. As Bruce Schneier says,in the context of a possible ID card scheme in the US:
"In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to follow, either. It centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents ... all of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security system would have to be developed for people who lost their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system involves people... people who regularly make mistakes. We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show some promise here, but bring with them their own set of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of this magnitude secure, whether from outside hackers or the thousands of insiders authorized to access it.
And when the inevitable worms, viruses, or random failures happen and the database goes down, what then? Is America supposed to shut down until it's restored?
Proponents of national ID cards want us to assume all these problems, and the tens of billions of dollars such a system would cost -- for what? For the promise of being able to identify someone?
What good would it have been to know the names of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, or the DC snipers before they were arrested? Palestinian suicide bombers generally have no history of terrorism. The goal is here is to know someone's intentions, and their identity has very little to do with that.
And there are security benefits in having a variety of different ID documents. A single national ID is an exceedingly valuable document, and accordingly there's greater incentive to forge it. There is more security in alert guards paying attention to subtle social cues than bored minimum-wage guards blindly checking IDs.
That's why, when someone asks me to rate the security of a national ID card on a scale of one to 10, I can't give an answer. It doesn't even belong on a scale."
Friday, January 21, 2005
Software patent directive through agriculture
Looks like there may be another attempt to pass the EU software patent directive at an EU Council agriculture and fisheries meeting on Monday.
Even if the proposal did have merit and had not been widely criticised, sneaking it through in an underhand way like this is bound to create suspicion.
Even if the proposal did have merit and had not been widely criticised, sneaking it through in an underhand way like this is bound to create suspicion.
Berkman Center Report on Digital Media
The Berkman Center's, Digital Media Project have released
"a new report assessing how the digitization of music and movies has transformed not only businesses but copyright law and the idea of intellectual property. The report -- Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World -- updates a foundational whitepaper, released originally in 2003, to reflect major areas of change. In addition to new lawsuits and proposed legislation, one of the major developments since 2003 lies in international policy changes. The White Paper includes an International Supplement that offers an overview of the most fundamental shifts."
John Palfrey, Donna Wentworth and Derek Slater were amongst the contributers.
Donna also pointed me at what she calls the book review to end all book reviews by Robert S. Boynton
"Who owns the words you're reading right now? if you're holding a copy of Bookforum in your hands, the law permits you to lend or sell it to whomever you like. If you're reading this article on the Internet, you are allowed to link to it, but are prohibited from duplicating it on your web site or chat room without permission. You are free to make copies of it for teaching purposes, but aren't allowed to sell those copies to your students without permission. A critic who misrepresents my ideas or uses some of my words to attack me in an article of his own is well within his rights to do so. But were I to fashion these pages into a work of collage art and sell it, my customer would be breaking the law if he altered it. Furthermore, were I to set these words to music, I'd receive royalties when it was played on the radio; the band performing it, however, would get nothing. In the end, the copyright to these words belongs to me, and I've given Bookforum the right to publish them. But even my ownership is limited. Unlike a house, which I may pass on to my heirs (and they to theirs), my copyright will expire seventy years after my death, and these words will enter the public domain, where anyone is free to use them. But those doodles you're drawing in the margins of this page? Have no fear: They belong entirely to you...
In December 2004, Google announced "Google Print," a project to bring millions of easily searchable, digitized books to the Internet. The project, which has already begun and may take a decade to complete, will further heighten awareness of our vexed relationship to intellectual property. After digitizing the entire holdings of Stanford and the University of Michigan libraries (as well as sections of the libraries of Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library), Google Print will search the texts of these books—although one will only be able to read the entire text of those works whose copyright has lapsed and are therefore in the public domain. As for copyrighted titles, one will be able to search their text for names and key phrases but won't be allowed to read the books themselves (a function like Amazon's helpful, but similarly limited, "Search inside this book" service). Instead, one will be directed to a library or bookstore where the book can be located.
As amazing an effort as Google Print is (creating nothing less than a virtual "universal library of knowledge"), its logical goal—giving readers full access to the entire contents of that library—will be undercut by our intellectual property laws. It is an inherently unstable situation, and it is only a matter of time before someone (Amazon? Random House?) develops software to link this vast cache of literature to a convenient print-on-demand service (for which the hardware already exists). When it becomes possible to hold an inexpensive, physical copy of one of Google's digitized titles in one's hands—but only if it was first published prior to 1923 and is therefore in the public domain—people will begin to understand the implications of having something so obviously beneficial (universal access to universal knowledge) tethered to laws from another era. Google Print may be the Trojan Horse of the copyright wars...
Boyle is one of the founders of "digital environmentalism," the movement that is fashioning a new understanding of what the public domain—the "commons," as Boyle and others have called it—might be. The great achievement of the environmental movement, from which Boyle draws inspiration, was its ability to convince a swath of the population—consumers and industrialists alike—that they all had a stake in this thing called "the environment," rather than just the small patch of land where they lived. Similarly, digital environmentalists are raising our awareness of the intellectual "land" to which people ought to feel entitled.
Digital environmentalism is a two-pronged movement, with one group raising the awareness of the cultural stakes of intellectual property among everyday citizens, and the other pressing for legislative and legal change. The difference between the two is one of emphasis, with each participating in the battles of the other. Neither are anarchists or utopians; rather, both perceive of themselves as conservatives in the traditional sense of the term."
Well worth reading the entire piece. Terrific analysis.
"a new report assessing how the digitization of music and movies has transformed not only businesses but copyright law and the idea of intellectual property. The report -- Copyright and Digital Media in a Post-Napster World -- updates a foundational whitepaper, released originally in 2003, to reflect major areas of change. In addition to new lawsuits and proposed legislation, one of the major developments since 2003 lies in international policy changes. The White Paper includes an International Supplement that offers an overview of the most fundamental shifts."
John Palfrey, Donna Wentworth and Derek Slater were amongst the contributers.
Donna also pointed me at what she calls the book review to end all book reviews by Robert S. Boynton
"Who owns the words you're reading right now? if you're holding a copy of Bookforum in your hands, the law permits you to lend or sell it to whomever you like. If you're reading this article on the Internet, you are allowed to link to it, but are prohibited from duplicating it on your web site or chat room without permission. You are free to make copies of it for teaching purposes, but aren't allowed to sell those copies to your students without permission. A critic who misrepresents my ideas or uses some of my words to attack me in an article of his own is well within his rights to do so. But were I to fashion these pages into a work of collage art and sell it, my customer would be breaking the law if he altered it. Furthermore, were I to set these words to music, I'd receive royalties when it was played on the radio; the band performing it, however, would get nothing. In the end, the copyright to these words belongs to me, and I've given Bookforum the right to publish them. But even my ownership is limited. Unlike a house, which I may pass on to my heirs (and they to theirs), my copyright will expire seventy years after my death, and these words will enter the public domain, where anyone is free to use them. But those doodles you're drawing in the margins of this page? Have no fear: They belong entirely to you...
In December 2004, Google announced "Google Print," a project to bring millions of easily searchable, digitized books to the Internet. The project, which has already begun and may take a decade to complete, will further heighten awareness of our vexed relationship to intellectual property. After digitizing the entire holdings of Stanford and the University of Michigan libraries (as well as sections of the libraries of Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library), Google Print will search the texts of these books—although one will only be able to read the entire text of those works whose copyright has lapsed and are therefore in the public domain. As for copyrighted titles, one will be able to search their text for names and key phrases but won't be allowed to read the books themselves (a function like Amazon's helpful, but similarly limited, "Search inside this book" service). Instead, one will be directed to a library or bookstore where the book can be located.
As amazing an effort as Google Print is (creating nothing less than a virtual "universal library of knowledge"), its logical goal—giving readers full access to the entire contents of that library—will be undercut by our intellectual property laws. It is an inherently unstable situation, and it is only a matter of time before someone (Amazon? Random House?) develops software to link this vast cache of literature to a convenient print-on-demand service (for which the hardware already exists). When it becomes possible to hold an inexpensive, physical copy of one of Google's digitized titles in one's hands—but only if it was first published prior to 1923 and is therefore in the public domain—people will begin to understand the implications of having something so obviously beneficial (universal access to universal knowledge) tethered to laws from another era. Google Print may be the Trojan Horse of the copyright wars...
Boyle is one of the founders of "digital environmentalism," the movement that is fashioning a new understanding of what the public domain—the "commons," as Boyle and others have called it—might be. The great achievement of the environmental movement, from which Boyle draws inspiration, was its ability to convince a swath of the population—consumers and industrialists alike—that they all had a stake in this thing called "the environment," rather than just the small patch of land where they lived. Similarly, digital environmentalists are raising our awareness of the intellectual "land" to which people ought to feel entitled.
Digital environmentalism is a two-pronged movement, with one group raising the awareness of the cultural stakes of intellectual property among everyday citizens, and the other pressing for legislative and legal change. The difference between the two is one of emphasis, with each participating in the battles of the other. Neither are anarchists or utopians; rather, both perceive of themselves as conservatives in the traditional sense of the term."
Well worth reading the entire piece. Terrific analysis.
Carvivore retirement reports outdated
There have been recent reports on the FBI retiring their surveillance tool Carnivore, which have been irritating Orin Kerr.
"The Associated Press reports that the FBI has retired its "Carnivore" Internet surveillance tool. (It actually happened about two years ago, but no one knew about it until now.) The Carnivore debate was premised on a profound misunderstanding of Internet surveillance practices...
Why did the FBI retire Carnivore? For a reason I explained in an article published two years ago on the Patriot Act (see footnote 247 if you're really interested): in the last few years, the private sector finally caught up with the government. Commercial surveillance tools now have the same privacy-enhancing filter technology that the Carnivore tool has, meaning that the government no longer needs to use Carnivore. Strange, but true."
"The Associated Press reports that the FBI has retired its "Carnivore" Internet surveillance tool. (It actually happened about two years ago, but no one knew about it until now.) The Carnivore debate was premised on a profound misunderstanding of Internet surveillance practices...
Why did the FBI retire Carnivore? For a reason I explained in an article published two years ago on the Patriot Act (see footnote 247 if you're really interested): in the last few years, the private sector finally caught up with the government. Commercial surveillance tools now have the same privacy-enhancing filter technology that the Carnivore tool has, meaning that the government no longer needs to use Carnivore. Strange, but true."
Thursday, January 20, 2005
California proposal jolts Felten
Ed Felten was shocked to find that the latest proposal to regulate P2P networks by California would make him a candidate for the slammer.
"Kevin Murray, a California legislator, has introduced a bill that would fine, or imprison for up to one year, any person who "sells, offers for sale, advertises, distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makes available" software that allows users to connect to networks that can share files, unless that person takes "reasonable care" to ensure that the software is not used illegally. TechDirt argues that my TinyP2P program would violate the proposed law.
Actually, the bill would appear to apply to a wide range of general-purpose software:
"[P]eer-to-peer file sharing software" means software that once installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or her computer to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate the file to other users connected to the network.
That definition clearly includes the web, and the Internet itself, so that any software that enabled a user to connect to the Internet would be covered. And note that it's not just the author or seller of the software who is at risk, but also any advertiser or distributor. Would TechDirt be committing a crime by linking to my TinyP2P page? Would my ISP be committing a crime by hosting my site?"
"Kevin Murray, a California legislator, has introduced a bill that would fine, or imprison for up to one year, any person who "sells, offers for sale, advertises, distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makes available" software that allows users to connect to networks that can share files, unless that person takes "reasonable care" to ensure that the software is not used illegally. TechDirt argues that my TinyP2P program would violate the proposed law.
Actually, the bill would appear to apply to a wide range of general-purpose software:
"[P]eer-to-peer file sharing software" means software that once installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or her computer to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate the file to other users connected to the network.
That definition clearly includes the web, and the Internet itself, so that any software that enabled a user to connect to the Internet would be covered. And note that it's not just the author or seller of the software who is at risk, but also any advertiser or distributor. Would TechDirt be committing a crime by linking to my TinyP2P page? Would my ISP be committing a crime by hosting my site?"
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Response from SiteKiosk
I've just had an email from Thorsten Abdinghoff, Technical Sales Manager for PROVISIO GmbH, offering to add the url for this blog to the list of allowed sites for their SiteKiosk filter system.
Many thanks to Thorsten.
Many thanks to Thorsten.
Jail for P2P developers in California?
A new bill being introduced in California could lead to jail time for developers of P2P software. Not clever.
Initial IT Support response
I've just had a phone call from a very helpful IT specialist called Brice at Initial, in response to the email I sent yesterday about having this blog blocked. He said he'll be able to get the block lifted but it will involve sending someone down to Harben House to do it because no one in the conference centre would have the expertise. Initial apparently use sitekiosk.com software, which comes bundled with filters. I've emailed SiteKiosk vendor, PROVISIO GmbH (contact@provisio.de), to see what they have to say. Apparently they have 2500 customers for their SiteKiosk sofware, based in 50 countries all blocked from a blog on the politics of technology.
Maybe I should ask Ben Edelmann at Harvard to look into it.
Maybe I should ask Ben Edelmann at Harvard to look into it.
Americans on trial in China
Two Americans are amongst those on trial in a Shanghai court in China for selling pirated DVDs through eBay and a Russian website.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Candian DOJ watch US patent case
The Canadian Department of Justice have filed an amicus brief in a US patent case.
"The federal government has stepped into the middle of a high-stakes patent infringement battle between Research in Motion Inc. and a U.S. company, claiming a recent U.S. court ruling against the creator of the iconic BlackBerry communications device threatens to chill innovation by Canadian firms and give extra-territorial reach to U.S. patent law."
"The federal government has stepped into the middle of a high-stakes patent infringement battle between Research in Motion Inc. and a U.S. company, claiming a recent U.S. court ruling against the creator of the iconic BlackBerry communications device threatens to chill innovation by Canadian firms and give extra-territorial reach to U.S. patent law."
Filter stories
There are two more filtering stories I wanted to point to in the light of the Verizon decision to block email from selected parts of Europe including the UK.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission would like Aussie ISPs to block fraudulent websites because Aussies allegedly "tend to be quite susceptible" to them. The Australian trade association representing ISPs are not keen on the idea, not surprisingly. Firstly, I seriously doubt Australians are any more susceptible to online scams than any other nationality but continue to be amazed by the huge numbers of people who are taken in by things like phishing and the Nigerian 519 emails [which, amongst other things, is a function of greed and simultaneous trust in the output of technology, however skeptical these folk would be of a similar offer on a street corner].
Secondly it raises a whole host of questions, similar to those asked by folk like Cyber Rights in relation to things like high tech crime, hate speech and child pornography on the Internet and how organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation are operated, overseen and regulated. Plus who pays for it?
Ultimately forcing ISPs to filter out suspected fraud sites is no substitute for spending money on well trained police officers, skilled in the prevention, detection and prosecution of high tech crimes.
The second filtering story was the report in Net Family News pointing to websites that evaluate filter software. Just remember that installing filter software can instil a false sense of security. It is easy to believe the problem of children getting access to inappropriate material is solved once the software is installed. Yet it has been demonstrated repeatedly that these filters do allow pornography, for example, to get through. In this case, there is no substitute for talking to and trusting your children (and they will probably be more skilled in disabling such software than you will be in installing it in any case).
Plus I remain irritated about filter software blocking this blog, presumably because it has xxx in the title. I've not been back to Harben House since I discovered they were censoring me, so I've no idea whether they did as promised and had a human being review the block. But I've emailed them again to ask, in the first instance, what the outcome of their promised investigation was.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission would like Aussie ISPs to block fraudulent websites because Aussies allegedly "tend to be quite susceptible" to them. The Australian trade association representing ISPs are not keen on the idea, not surprisingly. Firstly, I seriously doubt Australians are any more susceptible to online scams than any other nationality but continue to be amazed by the huge numbers of people who are taken in by things like phishing and the Nigerian 519 emails [which, amongst other things, is a function of greed and simultaneous trust in the output of technology, however skeptical these folk would be of a similar offer on a street corner].
Secondly it raises a whole host of questions, similar to those asked by folk like Cyber Rights in relation to things like high tech crime, hate speech and child pornography on the Internet and how organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation are operated, overseen and regulated. Plus who pays for it?
Ultimately forcing ISPs to filter out suspected fraud sites is no substitute for spending money on well trained police officers, skilled in the prevention, detection and prosecution of high tech crimes.
The second filtering story was the report in Net Family News pointing to websites that evaluate filter software. Just remember that installing filter software can instil a false sense of security. It is easy to believe the problem of children getting access to inappropriate material is solved once the software is installed. Yet it has been demonstrated repeatedly that these filters do allow pornography, for example, to get through. In this case, there is no substitute for talking to and trusting your children (and they will probably be more skilled in disabling such software than you will be in installing it in any case).
Plus I remain irritated about filter software blocking this blog, presumably because it has xxx in the title. I've not been back to Harben House since I discovered they were censoring me, so I've no idea whether they did as promised and had a human being review the block. But I've emailed them again to ask, in the first instance, what the outcome of their promised investigation was.
Copyright killing documentaries
Interesting article in the Globe and Mail yesterday about the increasing difficulties documentary film makers are having as a result of the changes in the copyright landscape of recent times.
"As Americans commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy today, no television channel will be broadcasting the documentary series Eyes on the Prize. Produced in the 1980s and widely considered the most important encapsulation of the American civil-rights movement on video, the documentary series can no longer be broadcast or sold anywhere.
Why?
The makers of the series no longer have permission for the archival footage they previously used of such key events as the historic protest marches or the confrontations with Southern police. Given Eyes on the Prize's tight budget, typical of any documentary, its filmmakers could barely afford the minimum five-year rights for use of the clips. That permission has long since expired, and the $250,000 to $500,000 needed to clear the numerous copyrights involved is proving too expensive.
This is particularly dire now, because VHS copies of the series used in countless school curriculums are deteriorating beyond rehabilitation. With no new copies allowed to go on sale, "the whole thing, for all practical purposes, no longer exists," says Jon Else, a California-based filmmaker who helped produce and shoot the series and who also teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California, Berkeley."
"As Americans commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy today, no television channel will be broadcasting the documentary series Eyes on the Prize. Produced in the 1980s and widely considered the most important encapsulation of the American civil-rights movement on video, the documentary series can no longer be broadcast or sold anywhere.
Why?
The makers of the series no longer have permission for the archival footage they previously used of such key events as the historic protest marches or the confrontations with Southern police. Given Eyes on the Prize's tight budget, typical of any documentary, its filmmakers could barely afford the minimum five-year rights for use of the clips. That permission has long since expired, and the $250,000 to $500,000 needed to clear the numerous copyrights involved is proving too expensive.
This is particularly dire now, because VHS copies of the series used in countless school curriculums are deteriorating beyond rehabilitation. With no new copies allowed to go on sale, "the whole thing, for all practical purposes, no longer exists," says Jon Else, a California-based filmmaker who helped produce and shoot the series and who also teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California, Berkeley."
Monday, January 17, 2005
Schneier on Secure Flight evaluation group
Bruce Schneier is now also a member of a working group evaluating the replacement of the CAPPS II passenger profiling programme, "Secure Flight."
"I am participating in a working group to help evaluate the effectiveness and privacy implications of the TSA's Secure Flight program. We've had one meeting so far, and it looks like it will be an interesting exercise.
For those who have not been following along, Secure Flight is the follow-on to CAPPS-I. (CAPPS stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening.) CAPPS-I has been in place since 1997, and is a simple system to match airplane passengers to a terrorist watch list. A follow-on system, CAPPS-II, was proposed last year. That complicated system would have given every traveler a risk score based on information in government and commercial databases. There was a huge public outcry over the invasiveness of the system, and it was cancelled over the summer. Secure Flight is the new follow-on system to CAPPS-I.
Many of us believe that Secure Flight is just CAPPS-II with a new name. I hope to learn whether or not that is true.
I hope to learn a lot of things about Secure Flight and airline passenger profiling in general, but I probably won't be able to write about it. In order to be a member of this working group, I was required to apply for a U.S. government SECRET security clearance and sign an NDA, promising that I would not disclose something called "Sensitive Security Information."
SSI is one of three new categories of secret information, all of I think have no reason to exist. There is already a classification scheme -- CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET, etc. -- and information should either fit into that scheme or be public. A new scheme is just confusing. The NDA we were supposed to sign was very general, and included such provisions as allowing the government to conduct warrantless searches of our residences. (Two federal unions have threatened to sue the government over several provisions in that NDA, which applies to many DHS employees. And just recently, the DHS backed down.)
After push-back by myself and several others, we were given a much less onerous NDA to sign."
So why is he participating at all given his concerns? He says:
" I hope I can help make Secure Flight an effective security tool. I hope I can help minimize the privacy invasions on the program if it continues, and help kill it if it is ineffective. I'm not optimistic, but I'm hopeful.
I'm not hopeful that you will ever learn the results of this working group. We're preparing our report for the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, and I very much doubt that they will release the report to the public."
"I am participating in a working group to help evaluate the effectiveness and privacy implications of the TSA's Secure Flight program. We've had one meeting so far, and it looks like it will be an interesting exercise.
For those who have not been following along, Secure Flight is the follow-on to CAPPS-I. (CAPPS stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening.) CAPPS-I has been in place since 1997, and is a simple system to match airplane passengers to a terrorist watch list. A follow-on system, CAPPS-II, was proposed last year. That complicated system would have given every traveler a risk score based on information in government and commercial databases. There was a huge public outcry over the invasiveness of the system, and it was cancelled over the summer. Secure Flight is the new follow-on system to CAPPS-I.
Many of us believe that Secure Flight is just CAPPS-II with a new name. I hope to learn whether or not that is true.
I hope to learn a lot of things about Secure Flight and airline passenger profiling in general, but I probably won't be able to write about it. In order to be a member of this working group, I was required to apply for a U.S. government SECRET security clearance and sign an NDA, promising that I would not disclose something called "Sensitive Security Information."
SSI is one of three new categories of secret information, all of I think have no reason to exist. There is already a classification scheme -- CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET, etc. -- and information should either fit into that scheme or be public. A new scheme is just confusing. The NDA we were supposed to sign was very general, and included such provisions as allowing the government to conduct warrantless searches of our residences. (Two federal unions have threatened to sue the government over several provisions in that NDA, which applies to many DHS employees. And just recently, the DHS backed down.)
After push-back by myself and several others, we were given a much less onerous NDA to sign."
So why is he participating at all given his concerns? He says:
" I hope I can help make Secure Flight an effective security tool. I hope I can help minimize the privacy invasions on the program if it continues, and help kill it if it is ineffective. I'm not optimistic, but I'm hopeful.
I'm not hopeful that you will ever learn the results of this working group. We're preparing our report for the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, and I very much doubt that they will release the report to the public."
Irish e-voting
Schneier also points to the Irish Commission on Electonic Voting report analysing the e-voting system bought by the Irish government. They conclude
It is easy to use
It eliminates many inadvertent voter errors
It has been piloted in an election and a referendum
The system suppliers also supply e-voting machines to Germany and Holland
It has been tested and can accurately and consistently record and count votes in most situations including "unusual or difficult electoral situations"
End to end testing suggests it can accurately record and count votes in mulitple simultaneous elections
It can produce results quickly
It may save costs in the future
"However, within the timeframe of this report the Commission has not been able to satisfy itself suffiently as to the accuracy and secrecy of the chosen system."
...and then they go on to outline a range of important concerns. The Summary and Conclusion (Part 6) of the report are well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the integrity of electronic voting systems.
It is easy to use
It eliminates many inadvertent voter errors
It has been piloted in an election and a referendum
The system suppliers also supply e-voting machines to Germany and Holland
It has been tested and can accurately and consistently record and count votes in most situations including "unusual or difficult electoral situations"
End to end testing suggests it can accurately record and count votes in mulitple simultaneous elections
It can produce results quickly
It may save costs in the future
"However, within the timeframe of this report the Commission has not been able to satisfy itself suffiently as to the accuracy and secrecy of the chosen system."
...and then they go on to outline a range of important concerns. The Summary and Conclusion (Part 6) of the report are well worth a read for anyone with an interest in the integrity of electronic voting systems.
Fingerprinting schoolkids
Bruce Schneier explains why fingerprinting schoolkids to combat child kidnapping is an ineffective way of fulfilling the stated purpose. However, if you consider the agenda of the folks who introduced the scheme,
"If a kidnapping occurs on school property, the subsequent investigation could easily hurt school officials. They could even lose their jobs. If you view this security countermeasure as one protecting them just as much as it protects children, it suddenly makes more sense. The trade-off might not be worth it in general, but it’s worth it to them.
Kidnapping is a real problem, and countermeasures that help reduce the risk are a good thing. But remember that security is always a trade off, and a good security system is one where the security benefits are worth the money, convenience, and liberties that are being given up. Quite simply, this system isn’t worth it."
Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram full of sensible commentary on a wide range of security issues has just been posted.
"If a kidnapping occurs on school property, the subsequent investigation could easily hurt school officials. They could even lose their jobs. If you view this security countermeasure as one protecting them just as much as it protects children, it suddenly makes more sense. The trade-off might not be worth it in general, but it’s worth it to them.
Kidnapping is a real problem, and countermeasures that help reduce the risk are a good thing. But remember that security is always a trade off, and a good security system is one where the security benefits are worth the money, convenience, and liberties that are being given up. Quite simply, this system isn’t worth it."
Schneier's latest Crypto-Gram full of sensible commentary on a wide range of security issues has just been posted.
Verizon blanket ban on UK emails
I missed an interesting story in Wired last week. Verizon have apparently been blocking all email from the UK and other parts of Europe for several weeks.
I guess censorship by a communications service provider is ok in the Land of the Free, as long as it's only those foreigners that get censored. I'm being a little unfair. Private corporations are, of course, fully entitled to engage in censorship in the free market.
According to Wired,
"Verizon began blocking ranges of IP addresses belonging to British and European ISPs on Dec. 22, according to the company. The blacklisting of e-mail from abroad was in response to spam coming from the region, according to a customer service representative at Verizon who identified himself only as "Gary." He said company policy prevents him from giving out his last name."
I recall a similar case about 5 years ago, which I wrote about at the time. On 20 October, 1999, IDT, a New Jersey based ISP, blocked all email from the UK because some of its customers had received a large number of offensive unsolicited emails, apparently from a UK address. The spammer had actually exploited a security hole in a UK university's system. This made it appear as if the bulk emails were originating from there. The university (of Leeds) claim that IDT did not contact them before they took their action.
Even if the emails had come from that university, or some of the spam currently bothering Verizon is sprouting from the UK, it is a bit drastic to cut off an entire country in response [if that is what is actually happening].
I guess censorship by a communications service provider is ok in the Land of the Free, as long as it's only those foreigners that get censored. I'm being a little unfair. Private corporations are, of course, fully entitled to engage in censorship in the free market.
According to Wired,
"Verizon began blocking ranges of IP addresses belonging to British and European ISPs on Dec. 22, according to the company. The blacklisting of e-mail from abroad was in response to spam coming from the region, according to a customer service representative at Verizon who identified himself only as "Gary." He said company policy prevents him from giving out his last name."
I recall a similar case about 5 years ago, which I wrote about at the time. On 20 October, 1999, IDT, a New Jersey based ISP, blocked all email from the UK because some of its customers had received a large number of offensive unsolicited emails, apparently from a UK address. The spammer had actually exploited a security hole in a UK university's system. This made it appear as if the bulk emails were originating from there. The university (of Leeds) claim that IDT did not contact them before they took their action.
Even if the emails had come from that university, or some of the spam currently bothering Verizon is sprouting from the UK, it is a bit drastic to cut off an entire country in response [if that is what is actually happening].
The infamous torture memo
The Dean of Yale law school, Harold Koh, has testified during Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings for the position of Attorney General of the United States. Koh said the infamous torture memo, which attempted to provide a legal justification for engaging in torture, was:
"in my professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memorandum is perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read."
Gonzales is the White House counsel who asked for the torture opinion and received the "Memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to The White House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture" in response in August 2002. He has now repudiated the part of the memo that stated:
"The Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield"
The Gonzales hearings have proved to be less contentious than a number of people were predicting they might be.
John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Nixon, who writes this Findlaw report on the issue, is not exactly a fan of the current administration, of course.
"in my professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memorandum is perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read."
Gonzales is the White House counsel who asked for the torture opinion and received the "Memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to The White House Counsel on interrogation methods that do not violate prohibitions against torture" in response in August 2002. He has now repudiated the part of the memo that stated:
"The Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield"
The Gonzales hearings have proved to be less contentious than a number of people were predicting they might be.
John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Nixon, who writes this Findlaw report on the issue, is not exactly a fan of the current administration, of course.
Friday, January 14, 2005
FBI to scrap expensive IS
The FBI are according to the Washington Post going to scrap a $170 million information system intended to help them fight terrorism and other serious crimes.
ACLU pizzas
The ACLU have a great audio-visual piece on the downside of single source access to all the electronic information held on us, from ID cards to health data. It's almost amusing.
Ron Avitzur
The story of how Ron Avitzur and Greg Robbins created Apple's graphing calculator is pretty remarkable.
The projects they were working on at Apple got cancelled and they were laid off but since their staff passes still got them into the building they kept coming in and working unpaid.
"Why did Greg and I do something so ludicrous as sneaking into an eight-billion-dollar corporation to do volunteer work? Apple was having financial troubles then, so we joked that we were volunteering for a nonprofit organization. In reality, our motivation was complex. Partly, the PowerPC was an awesome machine, and we wanted to show off what could be done with it; in the Spinal Tap idiom, we said, "OK, this one goes to eleven." Partly, we were thinking of the storytelling value. Partly, it was a macho computer guy thing - we had never shipped a million copies of software before. Mostly, Greg and I felt that creating quality educational software was a public service. We were doing it to help kids learn math. Public schools are too poor to buy software, so the most effective way to deliver it is to install it at the factory.
Beyond this lies another set of questions, both psychological and political. Was I doing this out of bitterness that my project had been canceled? Was I subversively coopting the resources of a multinational corporation for my own ends? Or was I naive, manipulated by the system into working incredibly hard for its benefit? Was I a loose cannon, driven by arrogance and ego, or was I just devoted to furthering the cause of education?
I view the events as an experiment in subverting power structures. I had none of the traditional power over others that is inherent to the structure of corporations and bureaucracies. I had neither budget nor headcount. I answered to no one, and no one had to do anything I asked. Dozens of people collaborated spontaneously, motivated by loyalty, friendship, or the love of craftsmanship. We were hackers, creating something for the sheer joy of making it work."
Thanks to John for the link.
The projects they were working on at Apple got cancelled and they were laid off but since their staff passes still got them into the building they kept coming in and working unpaid.
"Why did Greg and I do something so ludicrous as sneaking into an eight-billion-dollar corporation to do volunteer work? Apple was having financial troubles then, so we joked that we were volunteering for a nonprofit organization. In reality, our motivation was complex. Partly, the PowerPC was an awesome machine, and we wanted to show off what could be done with it; in the Spinal Tap idiom, we said, "OK, this one goes to eleven." Partly, we were thinking of the storytelling value. Partly, it was a macho computer guy thing - we had never shipped a million copies of software before. Mostly, Greg and I felt that creating quality educational software was a public service. We were doing it to help kids learn math. Public schools are too poor to buy software, so the most effective way to deliver it is to install it at the factory.
Beyond this lies another set of questions, both psychological and political. Was I doing this out of bitterness that my project had been canceled? Was I subversively coopting the resources of a multinational corporation for my own ends? Or was I naive, manipulated by the system into working incredibly hard for its benefit? Was I a loose cannon, driven by arrogance and ego, or was I just devoted to furthering the cause of education?
I view the events as an experiment in subverting power structures. I had none of the traditional power over others that is inherent to the structure of corporations and bureaucracies. I had neither budget nor headcount. I answered to no one, and no one had to do anything I asked. Dozens of people collaborated spontaneously, motivated by loyalty, friendship, or the love of craftsmanship. We were hackers, creating something for the sheer joy of making it work."
Thanks to John for the link.
Academic copyright
Elizabeth Townsend has started a sub blog:
"In the next few months, I will be posting stories I find about scholars and copyright. I encourage others to submit their experiences -- good and bad. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
- experiences gaining permissions (tips, struggles, etc)
- experiences with literary executors (good and bad)
- stories about deciding not to research something because of potential copyright roadblocks
- using public domain materials
- using international materials
- getting cease and desist letters regarding web materials
- stories about distance learning experiences
- questions on any copyright-related topics (specific questions welcome, specific scenarios welcome, although this would NOT constitute LEGAL ADVICE).
- rumors about copyright problems; tales you have heard from others about copyright problems."
As an engineer/technologist who has been trying in vain to wake my academic colleagues up to the importance to the education sector of developments in intellectual property , I'll be really pleased to see Elizabeth's stories develop rapidly in richness and reach.
"In the next few months, I will be posting stories I find about scholars and copyright. I encourage others to submit their experiences -- good and bad. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
- experiences gaining permissions (tips, struggles, etc)
- experiences with literary executors (good and bad)
- stories about deciding not to research something because of potential copyright roadblocks
- using public domain materials
- using international materials
- getting cease and desist letters regarding web materials
- stories about distance learning experiences
- questions on any copyright-related topics (specific questions welcome, specific scenarios welcome, although this would NOT constitute LEGAL ADVICE).
- rumors about copyright problems; tales you have heard from others about copyright problems."
As an engineer/technologist who has been trying in vain to wake my academic colleagues up to the importance to the education sector of developments in intellectual property , I'll be really pleased to see Elizabeth's stories develop rapidly in richness and reach.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Latest EDRI-gram issued
EDRI-gram - Number 3.1, 12 January 2005 has the latest round of EU digital rights stories, including one about Dutch police making instant use of a new law to fine people who don't produce IDs on demand.
"On 1 January 2005, a new law went into force in the Netherlands obliging everybody above the age of 14 to always show ID when asked. Dutch police has immediately started to use the new power by fining dozens of citizens for not being able to present a valid passport, drivers license or ID card. Most citizens were given double fines, for example for riding on a bicycle without proper illlumination, or hanging out in groups and thus presenting a possible threat to the 'public order'. In the city of Rotterdam alone, 20 fines were issued within the first 24 hours of the new obligation. Two of the first fines that became public have raised serious concerns about the actual intentions of the police with their new power.
A young man attended the new-year's reception of the municipality of Nijmegen, and held up a banner protesting against the policy to evict asylum seekers. He was arrested and asked to show ID. When he refused to do so, the police took him to the local police station and held him for several hours. In the end he was sent home without a fine, but his right to demonstrate was undermined completely.
A second incident was covered in the eight o' clock national TV news on 8 January 2004. A 14-year old girl in the municipality of Wijk en Aalburg was arrested in the very early hours of 1 January 2005 for not being able to show ID, together with 20 other kids. She spent 5 and a half hours in a police cell, without any indication of any possible misdemeanour other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
"On 1 January 2005, a new law went into force in the Netherlands obliging everybody above the age of 14 to always show ID when asked. Dutch police has immediately started to use the new power by fining dozens of citizens for not being able to present a valid passport, drivers license or ID card. Most citizens were given double fines, for example for riding on a bicycle without proper illlumination, or hanging out in groups and thus presenting a possible threat to the 'public order'. In the city of Rotterdam alone, 20 fines were issued within the first 24 hours of the new obligation. Two of the first fines that became public have raised serious concerns about the actual intentions of the police with their new power.
A young man attended the new-year's reception of the municipality of Nijmegen, and held up a banner protesting against the policy to evict asylum seekers. He was arrested and asked to show ID. When he refused to do so, the police took him to the local police station and held him for several hours. In the end he was sent home without a fine, but his right to demonstrate was undermined completely.
A second incident was covered in the eight o' clock national TV news on 8 January 2004. A 14-year old girl in the municipality of Wijk en Aalburg was arrested in the very early hours of 1 January 2005 for not being able to show ID, together with 20 other kids. She spent 5 and a half hours in a police cell, without any indication of any possible misdemeanour other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Kazaa partners claim patent pn P2P
Altnet and Brilliant Ditial Entertainment are claiming patent on peer to peer technology and have written to other p2p companies encouraging them to "discuss licensing opportunities."
It was only a matter of time before we saw this. There is likely to be consolodation in the P2P market and the entertainment companies will deal with (or acquire) the winners to offer digital distribution chains.
It was only a matter of time before we saw this. There is likely to be consolodation in the P2P market and the entertainment companies will deal with (or acquire) the winners to offer digital distribution chains.
Spy in the GPs surgery
Alice Miles at the Times thinks that the electronic patient record has far more worrying implications for personal privacy than that dreaded national ID card.
"The what? Quite. The NHS’s electronic patient record is already up and running. It contains basic demographic data — name, address, date of birth — for every person in the country. This year the system will “go live”, area by area, with more and more of a patient’s personal medical record added to it. It will be far more intrusive than an ID card. And hundreds of thousands of NHS employees will have access to it. Wave bye bye to patient confidentiality.
No system with that many users can be secure.
You may not even know it is happening. Local advertising campaigns will alert patients that the system is starting up in their area. If you fail to notice the adverts, your GP is under no obligation to inform you that he is about to post your most private details online."
Ross Anderson has been alerting us to the security issues with this for years.
"The what? Quite. The NHS’s electronic patient record is already up and running. It contains basic demographic data — name, address, date of birth — for every person in the country. This year the system will “go live”, area by area, with more and more of a patient’s personal medical record added to it. It will be far more intrusive than an ID card. And hundreds of thousands of NHS employees will have access to it. Wave bye bye to patient confidentiality.
No system with that many users can be secure.
You may not even know it is happening. Local advertising campaigns will alert patients that the system is starting up in their area. If you fail to notice the adverts, your GP is under no obligation to inform you that he is about to post your most private details online."
Ross Anderson has been alerting us to the security issues with this for years.
Sacked blogger
The Guardian has an article on Waterstone's sacked blogger, Joe Gordon. It includes the extracts from the blog that probably got him sacked. I suspect, like many employers, Waterstones will have a policy on directing bad language at fellow employees, which may be how he got into difficulty. This was on his blog, however, on his own and not company time.
If Mr Gordon's appeal goes to a sensitive regional manager he may be ok but if he does get reinstated there may be some tension in the Edinburgh store for a while.
If Mr Gordon's appeal goes to a sensitive regional manager he may be ok but if he does get reinstated there may be some tension in the Edinburgh store for a while.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Waterstones sack employee over blog
Waterstones have apparently sacked an employee at their Edinburgh store due to his satirical blog writings. Author Richard Morgan has written to Waterstones to protest:
"I understand that this dismissal has been occasioned by comments on Joe's blog column, which I read on a regular basis and thus am familiar with. While I don't wish to interfere in company business, I have to say I think this bears comparison with taking disciplinary action based on private conversation overheard in a pub, and raises some disturbing issues of freedom of speech. Waterstones is, after all, a bookseller, whose stock in trade is the purveying of opinion, not all of it palatable to those concerned. You sell books which offer serious critique of the corporate environment and government, but do not expect to suffer punitive action from government or corporate quarters as a result. You sell books which criticise and satirise religious and political groups, but you do not expect to be firebombed by extremists as a result. Surely Joe has the right to let off steam in his free time without having to fear for his livelihood as a result."
"I understand that this dismissal has been occasioned by comments on Joe's blog column, which I read on a regular basis and thus am familiar with. While I don't wish to interfere in company business, I have to say I think this bears comparison with taking disciplinary action based on private conversation overheard in a pub, and raises some disturbing issues of freedom of speech. Waterstones is, after all, a bookseller, whose stock in trade is the purveying of opinion, not all of it palatable to those concerned. You sell books which offer serious critique of the corporate environment and government, but do not expect to suffer punitive action from government or corporate quarters as a result. You sell books which criticise and satirise religious and political groups, but you do not expect to be firebombed by extremists as a result. Surely Joe has the right to let off steam in his free time without having to fear for his livelihood as a result."
French security researcher facing jail
According to this ZDNet report, a French security researcher, Guillaume Tena, is facing a jail sentence for finding and publishing flaws in Viguard antivirus software. The software vendor have sued him for intellectual property infringement and want him jailed and financial damages.
"Accoridng to Tena's Web site, his research "showed how the program worked, demonstrated a few security flaws and carried out some tests with real viruses. Unlike the advertising claimed, this software didn't detect and stop ?100 percent of viruses?."
Tena, who is currently a researcher for Harvard University in Massachusetts, said that Tegam responded in a "weird way" by first branding him a terrorist and then filing a formal complaint in Paris. During the resulting tribunal, Tena said the judge decided that because the published exploits included some re-engineered source code from Viguard?s software, he had violated French copyright laws...
On Tena's Web site, he claims that If independent researchers are not allowed to freely publish their findings about security software then users will be only have "marketing press releases" to assess the quality of the software. "Unfortunately, it seems that we are heading this way in France and maybe in Europe," Tena said.
"To use an analogy, it's a little bit as if Ford was selling cars with defective brakes. If I realised that there was a problem, opened the hood and took a few pictures to prove it, and published everything on my Web site. Then Ford could file a complaint against me," added Tena."
Without being privy to all the detailed facts of the case it not possible to assess it in its entirety. However, the notion of jailing someone who points out that someone is selling something that doesn't do want the vendor claims is ridiculous.
"Accoridng to Tena's Web site, his research "showed how the program worked, demonstrated a few security flaws and carried out some tests with real viruses. Unlike the advertising claimed, this software didn't detect and stop ?100 percent of viruses?."
Tena, who is currently a researcher for Harvard University in Massachusetts, said that Tegam responded in a "weird way" by first branding him a terrorist and then filing a formal complaint in Paris. During the resulting tribunal, Tena said the judge decided that because the published exploits included some re-engineered source code from Viguard?s software, he had violated French copyright laws...
On Tena's Web site, he claims that If independent researchers are not allowed to freely publish their findings about security software then users will be only have "marketing press releases" to assess the quality of the software. "Unfortunately, it seems that we are heading this way in France and maybe in Europe," Tena said.
"To use an analogy, it's a little bit as if Ford was selling cars with defective brakes. If I realised that there was a problem, opened the hood and took a few pictures to prove it, and published everything on my Web site. Then Ford could file a complaint against me," added Tena."
Without being privy to all the detailed facts of the case it not possible to assess it in its entirety. However, the notion of jailing someone who points out that someone is selling something that doesn't do want the vendor claims is ridiculous.
Ed Felten's 2005
Amongst Ed Felten's predictions for 2005:
"DRM technology will still fail to prevent widespread infringement. In a related development, pigs will still fail to fly."
Can't argue with that.
Optimistically he also thinks:
"DRM technology, especially on PCs, will be seen increasingly as a security and privacy risk to end users."
Sadly I think the general awakening to this reality will take longer to come to pass.
"DRM technology will still fail to prevent widespread infringement. In a related development, pigs will still fail to fly."
Can't argue with that.
Optimistically he also thinks:
"DRM technology, especially on PCs, will be seen increasingly as a security and privacy risk to end users."
Sadly I think the general awakening to this reality will take longer to come to pass.
Online Groups Brag About Movie Piracy
Associated Press business writer ALEX VEIGA has another take on the story of how copyrighted films, games and movies get onto P2P networks. These are people the industry are so concerned about and many of them are probably the same people that the industry will hire to run their eventual online entertainment product distribution businesses.
Government army working on ID card scheme
The Daily Telegraph is not impressed that the government already have over 80 people working on the ID card scheme. Neither are the Lib Dems
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The Government should not have a small army of people working on a scheme which has still not been agreed by Parliament. Bringing in the consultants who worked on the disastrous Criminal Records Bureau project is unlikely to improve this deeply flawed proposal."
Over 80 people. That's more than the total number of police officers in all the computer crimes units in the UK. I can't accept that is a sensible use of government resources.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The Government should not have a small army of people working on a scheme which has still not been agreed by Parliament. Bringing in the consultants who worked on the disastrous Criminal Records Bureau project is unlikely to improve this deeply flawed proposal."
Over 80 people. That's more than the total number of police officers in all the computer crimes units in the UK. I can't accept that is a sensible use of government resources.
No to ID cards campaign
The No2ID campaign have released their latest newsletter packed full of useful information and stories on this "extremely expensive and largely ineffective" plan of the UK government.
Well worth a read and reproduced in full below. (for working links use the website)
--------------------------------
++ Identity Cards Bill Enters Committee Stage
--------------------
+ Government Rushing Bill Through
The Identity Cards Bill will now enter the Committee Stage, where a committee will examine the bill clause by clause. However the level of scrutiny that MPs will be able to give the bill is questionable. The government is rushing the bill through parliament following a programme motion (in effect, a guillotine) that means the committee stage must be completed by 27th January. MPs do not return from Christmas recess until Monday, 10th January, so that leaves just two an a half weeks to examine a controversial bill that has enormous costs and major constitutional implications.
The committee will then produce a report, which will be allowed just one hour of debate in the commons. The Third Reading of the bill is limited to a single day. The low turnout for the Second Reading of the bill(173 MPs absent or abstained) suggests that there could be a more sizeable back bench revolt at Third Reading. NO2ID has compiled a list of MPs who publicly support NO2ID (several more do so privately), as well as those that are opposed to ID cards in principle. See www.no2id.net/about/mp_supporters.php
Revolts.co.uk has produced an analysis of the Second Reading backbench rebellion. See http://tinyurl.co.uk/x0p9 (PDF file)
After Third Reading the bill will then got to the House of Lords where it is expected to meet stiffer opposition. Many believe this is where the best hopes for stopping it lie.
Nevertheless...
+ ID Bill Committee Stage - Lobby Your MP
We urgently call on all supporters to contact their MPs, Councillors, AMs and MSPs to make them aware of your concerns and to point out that ID cards are not a popular measure, despite what a number of them believe. If you get a response then please pass on details of their position to our Parliamentary Liaison, Rachael Marsh (parliamentary.liaison@no2id.net).
List of MSPs - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/index.htm
List of AMs - http://www.wales.gov.uk/who/constit_e.htm
Fax Westminster MPs - http://www.faxyourmp.com/
-------------------------------
++ What Just Happened?
---------------------
+ NO2ID Opens Campaign Office
Great news this week, as NO2ID gets a new office on the south bank of the Thames, near Lambeth Palace and a short walk from the Houses of Parliament. We're starting small, but there is plenty of space for expansion in the building as the office grows. The postal address for external communications remains the same.
If you live in London and have a few hours to spare during the week please volunteer to join the staff rota helping to handle the vital clerical work to support the campaign. (volunteeer@no2id.net) If you can't, please help us with running costs. The rent in the short-term is kindly underwritten by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, but to make the office work for us means meeting the running costs of constant lobbying by mail and by phone. Please support us with a donation.
You can get a membership/standing order donation form at www.no2id.net/content/join.html To donate by PayPal or bank transfer, see www.no2id.net/content/donate.html
+ Local Groups Forming Across the Country
The following brave people are now acting as local NO2ID contacts in their area, others are in the queue. (So our apologies to local contacts who don't find themselves here, yet.)
BARROW IN FURNESS - Paul Robson - barrow.in.furness@no2id.net BIRMINGHAM - Nick Drew - birmingham@no2id.net BRIGHTON - Rob Whitehead - brighton@no2id.net BRISTOL - Richard McCormack - bristol@no2id.net CAMBRIDGE - Andrew Watson - cambridge@no2id.net CARDIFF - Dafydd Elcome - cardiff@no2id.net CARLISLE - Douglas Baptie - carlisle@no2id.net EDINBURGH - Trevor Mendham - edinburgh@no2id.net GLASGOW - Vic Arcari - glasgow@no2id.net HULL - Rev Alisdair Lairds - hull@no2id.net
NEWCASTLE - Robin Ashby - newcastle@no2id.net
NEWTON ABBOT - Dr Andy Marchant - newton.abbot@no2id.net
OXFORD - Mike Bolton - oxford@no2id.net
PETERBOROUGH - Mark Ringer - peterborough@no2id.net
RHYL - Christopher Gould - rhyl@no2id.net
SHEFFIELD - Catherine Luker - sheffield@no2id.net
WOKING - Paul Campbell - woking@no2id.net
WORTHING - Trevor Hodgson - worthing@no2id.net
Please get in touch with them if you can help out locally. If you'd like to join them as a local contact for your town, you should be a member and be prepared to be contacted by supporters and local journalists.
+ NO2ID Discussion Forums
The NO2ID website now has discussion forums and bulletin boards for supporters and members to discusss all things related too ID control, and share ideas and suggestions for the campaign. There are forums for posting links to articles, discussing the Identity, Cards Bill and announcing forthcoming events. To get the best value from the system, you will need to register. See http://www.no2id.net/phpbb/
+ E-Petition Still Open
The petition continues to help us reach more supporters and let more people express their views on ID cards. If you would like to collect paper signatures in your area, please let Guy Taylor
(local.groups@no2id.net) know.
The "official" petition is now listed on the cabinet office website, together with an indication that a response will be posted "in due course". The petition was submitted to the Cabinet Office six weeks ago. The stated policy is that the Government will normally take two weeks to respond. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page297.asp
Please continue to encourage people to sign the petition at http://www.no2id-petition.net/
+ Labour Government Rejected ID Cards in 1974
Government papers released under the 30-year rule show that in the wake of the IRA Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, the then Labour government considered ID cards but rejected them because of cost and the impact they would have on civil liberties.
The ID scheme proposed by the current government is far more expensive (even in relative terms) and an even greater threat to civil liberties, with its centralised database, unique National Identity Register Number, and biometric data. Strange, then, that Charles Clarke thinks it "is an enhancement, not an inhibition, of civil liberties." See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139049.stm
+ SpyBlog Requests ID Card "Gateway Review"
SpyBlog has submitted a request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), for the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews of the Identity Cards Programme. Gateway Reviews are independent financial reviews carried out by a team of experts at certain fixed key decision points over the lifetime of a programme.
The government has been reluctant to release information relating to the proposed ID card scheme, citing "reasons of commercial confidentiality". Lord Falconer has already indicated that FOIA requests for the legal guidance on the introduction of ID cards are likely to be declined. See http://www.spy.org.uk/foia/archives/2005/01/ogc_gateway_rev.html
SpyBlog has also set up blogs for those wishing to comment on the text of the Identity Cards Bill clause by clause, or on the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment.
http://www.spy.org.uk/icb/
http://www.spy.org.uk/icbria
-------------------------------------------
++ What's Next?
------------
+ Biometric Passports, Contactless Chips And Global ID
The government continues to use the introduction of biometric passports as a justification for ID cards. It claims we have to upgrade our passports, due to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidelines, so we may as well have an ID card while we're at it. However biometric passports are now at the centre of much controversy.
The American Civil Liberties Union has produced a white paper that highlights a number of privacy and security issues surrounding the ICAO standard. Insertion of an unencrypted contactless chip into passports means it will be possible to read the passport data from a distance of 20cm or more. The ACLU also warns that the ICAO standard is a move towards a global identity card.
Meanwhile the European Union seems set to rethink its biometric passport proposals after a technical report to the European Council stated that "the solution envisaged by the draft regulation is not technically feasible".
Back in the UK, an EU law specialist at the University of Essex says that the government's proposed biometric passport system could conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as data protection legislation.
Set against this comes news of the costly US-VISIT programme that biometrically scans visitors at seaports, airports and border controls in the United States. The programme has cost 700 million dollars so far. The LA Times reports that last year 16.9 million foreign visitors were checked through the system, 372 of whom were arrested or denied entry. Of the 372 none was linked to terrorism.
ACLU White Paper http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=17078&c=130
Statewatch report on EU passports http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jan/02update-visas-biometrics.htm
UK passports & human rights http://nxtpresa.butterworths.co.uk/freelaw/news/DailyNewsItem.asp#3958
LA Times report on US-VISIT
http://tinyurl.co.uk/qbuc
+ 17 January - IPPR/OII Public Meeting
'Identity, Technology and the Public Interest: New Directions for Research and Public Policy' 2pm - 5pm at Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy 3 Robert Street, London WC2N 6RL This joint ippr-OII forum will bring together researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to discuss some of the most recent developments in research and public policy. Speakers will include:
William Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute
Will Davies, IPPR
Andrew Pinder, Consultant and former E-envoy
Matthew Kabatoff, Goldsmiths College
The event is free and open to the public. If you wish to attend, you must register your name and affiliation, if any, with events@oii.ox.ac.uk
+ 18 January - 'Identity cards, the state and the individual'
6:15pm at 23 Great Smith Street, London SW1.
The Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank, is holding a roundtable discussion on 'Identity cards, the state and the individual' at the Institute's offices. The event will be followed by a drinks reception and places are limited. Speakers will include:
Rt Hon. Peter Lilley MP (former Minister for Social Security)
Sarah Arnott of Computing (the IT industry's newspaper)
Seamus Heffernan from Civitas
E-mail events@adamsmith.org if you would like to attend.
+ 25th January - NO2ID Public Meeting, Cambridge
7:30pm at Fisher Hall, Guildhall Place, Cambridge.
Speakers are to include:
Peter Lilley, MP PC
Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, U. of Cambridge
David Howarth, Prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Cambridge
Tauhid Pasha, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
+ Coming soon - Fundraising Event in London
Find out what an extraordinarily diverse range of ideas NO2ID people have. And raise funds for the battle ahead. Details will depend on how much interest there is. Contact our events manager, Cassandra Rae
(events@no2id.net) if you would like to know more.
-----------------------------
++ "ID" In the News
---------------------
Labour's Zombie Army clinches ID card vote for Clarke http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/21/id_bill_2nd_reading/
Plugs to be pulled on EU biometric visa scheme? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/cards_for_bio_visa/
Reform think tank says Identity Cards Bill does not stand up to scrutiny http://www.reform.co.uk/website/pressroom/bulletinarchive.aspx?o=91
SNP says ID Cards won't catch more criminals http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2261
ID Cards bill is given a second reading http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1377985,00.html
Labour and Tory MPs absent in protest http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411314,00.html
Clarke burnt as MPs revolt over ID cards http://tinyurl.co.uk/ep1c
Are ID cards legal under human rights legislation? http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39126646,00.htm
Government withholds ID card legal advice http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,39181772,00.htm
ID cards will be used as a stick to beat poor http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/121604/f121604_07.htm
A face-to-face interview to get your first passport http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/22/npass22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/22/
ixhome.html
ID cards may become healthcare 'entitlement' cards http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=980
Policing is far more important than ID cards, says Redwood http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2004/12/30/nid30.xml
ID card bonanza for foreign firms http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid396703
ID Cards: Citizens Advice highlights its concerns & issues http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2266
(Please send me any items of interest you encounter - Editor)
-------------------------------------------
++ What You Can Do
-------------------
Like any campaign we need funds and people. Any help or expertise of any kind you can spare will be most welcome. Most important is to get other people involved and to understand the issues. ID-CARDS sound innocent: what the government wants is ID-CONTROL. When people know that they (and their children) may be fingerprinted like criminals and will be made to register every change of address with the authorities, their attitude changes. So:-
1. Tell your friends about the campaign and that you are supporting it. Most people are scarcely aware of the government's ID database project, and few understand the dangers. Feel free to redistribute this newsletter to acquaintances. (But please do introduce it personally and don't spam.) Your personal witness will help others understand that this is important.
2. Sign the Petition and get your friends and (adult) family to do so. http://www.no2id-petition.net/
3. Let us know if you have time or special expertise that you can give to the organisation or facilities you can lend us. The campaign is getting bigger, but needs to grow some more. Fast. We urgently need any assistance you can offer. We can use any amount of professional creative and marketing expertise as we begin to lift public awareness of the issues, but it would be handy to have reliable people to answer the phone. Volunteer at: volunteer@no2id.net
4. Get together with others in your area to form a local group. A national campaign needs a national network. Experienced campaigner Guy Taylor (local.groups@no2id.net) is available to help local groups build our nationwide presence. Guy can tell you how to hold a public meeting, set out your stall locally (literally as well as metaphorically), and how to get other people involved. If you have experience of local campaigns then by all means just start -- we will offer what help we can. Details of forthcoming meetings, when we have them, are posted on the website.
5. Raise the issue for discussion in any organisations you belong to. Everyone is affected in some way. Encourage any club, union or other group you are in that opposes ID control to become a supporter or affiliate itself.
6. Write to the local and national press, to express your concerns whenever there is relevant news. Phone-in to appropriate radio and TV programs. There is plenty of information on (and linked to) the website to help you do this.
7. Write to your MP and MEP expressing your disquiet and ask for *their
personal* opinion on specific issues. (Big-party MPs in particular
sometimes avoid controversial matter, or may offer a standard statement
of general party policy rather than answering for themselves.)
FaxYourMP.com is a free and confidential way to get an answer.
8. Buy a T-shirt, and wear it. This publicises the message--people will ask you what it means--and raises funds. Details on the NO2ID website. Or buy online at: http://www.ntkmart.co.uk/ntkmart.cgi#No2ID
or http://www.cashncarrion.co.uk/cnb/shop/cashncarrion?listPos=&op=catalogue-products-null&prodCategory
ID=28
9. Join. Membership starts at GBP15 a year (higher contributions
encouraged, and a modest standing order means a lot to us). It entitles you to a say in the running of NO2ID. There is a membership form on the website at www.no2id.net/content/join.html
10. Give generously. A few weeks back we had no money. Now we have a little money, but we will always need more. The Home Office is planning to spend billions. But we will spend your money better. Funds can be transferred to our HSBC Treasurer Account in the name of NO2ID A/c no: 91339427 Sort Code 40-28-15 You can send a cheque, payable to "NO2ID" to: NO2ID, Box 412, 78 Marylebone High Street, LONDON W1U 5AP. Special donation or sponsorship enquiries should be made to Guy Herbert (general.secretary@no2id.net). Help in kind is equally welcome.
11. Link to us. Help us gather support on through the web by displaying a button or banner (available on the website) on your own home site or blog and linking to us.
-----------------------------
++ NO2ID Who's Who and Resources
-----------------------------
First port of call should be the website:
http://www.no2id.net/
+ If you have specific assistance or information to offer, you can
contact the following NO2ID people:
Chair of the Advisory Board - Simon Davies (chair@no2id.net)
Volunteer Staff:-
National Coordinator - Phil Booth (national.coordinator@no2id.net)
Administration
General Secretary - Guy Herbert (general.secretary@no2id.net) Newsletter Editor - Charles Farrier (newsletter@no2id.net) Production Manager - Katherine Davies (production.manager@no2id.net) Technical Manager - Owen Blacker (technical.manager@no2id.net)
Communications
Head of Campaigns - Andy Robson (campaigns@no2id.net)
Press Officer - Michael Parker (press.officer@no2id.net)
Public Affairs - Dave Walker (public.affairs@no2id.net) Parliamentary Liaison - Rachael Marsh (parliamentary.liaison@no2id.net) Events Manager Cassandra Rae (events@no2id.net)
Development
National Secretary - Adam McGreggor (national.secretary@no2id.net) Local Group Coordinator - Guy Taylor (local.groups@no2id.net) Student Organiser - Nick Pauro (students@no2id.net)
Research
Head of Research - Ian Brown (research@no2id.net)
Regional Coordinators
London - Andrew Weston (london@no2id.net)
Scotland - Trevor Mendham (scotland@no2id.net)
+ Please, please remember that everybody on this list is a volunteer,
and all will be getting a huge amount of email, so you should only direct enquiries to the relevant person. We are grateful for all offers of help, but can't guarantee to have time to give detailed answers to individual general queries on the ID scheme. There is a lot of information on the website and there will soon be much, much more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication details: (c) NO2ID 2004 - This document may be freely redistributed in one-to-one communications or physical copies as long as it is reproduced in its entirety including this notice. It may not be mass-mailed without the prior permission of NO2ID. NO2ID, Box No.412, 78 Marylebone High Street, LONDON W1U 5AP
Well worth a read and reproduced in full below. (for working links use the website)
--------------------------------
++ Identity Cards Bill Enters Committee Stage
--------------------
+ Government Rushing Bill Through
The Identity Cards Bill will now enter the Committee Stage, where a committee will examine the bill clause by clause. However the level of scrutiny that MPs will be able to give the bill is questionable. The government is rushing the bill through parliament following a programme motion (in effect, a guillotine) that means the committee stage must be completed by 27th January. MPs do not return from Christmas recess until Monday, 10th January, so that leaves just two an a half weeks to examine a controversial bill that has enormous costs and major constitutional implications.
The committee will then produce a report, which will be allowed just one hour of debate in the commons. The Third Reading of the bill is limited to a single day. The low turnout for the Second Reading of the bill(173 MPs absent or abstained) suggests that there could be a more sizeable back bench revolt at Third Reading. NO2ID has compiled a list of MPs who publicly support NO2ID (several more do so privately), as well as those that are opposed to ID cards in principle. See www.no2id.net/about/mp_supporters.php
Revolts.co.uk has produced an analysis of the Second Reading backbench rebellion. See http://tinyurl.co.uk/x0p9 (PDF file)
After Third Reading the bill will then got to the House of Lords where it is expected to meet stiffer opposition. Many believe this is where the best hopes for stopping it lie.
Nevertheless...
+ ID Bill Committee Stage - Lobby Your MP
We urgently call on all supporters to contact their MPs, Councillors, AMs and MSPs to make them aware of your concerns and to point out that ID cards are not a popular measure, despite what a number of them believe. If you get a response then please pass on details of their position to our Parliamentary Liaison, Rachael Marsh (parliamentary.liaison@no2id.net).
List of MSPs - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/index.htm
List of AMs - http://www.wales.gov.uk/who/constit_e.htm
Fax Westminster MPs - http://www.faxyourmp.com/
-------------------------------
++ What Just Happened?
---------------------
+ NO2ID Opens Campaign Office
Great news this week, as NO2ID gets a new office on the south bank of the Thames, near Lambeth Palace and a short walk from the Houses of Parliament. We're starting small, but there is plenty of space for expansion in the building as the office grows. The postal address for external communications remains the same.
If you live in London and have a few hours to spare during the week please volunteer to join the staff rota helping to handle the vital clerical work to support the campaign. (volunteeer@no2id.net) If you can't, please help us with running costs. The rent in the short-term is kindly underwritten by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, but to make the office work for us means meeting the running costs of constant lobbying by mail and by phone. Please support us with a donation.
You can get a membership/standing order donation form at www.no2id.net/content/join.html To donate by PayPal or bank transfer, see www.no2id.net/content/donate.html
+ Local Groups Forming Across the Country
The following brave people are now acting as local NO2ID contacts in their area, others are in the queue. (So our apologies to local contacts who don't find themselves here, yet.)
BARROW IN FURNESS - Paul Robson - barrow.in.furness@no2id.net BIRMINGHAM - Nick Drew - birmingham@no2id.net BRIGHTON - Rob Whitehead - brighton@no2id.net BRISTOL - Richard McCormack - bristol@no2id.net CAMBRIDGE - Andrew Watson - cambridge@no2id.net CARDIFF - Dafydd Elcome - cardiff@no2id.net CARLISLE - Douglas Baptie - carlisle@no2id.net EDINBURGH - Trevor Mendham - edinburgh@no2id.net GLASGOW - Vic Arcari - glasgow@no2id.net HULL - Rev Alisdair Lairds - hull@no2id.net
NEWCASTLE - Robin Ashby - newcastle@no2id.net
NEWTON ABBOT - Dr Andy Marchant - newton.abbot@no2id.net
OXFORD - Mike Bolton - oxford@no2id.net
PETERBOROUGH - Mark Ringer - peterborough@no2id.net
RHYL - Christopher Gould - rhyl@no2id.net
SHEFFIELD - Catherine Luker - sheffield@no2id.net
WOKING - Paul Campbell - woking@no2id.net
WORTHING - Trevor Hodgson - worthing@no2id.net
Please get in touch with them if you can help out locally. If you'd like to join them as a local contact for your town, you should be a member and be prepared to be contacted by supporters and local journalists.
+ NO2ID Discussion Forums
The NO2ID website now has discussion forums and bulletin boards for supporters and members to discusss all things related too ID control, and share ideas and suggestions for the campaign. There are forums for posting links to articles, discussing the Identity, Cards Bill and announcing forthcoming events. To get the best value from the system, you will need to register. See http://www.no2id.net/phpbb/
+ E-Petition Still Open
The petition continues to help us reach more supporters and let more people express their views on ID cards. If you would like to collect paper signatures in your area, please let Guy Taylor
(local.groups@no2id.net) know.
The "official" petition is now listed on the cabinet office website, together with an indication that a response will be posted "in due course". The petition was submitted to the Cabinet Office six weeks ago. The stated policy is that the Government will normally take two weeks to respond. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page297.asp
Please continue to encourage people to sign the petition at http://www.no2id-petition.net/
+ Labour Government Rejected ID Cards in 1974
Government papers released under the 30-year rule show that in the wake of the IRA Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, the then Labour government considered ID cards but rejected them because of cost and the impact they would have on civil liberties.
The ID scheme proposed by the current government is far more expensive (even in relative terms) and an even greater threat to civil liberties, with its centralised database, unique National Identity Register Number, and biometric data. Strange, then, that Charles Clarke thinks it "is an enhancement, not an inhibition, of civil liberties." See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4139049.stm
+ SpyBlog Requests ID Card "Gateway Review"
SpyBlog has submitted a request, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), for the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Reviews of the Identity Cards Programme. Gateway Reviews are independent financial reviews carried out by a team of experts at certain fixed key decision points over the lifetime of a programme.
The government has been reluctant to release information relating to the proposed ID card scheme, citing "reasons of commercial confidentiality". Lord Falconer has already indicated that FOIA requests for the legal guidance on the introduction of ID cards are likely to be declined. See http://www.spy.org.uk/foia/archives/2005/01/ogc_gateway_rev.html
SpyBlog has also set up blogs for those wishing to comment on the text of the Identity Cards Bill clause by clause, or on the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment.
http://www.spy.org.uk/icb/
http://www.spy.org.uk/icbria
-------------------------------------------
++ What's Next?
------------
+ Biometric Passports, Contactless Chips And Global ID
The government continues to use the introduction of biometric passports as a justification for ID cards. It claims we have to upgrade our passports, due to International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) guidelines, so we may as well have an ID card while we're at it. However biometric passports are now at the centre of much controversy.
The American Civil Liberties Union has produced a white paper that highlights a number of privacy and security issues surrounding the ICAO standard. Insertion of an unencrypted contactless chip into passports means it will be possible to read the passport data from a distance of 20cm or more. The ACLU also warns that the ICAO standard is a move towards a global identity card.
Meanwhile the European Union seems set to rethink its biometric passport proposals after a technical report to the European Council stated that "the solution envisaged by the draft regulation is not technically feasible".
Back in the UK, an EU law specialist at the University of Essex says that the government's proposed biometric passport system could conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as data protection legislation.
Set against this comes news of the costly US-VISIT programme that biometrically scans visitors at seaports, airports and border controls in the United States. The programme has cost 700 million dollars so far. The LA Times reports that last year 16.9 million foreign visitors were checked through the system, 372 of whom were arrested or denied entry. Of the 372 none was linked to terrorism.
ACLU White Paper http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=17078&c=130
Statewatch report on EU passports http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jan/02update-visas-biometrics.htm
UK passports & human rights http://nxtpresa.butterworths.co.uk/freelaw/news/DailyNewsItem.asp#3958
LA Times report on US-VISIT
http://tinyurl.co.uk/qbuc
+ 17 January - IPPR/OII Public Meeting
'Identity, Technology and the Public Interest: New Directions for Research and Public Policy' 2pm - 5pm at Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy 3 Robert Street, London WC2N 6RL This joint ippr-OII forum will bring together researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to discuss some of the most recent developments in research and public policy. Speakers will include:
William Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute
Will Davies, IPPR
Andrew Pinder, Consultant and former E-envoy
Matthew Kabatoff, Goldsmiths College
The event is free and open to the public. If you wish to attend, you must register your name and affiliation, if any, with events@oii.ox.ac.uk
+ 18 January - 'Identity cards, the state and the individual'
6:15pm at 23 Great Smith Street, London SW1.
The Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank, is holding a roundtable discussion on 'Identity cards, the state and the individual' at the Institute's offices. The event will be followed by a drinks reception and places are limited. Speakers will include:
Rt Hon. Peter Lilley MP (former Minister for Social Security)
Sarah Arnott of Computing (the IT industry's newspaper)
Seamus Heffernan from Civitas
E-mail events@adamsmith.org if you would like to attend.
+ 25th January - NO2ID Public Meeting, Cambridge
7:30pm at Fisher Hall, Guildhall Place, Cambridge.
Speakers are to include:
Peter Lilley, MP PC
Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering, U. of Cambridge
David Howarth, Prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Cambridge
Tauhid Pasha, Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
+ Coming soon - Fundraising Event in London
Find out what an extraordinarily diverse range of ideas NO2ID people have. And raise funds for the battle ahead. Details will depend on how much interest there is. Contact our events manager, Cassandra Rae
(events@no2id.net) if you would like to know more.
-----------------------------
++ "ID" In the News
---------------------
Labour's Zombie Army clinches ID card vote for Clarke http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/21/id_bill_2nd_reading/
Plugs to be pulled on EU biometric visa scheme? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/07/cards_for_bio_visa/
Reform think tank says Identity Cards Bill does not stand up to scrutiny http://www.reform.co.uk/website/pressroom/bulletinarchive.aspx?o=91
SNP says ID Cards won't catch more criminals http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2261
ID Cards bill is given a second reading http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1377985,00.html
Labour and Tory MPs absent in protest http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411314,00.html
Clarke burnt as MPs revolt over ID cards http://tinyurl.co.uk/ep1c
Are ID cards legal under human rights legislation? http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39126646,00.htm
Government withholds ID card legal advice http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,39181772,00.htm
ID cards will be used as a stick to beat poor http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/121604/f121604_07.htm
A face-to-face interview to get your first passport http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/22/npass22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/22/
ixhome.html
ID cards may become healthcare 'entitlement' cards http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=980
Policing is far more important than ID cards, says Redwood http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2004/12/30/nid30.xml
ID card bonanza for foreign firms http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid396703
ID Cards: Citizens Advice highlights its concerns & issues http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2266
(Please send me any items of interest you encounter - Editor)
-------------------------------------------
++ What You Can Do
-------------------
Like any campaign we need funds and people. Any help or expertise of any kind you can spare will be most welcome. Most important is to get other people involved and to understand the issues. ID-CARDS sound innocent: what the government wants is ID-CONTROL. When people know that they (and their children) may be fingerprinted like criminals and will be made to register every change of address with the authorities, their attitude changes. So:-
1. Tell your friends about the campaign and that you are supporting it. Most people are scarcely aware of the government's ID database project, and few understand the dangers. Feel free to redistribute this newsletter to acquaintances. (But please do introduce it personally and don't spam.) Your personal witness will help others understand that this is important.
2. Sign the Petition and get your friends and (adult) family to do so. http://www.no2id-petition.net/
3. Let us know if you have time or special expertise that you can give to the organisation or facilities you can lend us. The campaign is getting bigger, but needs to grow some more. Fast. We urgently need any assistance you can offer. We can use any amount of professional creative and marketing expertise as we begin to lift public awareness of the issues, but it would be handy to have reliable people to answer the phone. Volunteer at: volunteer@no2id.net
4. Get together with others in your area to form a local group. A national campaign needs a national network. Experienced campaigner Guy Taylor (local.groups@no2id.net) is available to help local groups build our nationwide presence. Guy can tell you how to hold a public meeting, set out your stall locally (literally as well as metaphorically), and how to get other people involved. If you have experience of local campaigns then by all means just start -- we will offer what help we can. Details of forthcoming meetings, when we have them, are posted on the website.
5. Raise the issue for discussion in any organisations you belong to. Everyone is affected in some way. Encourage any club, union or other group you are in that opposes ID control to become a supporter or affiliate itself.
6. Write to the local and national press, to express your concerns whenever there is relevant news. Phone-in to appropriate radio and TV programs. There is plenty of information on (and linked to) the website to help you do this.
7. Write to your MP and MEP expressing your disquiet and ask for *their
personal* opinion on specific issues. (Big-party MPs in particular
sometimes avoid controversial matter, or may offer a standard statement
of general party policy rather than answering for themselves.)
FaxYourMP.com is a free and confidential way to get an answer.
8. Buy a T-shirt, and wear it. This publicises the message--people will ask you what it means--and raises funds. Details on the NO2ID website. Or buy online at: http://www.ntkmart.co.uk/ntkmart.cgi#No2ID
or http://www.cashncarrion.co.uk/cnb/shop/cashncarrion?listPos=&op=catalogue-products-null&prodCategory
ID=28
9. Join. Membership starts at GBP15 a year (higher contributions
encouraged, and a modest standing order means a lot to us). It entitles you to a say in the running of NO2ID. There is a membership form on the website at www.no2id.net/content/join.html
10. Give generously. A few weeks back we had no money. Now we have a little money, but we will always need more. The Home Office is planning to spend billions. But we will spend your money better. Funds can be transferred to our HSBC Treasurer Account in the name of NO2ID A/c no: 91339427 Sort Code 40-28-15 You can send a cheque, payable to "NO2ID" to: NO2ID, Box 412, 78 Marylebone High Street, LONDON W1U 5AP. Special donation or sponsorship enquiries should be made to Guy Herbert (general.secretary@no2id.net). Help in kind is equally welcome.
11. Link to us. Help us gather support on through the web by displaying a button or banner (available on the website) on your own home site or blog and linking to us.
-----------------------------
++ NO2ID Who's Who and Resources
-----------------------------
First port of call should be the website:
http://www.no2id.net/
+ If you have specific assistance or information to offer, you can
contact the following NO2ID people:
Chair of the Advisory Board - Simon Davies (chair@no2id.net)
Volunteer Staff:-
National Coordinator - Phil Booth (national.coordinator@no2id.net)
Administration
General Secretary - Guy Herbert (general.secretary@no2id.net) Newsletter Editor - Charles Farrier (newsletter@no2id.net) Production Manager - Katherine Davies (production.manager@no2id.net) Technical Manager - Owen Blacker (technical.manager@no2id.net)
Communications
Head of Campaigns - Andy Robson (campaigns@no2id.net)
Press Officer - Michael Parker (press.officer@no2id.net)
Public Affairs - Dave Walker (public.affairs@no2id.net) Parliamentary Liaison - Rachael Marsh (parliamentary.liaison@no2id.net) Events Manager Cassandra Rae (events@no2id.net)
Development
National Secretary - Adam McGreggor (national.secretary@no2id.net) Local Group Coordinator - Guy Taylor (local.groups@no2id.net) Student Organiser - Nick Pauro (students@no2id.net)
Research
Head of Research - Ian Brown (research@no2id.net)
Regional Coordinators
London - Andrew Weston (london@no2id.net)
Scotland - Trevor Mendham (scotland@no2id.net)
+ Please, please remember that everybody on this list is a volunteer,
and all will be getting a huge amount of email, so you should only direct enquiries to the relevant person. We are grateful for all offers of help, but can't guarantee to have time to give detailed answers to individual general queries on the ID scheme. There is a lot of information on the website and there will soon be much, much more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication details: (c) NO2ID 2004 - This document may be freely redistributed in one-to-one communications or physical copies as long as it is reproduced in its entirety including this notice. It may not be mass-mailed without the prior permission of NO2ID. NO2ID, Box No.412, 78 Marylebone High Street, LONDON W1U 5AP
Old Labour dismissed ID cards
Why did the Labour government in the 1970s dismiss ID cards in the wake of the IRA's bombings in Birmingham that killed 21 people? Because then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, believed:
"It goes almost without saying that we must guard against the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty... Nor do I see advantage in a system of identity cards, which apart from creating difficulties for ordinary people would be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective"
A Labour Home secretary who got it right.
"It goes almost without saying that we must guard against the danger of being driven to more and more extreme measures involving unwarranted infringement of personal liberty... Nor do I see advantage in a system of identity cards, which apart from creating difficulties for ordinary people would be "extremely expensive and largely ineffective"
A Labour Home secretary who got it right.
20 Year Usenet Timeline
From Google:
"Google has fully integrated the past 20 years of Usenet archives into Google Groups, which now offers access to more than 800 million messages dating back to 1981. This is by far the most complete collection of Usenet articles ever assembled and a fascinating first-hand historical account."
Isn't the Web fantastic.
"Google has fully integrated the past 20 years of Usenet archives into Google Groups, which now offers access to more than 800 million messages dating back to 1981. This is by far the most complete collection of Usenet articles ever assembled and a fascinating first-hand historical account."
Isn't the Web fantastic.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Counts votes like money
Here's an interesting piece, again recommended by Donna, on electronic voting that suggests we should count votes like banks count money.
"Specifically, at the time you vote you are given a private, take-home receipt that preserves your secret ballot. After the election, you can check your receipt against the election results to make sure your vote was counted properly -- just like you reconcile your ATM receipts against your monthly bank statement. At the same time, any independent organization can audit all the votes to make sure the final count is right."
Sounds superficially attractive but with the bank statement you check all your own transactions. The election result is not a statement of all voting transactions and does not give you the opportunity to check either that your vote was counted or see how others voted, not that anyone should be able to do the latter. As to the independent organization auditing the process, as Rebecca Mecuri, David Dill, Avi Rubin and lots more who really understand the process and the technology say, the devil is in the detail. The appropriate analogy here would be a bank which allowed you and everyone else to make one transation each month; they then provide you with a statement at the end of the month that said that the overall pot of money that you all draw on (or pay into) has gone up or down by a specific amount. Trust them. They have your interest at heart. And it can all be audited by an independent company (probably employed by the bank).
"Specifically, at the time you vote you are given a private, take-home receipt that preserves your secret ballot. After the election, you can check your receipt against the election results to make sure your vote was counted properly -- just like you reconcile your ATM receipts against your monthly bank statement. At the same time, any independent organization can audit all the votes to make sure the final count is right."
Sounds superficially attractive but with the bank statement you check all your own transactions. The election result is not a statement of all voting transactions and does not give you the opportunity to check either that your vote was counted or see how others voted, not that anyone should be able to do the latter. As to the independent organization auditing the process, as Rebecca Mecuri, David Dill, Avi Rubin and lots more who really understand the process and the technology say, the devil is in the detail. The appropriate analogy here would be a bank which allowed you and everyone else to make one transation each month; they then provide you with a statement at the end of the month that said that the overall pot of money that you all draw on (or pay into) has gone up or down by a specific amount. Trust them. They have your interest at heart. And it can all be audited by an independent company (probably employed by the bank).
Go Ask Hollywood
Why can’t you back up your DVDs? Because entertainment execs don’t want you to By the always entertaining Cory Doctorow.
"Just last month, this magazine gave a Best of What’s New award to a $27,000 movie jukebox from Kaleidescape, praising the maker’s efforts to appease Hollywood by locking down content on the device so it can’t be shared. Kaleidescape thinks the product is within the boundaries of its DVD-CCA license, but my Deep Throat on the cartel says the group disagrees and is currently deciding how the company will be punished. Penalties range from a stern warning to fines to lawsuits. (When I called the DVD-CCA for an official line, I got this reply: “I’ve been asked to tell you we have no comment.” “Who asked you to tell me that?” “I can’t tell you.”)"
Wonderful.
Freedom loving DTV
The EFF are also trying to encourage people to invest in "an open, freedom-loving digital television tuner between now and the summer"
Donna Wentworth writes in the latest edition of the EFF's Effector:
"There's only half a year left before the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) takes away your right
to watch digital television on a device that isn't
Hollywood-approved. Under the new "Broadcast Flag"
regime, the FCC will mandate that every digital
television device include the kind of technology that
we see in cable personal video recorders (PVRs) and
media center PCs - technology that allows entertainment
companies to do things like arbitrarily erase your
stored episodes of "Six Feet Under" after two weeks
so that you'll be forced to pay-per-view your
end-of-season marathon, or stop you from burning "The
Sopranos" to DVD to force you to buy the DVD boxed
sets.
The tiny silver lining here is that if you can get an open,
freedom-loving digital television tuner between now and
the summer, you'll be able to go on doing practically
anything you like with the digital television you
receive over the air and with your unencrypted cable
signal. If you choose to do this by plugging a DTV
tuner into your computer, you'll be able to archive your
shows on your hard-drive, manipulate them with your
favorite editing software, and email clips to your
friends.
In fact, as a demonstration of the point, EFF has just
posted five high-definition minutes of "The Lord of the
Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" that we recorded
off the air in November. You can download the clip to
check whether your computer is up to the high-def DTV
challenge. This is exactly the kind of fair use that
will become impossible for those who buy digital
television tuner cards after July 2005, when the
Broadcast Flag regulations take effect.
So how'd we record it? With a Macintosh, as it happens.
Mac users have fewer options for DTV than their Linux-
and Windows-using compatriots, but they aren't
suffering: the best Mac operating system solution for
watching and storing digital TV signals (including
super-sharp high-def signals) is El Gato's EyeTV.
EFF's own Fred Von Lohmann is a Mac enthusiast of the
first order, and he's been road-testing the EyeTV 500.
He's written an exhaustive, detailed review with
special emphasis on the endangered freedoms EyeTV
embodies:
<http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/eyetv500.php>
EFF is part of a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the Broadcast Flag. We're going to court soon to fight for
your right to purchase devices like the EyeTV 500 after
August - but if you want to safeguard your ability to
make legal, fair uses of digital broadcasts, you may
want to pick one up now."
The broadcast flag like most other drm technologies will eventually die out in the face of consumer angst with not being able to engage useful features and the idiotic restrictions that will come about such as recorded shows being wiped from the recorder after two weeks. In the meantime the industry is jockeying for position and trying to lever their power in existing markets into the media landscape of the future. We shouldn't be surprised at this. It's the way business works. [Not that I necessarily endorse this state of affairs, of course when it leads to this kind of nonsense]
Donna Wentworth writes in the latest edition of the EFF's Effector:
"There's only half a year left before the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) takes away your right
to watch digital television on a device that isn't
Hollywood-approved. Under the new "Broadcast Flag"
regime, the FCC will mandate that every digital
television device include the kind of technology that
we see in cable personal video recorders (PVRs) and
media center PCs - technology that allows entertainment
companies to do things like arbitrarily erase your
stored episodes of "Six Feet Under" after two weeks
so that you'll be forced to pay-per-view your
end-of-season marathon, or stop you from burning "The
Sopranos" to DVD to force you to buy the DVD boxed
sets.
The tiny silver lining here is that if you can get an open,
freedom-loving digital television tuner between now and
the summer, you'll be able to go on doing practically
anything you like with the digital television you
receive over the air and with your unencrypted cable
signal. If you choose to do this by plugging a DTV
tuner into your computer, you'll be able to archive your
shows on your hard-drive, manipulate them with your
favorite editing software, and email clips to your
friends.
In fact, as a demonstration of the point, EFF has just
posted five high-definition minutes of "The Lord of the
Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" that we recorded
off the air in November. You can download the clip to
check whether your computer is up to the high-def DTV
challenge. This is exactly the kind of fair use that
will become impossible for those who buy digital
television tuner cards after July 2005, when the
Broadcast Flag regulations take effect.
So how'd we record it? With a Macintosh, as it happens.
Mac users have fewer options for DTV than their Linux-
and Windows-using compatriots, but they aren't
suffering: the best Mac operating system solution for
watching and storing digital TV signals (including
super-sharp high-def signals) is El Gato's EyeTV.
EFF's own Fred Von Lohmann is a Mac enthusiast of the
first order, and he's been road-testing the EyeTV 500.
He's written an exhaustive, detailed review with
special emphasis on the endangered freedoms EyeTV
embodies:
<http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/eyetv500.php>
EFF is part of a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the Broadcast Flag. We're going to court soon to fight for
your right to purchase devices like the EyeTV 500 after
August - but if you want to safeguard your ability to
make legal, fair uses of digital broadcasts, you may
want to pick one up now."
The broadcast flag like most other drm technologies will eventually die out in the face of consumer angst with not being able to engage useful features and the idiotic restrictions that will come about such as recorded shows being wiped from the recorder after two weeks. In the meantime the industry is jockeying for position and trying to lever their power in existing markets into the media landscape of the future. We shouldn't be surprised at this. It's the way business works. [Not that I necessarily endorse this state of affairs, of course when it leads to this kind of nonsense]
Music industry must respect file sharers' privacy
The EFF are pleased with the decision of the appeal court this week in the case involving Charter Communications and the RIAA.
"In December 2003, the DC Circuit ruled that the RIAA could not use the DMCA's non-judicial subpoenas to obtain subscriber identities from ISP Verizon Internet Services, Inc. "Charter should be congratulated for following in the footsteps of Verizon in standing up for the privacy of its users," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. The US Supreme Court rejected the RIAA's appeal of the Verizon case. Today's Eighth Circuit decision is an explicit endorsement of the DC Circuit's ruling."
"In December 2003, the DC Circuit ruled that the RIAA could not use the DMCA's non-judicial subpoenas to obtain subscriber identities from ISP Verizon Internet Services, Inc. "Charter should be congratulated for following in the footsteps of Verizon in standing up for the privacy of its users," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. The US Supreme Court rejected the RIAA's appeal of the Verizon case. Today's Eighth Circuit decision is an explicit endorsement of the DC Circuit's ruling."
Thursday, January 06, 2005
The long tail
James De Long has some interesting comments on Chris Anderson's article "The Long Tail," at Wired, "which discussed one of the most important aspects of the Internet Age: that customers for entertainment products are digging deep into the catalogue, and that the non-hits are actually more important sources of revenue than the hits"; and an article by Arnold Kling at TechCentralStation, where he "ponders the implications for the productive process, noting that the existence of such aggregating businesses as Google or eBay, or iTunes, can lower the cost of entry for many types of businesses and facilitate the creation of "capitalism without capital," a development of immense importance for the structure of economic activity."
What do you believe is true?
"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?" is the Edge Annual Question—2005.
Impact of search engines no privacy
Findlaw have another interestnig piece on "The Impact of Search Engines on Private Citizen Litigation"
"The problem addressed here is not the necessarily the existence of litigation information within an individual's search results, but rather, the prominent positioning of the information within the results. A logical question arises, "Why would a court opinion show up prominently in an individual's search results?"
This "prominent placement" phenomenon occurs for a combination of reasons: 1) Judicial filings that contain individuals' names are public records that enjoy stringent Constitutional protection and are now published online; 2) Search engine technology has reached such an advanced level of sophistication that virtually all online content can be checked for query term matches; and 3) Secondary publishers of judicial information participate in the attention economy of the Internet and use search engine optimization techniques to appear at or near the top of search result rankings."
"The problem addressed here is not the necessarily the existence of litigation information within an individual's search results, but rather, the prominent positioning of the information within the results. A logical question arises, "Why would a court opinion show up prominently in an individual's search results?"
This "prominent placement" phenomenon occurs for a combination of reasons: 1) Judicial filings that contain individuals' names are public records that enjoy stringent Constitutional protection and are now published online; 2) Search engine technology has reached such an advanced level of sophistication that virtually all online content can be checked for query term matches; and 3) Secondary publishers of judicial information participate in the attention economy of the Internet and use search engine optimization techniques to appear at or near the top of search result rankings."
DOJ change of heart on torture
The US Department of Justice issued a new memorandum on torture in December. The new memo basically overturns the highly controversial memo from 2002 which argued a legal justification for torture in certain circumstances. Michael Dorf considers the new memo "A Fair-Minded and Praiseworthy Analysis That Could Have Gone Still Further"
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
P2P piracy pyramid
Jeff Howe and Erik Malinowski at Wired believe they've got the lowdown from insiders on how copyrighted films, games and movies get onto P2P networks. An interesting read.
Malinowski sums up the process,
An industry "insider" gets a copy of the digital file; s/he passes the file to a "packager"; the packager (or "release group") compresses the file and passes it to a "topsite" with which they have an exclusive relationship; "when the topsite (or "distributor") drops a file the avalanche begins";"couriers" grab, copy and transfer the file to "dump sites" and then the main P2P networks like Kazaa. "For the couriers, the payoff is props from their peers and credits redeemable for goods on upper levels of the pyramid"; once they get to the main networks Jo Public can get access.
Something of a kernal of a business model for the content distribution industry?
Malinowski sums up the process,
An industry "insider" gets a copy of the digital file; s/he passes the file to a "packager"; the packager (or "release group") compresses the file and passes it to a "topsite" with which they have an exclusive relationship; "when the topsite (or "distributor") drops a file the avalanche begins";"couriers" grab, copy and transfer the file to "dump sites" and then the main P2P networks like Kazaa. "For the couriers, the payoff is props from their peers and credits redeemable for goods on upper levels of the pyramid"; once they get to the main networks Jo Public can get access.
Something of a kernal of a business model for the content distribution industry?
CCTV abuse
Another example of the lack of attention we pay to watching the watchers when it comes to CCTV is shown in this case, reported by the Liverpool Echo, of CCTV operators using the cameras to spy on a woman. Richard Clayton of the Foundation for Information Policy Research suggests:
"that a simple way to prevent abuse of CCTV cameras would be to relay what was being watched to local TV shops to display in their windows..."
This would impact the kind of case reported here and also, as Richard says,
"tracking pretty girls down the street and such-like privacy invasion...
... if the watchers know that their watching decisions are being watched by the public then they are far less likely to abuse their position."
On the issue of civil rights and the Internet, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has published the Media Freedom Internet Cookbook (warning large PDF file, 646 K).
"that a simple way to prevent abuse of CCTV cameras would be to relay what was being watched to local TV shops to display in their windows..."
This would impact the kind of case reported here and also, as Richard says,
"tracking pretty girls down the street and such-like privacy invasion...
... if the watchers know that their watching decisions are being watched by the public then they are far less likely to abuse their position."
On the issue of civil rights and the Internet, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe has published the Media Freedom Internet Cookbook (warning large PDF file, 646 K).
EUCD Implementation Update
The Berkman Center have produced a paper on the current state of implementation of the EU copyright directive of 2001. I've been wanting someone to do this for ages - a reliable one stop guide to the ongoing situation, in order to avoid having to double check various bits with several sources. The report was published in November 2004.
Home Office Cats
In the light of the EPIC link I posted yesterday, it's interesting to see Associated Press are focussing on the really important contents of the 50000 government files released this week under the new Freedom of Information Act. We all needed to know the Home Office had a cat.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
A different EPIC
A different EPIC. A friend has just reminded me of this interesting 8 minute audiovisual prediction about the future of the media. Nice opener for a seminar with a group of students. Some of the details are not quite spot on. It's arguable whether Tmi Berners-Lee "in 1989...invents the world wide web", for example. He certainly made an initial proposal to the management at CERN in 1989 but he wrote the software for the first rudimentary browser between November and December 1990. But this just adds a bit of spice to the discussion.
Given the state of copyright law I also doubt whether the future GoogleZon postulated would wipe out the New York Times... Fun thought experiment.
Given the state of copyright law I also doubt whether the future GoogleZon postulated would wipe out the New York Times... Fun thought experiment.
German court sets copyright levy on new PCs
German court sets copyright levy on new PCs. So says ITWorld.
"The District Court of Munich has ordered Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Holding) BV to pay a copyright levy on new PCs."
"The District Court of Munich has ordered Fujitsu Siemens Computers (Holding) BV to pay a copyright levy on new PCs."
Need a job? Get a card - arresting ID pitch to business
In Need a job? Get a card - arresting ID pitch to business, John Lettice describes how the government is planning to provide businesses with strong incentives to use the ID card system as the basis for compulsory ID checking prior to employing anybody.
"The Bill's Regulatory Impact Statement tells us that the bill has no provisions "which allow the Government to require business, charities or voluntary bodies to make identity checks using the identity cards scheme." And indeed it doesn't."
The 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act requires employers to check that potential employees have a right to work in this country before giving them a job.
"Under the Act it is a criminal offence for an employer to fail to make an adequate check, but this particular provision is a difficult one to bring in and to enforce, because employers and their organisations could reasonably protest about cost and about not being an immigration service, and because if the Home Office did prosecute then they'd most likely fail to get a conviction because the employer could claim to have seen a document that looked genuine, and how the blazes were they to know? Well, hello employers, now you are an immigration service."
But, as David Blunkett said before he lost his job as Home Secretary, "The verification process under ID cards would remove that excuse completely and people would know who was entitled to be here and open to pay taxes and NI."
"Employers don't have to check via the ID scheme, and under the Act it will actually be illegal to insist on such a check prior to cards becoming compulsory, but the scheme would "help to enforce the law against unscrupulous employers who would no longer have a defence in claiming they examined an unfamiliar document which appeared genuine to them. And: "...the Government expects that legitimate employers would want to encourage their employees to provide verifiable proof of identity when taking up a job... The scheme allows for records of on-line verification checks to be held, so establishing whether an employer has complied with the law will be more straightforward."
Now, that one's very cute indeed. The Home Office is determined that the ID scheme operates via checks to the National Identity Register, rather than simply as a photo ID upgrade that can be checked locally, the main reason for this being that widespread online checking will generate a nationwide network of ID checks that track back to the Home Office. Here it is pointing out that using an online check will protect the employer because the NIR will have an audit trail proving that the check was made, whereas if the employer just looked at the card, we'd only have their word for that, wouldn't we? So we'll just rub it in: " Only an on-line check would give an employer the assurance that a record of the check would be held on the National Identity Register and would therefore provide a defence against prosecution."
Clearly it's going to be a lot safer to embrace the ID scheme sooner rather than later"
I can't imagine that employers and their representatives such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Institute of Directors or such like minded bodies will be too keen on any of this given the huge associated costs. They certainly objected to the 1996 Act at the time as tantamount to turning employers into a branch of the immigration service. It hasn't really worked out that way in practice because clause 8, as John Lettice says is unenforceable but certainly many legitimate employers have spent significant sums on ID checks and processes that they would otherwise not have done.
What is it about public policy making, even when there are clear problems and clearly identified perpetrators/causes of those problems, that can make it look so ludicrous in the light of even a superficial analysis?
1. Identify a problem [eg exploitation of illegal immigrants]
2. Identify perpetrators [rogue employers]
3. Think up arbitrary rule to "solve" the problem [turn employers into immigration checkers] in order to be seen to be "doing something"
4. Declare rule must be implemented by everyone [to create the impression of "fairness" and avoidance of accusation of discrimination]
5. Have the rule blindly and blanketly impemented by the majority of honest actors [most legimate employers], with the same level of thought as the creation of the original policy (ie stupidly and with absolute risk avoidance in mind, so that the idiotic effects cascade and get compounded at institutional level)
6. Have the rule blanketly ignored by the perpetrators of the problem [rogue employers]
7. Hassle and "audit" those honest employers who have implemented the arbitrary rule to see "how well" they have done so and pick as many holes as you can in their processes to demonstrate the audit process is "thorough."
8. Totally fail to tackle the perpetrators of the problem because you're too busy mmonitoring the "effectiveness" of your "solution" as implemented by those who have voluntarily [under duress] deployed it.
9. Declare total success to the media as some arbitrary large percentage [eg 92%] of employers are now running with your "solution" [despite the 1% of rogue employers continuing to operate unscrupulously as before].
"The Bill's Regulatory Impact Statement tells us that the bill has no provisions "which allow the Government to require business, charities or voluntary bodies to make identity checks using the identity cards scheme." And indeed it doesn't."
The 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act requires employers to check that potential employees have a right to work in this country before giving them a job.
"Under the Act it is a criminal offence for an employer to fail to make an adequate check, but this particular provision is a difficult one to bring in and to enforce, because employers and their organisations could reasonably protest about cost and about not being an immigration service, and because if the Home Office did prosecute then they'd most likely fail to get a conviction because the employer could claim to have seen a document that looked genuine, and how the blazes were they to know? Well, hello employers, now you are an immigration service."
But, as David Blunkett said before he lost his job as Home Secretary, "The verification process under ID cards would remove that excuse completely and people would know who was entitled to be here and open to pay taxes and NI."
"Employers don't have to check via the ID scheme, and under the Act it will actually be illegal to insist on such a check prior to cards becoming compulsory, but the scheme would "help to enforce the law against unscrupulous employers who would no longer have a defence in claiming they examined an unfamiliar document which appeared genuine to them. And: "...the Government expects that legitimate employers would want to encourage their employees to provide verifiable proof of identity when taking up a job... The scheme allows for records of on-line verification checks to be held, so establishing whether an employer has complied with the law will be more straightforward."
Now, that one's very cute indeed. The Home Office is determined that the ID scheme operates via checks to the National Identity Register, rather than simply as a photo ID upgrade that can be checked locally, the main reason for this being that widespread online checking will generate a nationwide network of ID checks that track back to the Home Office. Here it is pointing out that using an online check will protect the employer because the NIR will have an audit trail proving that the check was made, whereas if the employer just looked at the card, we'd only have their word for that, wouldn't we? So we'll just rub it in: " Only an on-line check would give an employer the assurance that a record of the check would be held on the National Identity Register and would therefore provide a defence against prosecution."
Clearly it's going to be a lot safer to embrace the ID scheme sooner rather than later"
I can't imagine that employers and their representatives such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Institute of Directors or such like minded bodies will be too keen on any of this given the huge associated costs. They certainly objected to the 1996 Act at the time as tantamount to turning employers into a branch of the immigration service. It hasn't really worked out that way in practice because clause 8, as John Lettice says is unenforceable but certainly many legitimate employers have spent significant sums on ID checks and processes that they would otherwise not have done.
What is it about public policy making, even when there are clear problems and clearly identified perpetrators/causes of those problems, that can make it look so ludicrous in the light of even a superficial analysis?
1. Identify a problem [eg exploitation of illegal immigrants]
2. Identify perpetrators [rogue employers]
3. Think up arbitrary rule to "solve" the problem [turn employers into immigration checkers] in order to be seen to be "doing something"
4. Declare rule must be implemented by everyone [to create the impression of "fairness" and avoidance of accusation of discrimination]
5. Have the rule blindly and blanketly impemented by the majority of honest actors [most legimate employers], with the same level of thought as the creation of the original policy (ie stupidly and with absolute risk avoidance in mind, so that the idiotic effects cascade and get compounded at institutional level)
6. Have the rule blanketly ignored by the perpetrators of the problem [rogue employers]
7. Hassle and "audit" those honest employers who have implemented the arbitrary rule to see "how well" they have done so and pick as many holes as you can in their processes to demonstrate the audit process is "thorough."
8. Totally fail to tackle the perpetrators of the problem because you're too busy mmonitoring the "effectiveness" of your "solution" as implemented by those who have voluntarily [under duress] deployed it.
9. Declare total success to the media as some arbitrary large percentage [eg 92%] of employers are now running with your "solution" [despite the 1% of rogue employers continuing to operate unscrupulously as before].
Updating Code
Happy New Year. Larry Lessig has decided to produce a second edition of his first book, Code and other laws of cyberspace. In his own words,
"Beginning in February, we'll be posting Version 1 of Code to a Wiki. "Chapter Captains" will then supervise updates and corrections. Depending upon the progress, sometime near June, I will take the product and edit and rewrite it to produce Code, v2. The Wiki will stay live forever (under a Creative Commons license). The edited book will be published in the fall. I have donated my advance for Code, v2 to Creative Commons. All royalties beyond the advance will be donated as well.
At this point, we're collecting "Chapter Captain" (CCs, of course) volunteers. CCs should be expert in the subject of the chapter, and willing to work through the Wiki to produce an updated chapter. (Here's the table of contents.)
My aim is not to write a new book; my aim is to correct and update the existing book. But I'm eager for advice and expert direction. If you're interested in volunteering, email me at this address.
I am grateful to Basic Books to allow me to try this experiment. I worked very hard five years ago to learn enough to write Code. I'm extremely eager for the book to gain from the collective wisdom of at least part of the Net. No one can know whether this will work. But if if does, it could be very interesting."
The best academic work comes from collaboration between peers and cross fertilization of ideas. What Larry's doing is using the Net as a tool in the well worn collaborative process of producing a decent book. I'm sure he won't be short of well qualified volunteers and that it will be a successful enterprise.
"Beginning in February, we'll be posting Version 1 of Code to a Wiki. "Chapter Captains" will then supervise updates and corrections. Depending upon the progress, sometime near June, I will take the product and edit and rewrite it to produce Code, v2. The Wiki will stay live forever (under a Creative Commons license). The edited book will be published in the fall. I have donated my advance for Code, v2 to Creative Commons. All royalties beyond the advance will be donated as well.
At this point, we're collecting "Chapter Captain" (CCs, of course) volunteers. CCs should be expert in the subject of the chapter, and willing to work through the Wiki to produce an updated chapter. (Here's the table of contents.)
My aim is not to write a new book; my aim is to correct and update the existing book. But I'm eager for advice and expert direction. If you're interested in volunteering, email me at this address.
I am grateful to Basic Books to allow me to try this experiment. I worked very hard five years ago to learn enough to write Code. I'm extremely eager for the book to gain from the collective wisdom of at least part of the Net. No one can know whether this will work. But if if does, it could be very interesting."
The best academic work comes from collaboration between peers and cross fertilization of ideas. What Larry's doing is using the Net as a tool in the well worn collaborative process of producing a decent book. I'm sure he won't be short of well qualified volunteers and that it will be a successful enterprise.
Friday, December 24, 2004
IRTPA
I've just realised why the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, (IRTPA) could not just be called the Intelligence Reform Act. It would have been commonly referred to as the IRA. I wonder if that was an option that was considered before somebody spotted the irony?
Interestingly enough I've noticed EPIC have referred to the act as the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, that's NIRA and Intelligence Reform Law, that's IRL. (Scroll down to item 2 in the latest EPIC alert)
Interestingly enough I've noticed EPIC have referred to the act as the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, that's NIRA and Intelligence Reform Law, that's IRL. (Scroll down to item 2 in the latest EPIC alert)
Thursday, December 23, 2004
BBC Creative Archive
Alison Perrit has a nice article on the BBC Creative Archive Project at Spiked magazine, "Bringing the past to life
The pros and pitfalls of the BBC's attempt to digitise its archives."
"At the Royal Television Society on London's South Bank on 28 October 2004, Paula Le Dieu, co-director of the Creative Archive Project, described the aim as to 'provide fuel for a truly creative nation', helping the public to become active participants in the BBC's creative output. Although works enjoying ongoing financial reward might never make it on to the archive, Le Dieu argues that television classics such as Fawlty Towers have a high profile and vibrant commercial life already. It is programmes that have not been aired for years that are of concern - without digitisation, the investment and knowledge contained in these works may go to waste.
Le Dieu acknowledges the difficulties of copyright clearance, describing rights ownership in BBC archival works as a 'complex ecology' through which 'we must know how to negotiate a path with rightholders for the dusty library to see the light'. "
The pros and pitfalls of the BBC's attempt to digitise its archives."
"At the Royal Television Society on London's South Bank on 28 October 2004, Paula Le Dieu, co-director of the Creative Archive Project, described the aim as to 'provide fuel for a truly creative nation', helping the public to become active participants in the BBC's creative output. Although works enjoying ongoing financial reward might never make it on to the archive, Le Dieu argues that television classics such as Fawlty Towers have a high profile and vibrant commercial life already. It is programmes that have not been aired for years that are of concern - without digitisation, the investment and knowledge contained in these works may go to waste.
Le Dieu acknowledges the difficulties of copyright clearance, describing rights ownership in BBC archival works as a 'complex ecology' through which 'we must know how to negotiate a path with rightholders for the dusty library to see the light'. "
HMV lock out iPod
More entrenchment nonsense in the music sector, as HMV plan to sell downloadable music that will only play with Microsoft software. iPod owners need not buy from HMV, then.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Software patents stymied again
It looks as though Polish undersecretary of science and information technology, Wlodzimierz Marcinski, has scuppered the EU Council's attempts to sneak the software patents directive through on the nod at an agriculture meeting.
The tactics were not particularly subtle but it still requires someone to stand up and be counted and congratulations for Mr Marcinski for being that person. If this thing is to go through then for some remote semblance of basic respectability at least let it be subject to appropriate scrutiny and debate.
There is an argument to be made that patents should possibly be allowed on something that could previously only have been created as a peice of hardware but can now be effected purely in software, such as a particularly cleverly architected media player, which is novel and includes the requisite inventive step. There is also an argument that someone who creates a novel invention should not be precluded from obtaining a patent, just because that invention happens to include a software component. But to allow blanket patenting of software, essentially because it is software and yet if the particular item was created in any other way would be obvious, is stupid policy.
Wrapping something in the cloak of apparently clever technology is does not make it new, inventive or necessarily better but it might. And the generally poor level of undertanding of technology and its architecture often and inevitably leads to poor decision making in the choice, regulation and deployment of that technology. This rule applies whether the context of the decision under consideration is the compulsory use of computers in all courses or the blind allowance of software patents.
The tactics were not particularly subtle but it still requires someone to stand up and be counted and congratulations for Mr Marcinski for being that person. If this thing is to go through then for some remote semblance of basic respectability at least let it be subject to appropriate scrutiny and debate.
There is an argument to be made that patents should possibly be allowed on something that could previously only have been created as a peice of hardware but can now be effected purely in software, such as a particularly cleverly architected media player, which is novel and includes the requisite inventive step. There is also an argument that someone who creates a novel invention should not be precluded from obtaining a patent, just because that invention happens to include a software component. But to allow blanket patenting of software, essentially because it is software and yet if the particular item was created in any other way would be obvious, is stupid policy.
Wrapping something in the cloak of apparently clever technology is does not make it new, inventive or necessarily better but it might. And the generally poor level of undertanding of technology and its architecture often and inevitably leads to poor decision making in the choice, regulation and deployment of that technology. This rule applies whether the context of the decision under consideration is the compulsory use of computers in all courses or the blind allowance of software patents.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
Have you heard of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004? It was signed into law in the US by President Bush last week. The EFF are not pleased. They're characterising it as the latest versions of the now defunct Total(/terrorism) Information Awareness (TIA), CAPPS II, PATRIOT III and a biometric national identity card system all rolled into one.
The 235 pages of the act are available online. The table of contents runs to 6 pages and the Act undertakes to reform the intelligence community, the FBI, transportation security, cross border travel, terrorism prevention and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That's quite an undertaking for one piece of legislation.
Section 7212 deals with ID cards and says that Federal agencies will not be allowed to accept any form of "personal identification card newly issued by a State more than 2 years after the promulgation of the minimum standards" to set for these documents by the US Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the Secretary for Homeland Security within the next 18 months. It goes on to say these standards should include a requirement for various personal details to be included on the cards, including a digital photo, "common machine-readable identity information" and "capable of accommodating and ensuring the security of a digital photograph or other unique identifier." (Emphasis mine). This later requirement will probably be what has the EFF concerned about biometric national ID cards, especially in the light of an earlier part of the act which emphasises biometrics in airline security.
So it looks as though the US are going for a national ID card too, though the finer details are in the hands of the relevant Secretaries.
The Act does also seem to provide the statutory grounding for the US government's replacement for the defunct CAPPS II programme, the new programme being labeled Secure Flight and heavily focuses biometric technology in connection with aviation security in section 4011. I've only scanned this quickly but it doesn't appear to refer to "Secure Flight" by name but by a rather more generic handle, "Advanced Airline Passenger Pre-Screening."
The 235 pages of the act are available online. The table of contents runs to 6 pages and the Act undertakes to reform the intelligence community, the FBI, transportation security, cross border travel, terrorism prevention and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That's quite an undertaking for one piece of legislation.
Section 7212 deals with ID cards and says that Federal agencies will not be allowed to accept any form of "personal identification card newly issued by a State more than 2 years after the promulgation of the minimum standards" to set for these documents by the US Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the Secretary for Homeland Security within the next 18 months. It goes on to say these standards should include a requirement for various personal details to be included on the cards, including a digital photo, "common machine-readable identity information" and "capable of accommodating and ensuring the security of a digital photograph or other unique identifier." (Emphasis mine). This later requirement will probably be what has the EFF concerned about biometric national ID cards, especially in the light of an earlier part of the act which emphasises biometrics in airline security.
So it looks as though the US are going for a national ID card too, though the finer details are in the hands of the relevant Secretaries.
The Act does also seem to provide the statutory grounding for the US government's replacement for the defunct CAPPS II programme, the new programme being labeled Secure Flight and heavily focuses biometric technology in connection with aviation security in section 4011. I've only scanned this quickly but it doesn't appear to refer to "Secure Flight" by name but by a rather more generic handle, "Advanced Airline Passenger Pre-Screening."
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Mad Kane's Gift Contract
In the spirit of Christmas, Madeline Kane's gift contract :-) Sample:
GIFTS FOR THE CHILDREN:
1. Husband won't buy their son a toy gun, provided Wife doesn't buy him a doll. Puppets, however, are permissible.
2. Wife won't buy anything that requires assembly.
3. Husband won't buy children toys he plans to play with.
4. Whoever picks the gift must make the emergency trip for batteries.
GIFTS FOR THE CHILDREN:
1. Husband won't buy their son a toy gun, provided Wife doesn't buy him a doll. Puppets, however, are permissible.
2. Wife won't buy anything that requires assembly.
3. Husband won't buy children toys he plans to play with.
4. Whoever picks the gift must make the emergency trip for batteries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)