This is quite funny. A section of the Simple Sabotage Field Manual for US spies, declassified on 16 June 1976, reads:
"(11) General Interference with Organizations and Production
(a) Organizations and Conferences
(1) Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
(2) Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate "patriotic" comments.
(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.
(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
(7) Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
(8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon."
I do also like these bits:
"(9) Communications
(a)
Telephone
(1)
At office, hotel and exchange switchboards
delay putting enemy calls through, give them wrong numbers, cut them off "accidentally," or forget to disconnect them so that the line cannot be used again."
"(11) General Interference with Organizations and Production...
(b)
Managers and Supervisors
(1)
Demand written orders.
(2)
"Misunderstand" orders. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can...
(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
(12)
Multiply paper work in plausible ways. Start duplicate files...
(13)
Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
(14)
Apply all regulations to the last letter.
(c)
Office Workers (^L) Make mistakes in quantities of material
when you are copying orders. Confuse similar names. Use wrong addresses.
(2)
Prolong correspondence with government
bureaus.
(3)
Misfile essential documents.
(d)
Employees
(1)
Work slowly...
(2)
Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can...
(4)
Pretend that instructions are hard to understand, and ask to have them repeated more than once...
(7)
Snarl up administration in every possible
way. Fill out forms illegibly so that they will have to be done over; make mistakes or omit requested information in forms.
(8)
If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management.
See that the procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence of a large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on...
(12) General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating
Confusion
(a)
Give lengthy and incomprehensible explanations
when questioned.
(b)
Report imaginary spies or danger to the Gestapo or police.
(c) Act stupid...
(i)
Cry and sob hysterically at every occasion, especially when confronted by government clerks."
Thanks for the link Tony.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
How the U.S. got its Canadian copyright bill
From Michael Geist: How the U.S. got its Canadian copyright bill
"Last week's introduction of new copyright legislation ignited a firestorm with thousands of Canadians expressing genuine shock at provisions that opposition MPs argued would create a "police state." As opposition to the copyright bill mounts, the most common question is "why"?
Why, given the obvious public concern with the bill stretching back to last year, did Industry Minister Jim Prentice plow ahead with rules that confirm many of the public's worst fears?
Why did a minority government introduce a bill that appears likely to generate strong opposition from both the Liberals and NDP with limited political gain?
Why did senior ministers refuse to even meet with many creator and consumer groups who have unsurprisingly voiced disappointment with the bill?
While Prentice has responded by citing the need to update Canada's copyright law in order to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties, the reality may be that those treaties have little to do with Bill C-61.
Instead, the bill dubbed by critics as the Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (after the U.S. version of the law) is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model.
"Last week's introduction of new copyright legislation ignited a firestorm with thousands of Canadians expressing genuine shock at provisions that opposition MPs argued would create a "police state." As opposition to the copyright bill mounts, the most common question is "why"?
Why, given the obvious public concern with the bill stretching back to last year, did Industry Minister Jim Prentice plow ahead with rules that confirm many of the public's worst fears?
Why did a minority government introduce a bill that appears likely to generate strong opposition from both the Liberals and NDP with limited political gain?
Why did senior ministers refuse to even meet with many creator and consumer groups who have unsurprisingly voiced disappointment with the bill?
While Prentice has responded by citing the need to update Canada's copyright law in order to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties, the reality may be that those treaties have little to do with Bill C-61.
Instead, the bill dubbed by critics as the Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (after the U.S. version of the law) is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model.
Monday, June 16, 2008
TechCrunch ban AP stories due to IP over-reaching
From TechCrunch: Here’s Our New Policy On A.P. stories: They’re Banned
"They do not want people quoting their stories, despite the fact that such activity very clearly falls within the fair use exception to copyright law. They claim that the activity is an infringement.
"They do not want people quoting their stories, despite the fact that such activity very clearly falls within the fair use exception to copyright law. They claim that the activity is an infringement.
A.P. vice president Jim Kennedy says they will issue guidelines telling bloggers what is acceptable and what isn’t, over and above what the law says is acceptable. They will “attempt to define clear standards as to how much of its articles and broadcasts bloggers and Web sites can excerpt without infringing on The A.P.’s copyright.”
Those that disregard the guidelines risk being sued by the A.P., despite the fact that such use may fall under the concept of fair use.
The A.P. doesn’t get to make it’s own rule around how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows. So even thought they say they are making these new guidelines in the spirit of cooperation, it’s clear that, like the RIAA and MPAA, they are trying to claw their way to a set of legal property rights that don’t exist today. And like the RIAA and MPAA, this is done to protect a dying business model - paid content.
So here’s our new policy on A.P. stories: they don’t exist. We don’t see them, we don’t quote them, we don’t link to them. They’re banned until they abandon this new strategy, and I encourage others to do the same until they back down from these ridiculous attempts to stop the spread of information around the Internet."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Blackboard patent Bollywood style
Blackboard patent aficionados with a sense of humour should check out Randy Thornton's The Adventures of Bollywood Blackboardwala
"The mashups are made with snippets of classic Hindi Bollywood films, overlaid with user created subtitles, from a fun online tool called BombayTV from Grapheine.
"The mashups are made with snippets of classic Hindi Bollywood films, overlaid with user created subtitles, from a fun online tool called BombayTV from Grapheine.
The role of Blackboardwala is played by none other than Amitabh Bacchan, of course.
There are 9 amusing short episodes. Highly recommended.EU Digital Libraries Initiative on orphan works
From the newsroom of the EU Commissioner on the Information Society:
"An agreement on copyright was signed today by libraries, archives and right holders, in the presence of Commissioner Viviane Reding. The Memorandum of Understanding on orphan works will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online.
"An agreement on copyright was signed today by libraries, archives and right holders, in the presence of Commissioner Viviane Reding. The Memorandum of Understanding on orphan works will help cultural institutions to digitise books, films and music whose authors are unknown, making them available to the public online.
(04/06/2008) This Memorandum is a major step for bringing Europe's rich literary and audiovisual heritage online, as it deals with the issue of orphan works – books, films, photographs or songs for which it is impossible to identify or locate the rightholders. As a consequence, rights cannot be cleared and therefore the works cannot be digitised or made available to the public. It clarifies how searches for rightholders have to be handled for libraries and archives and representatives of publishers, photographers, authors, record and film companies. Orphan works represent a substantial part of the collections of Europe's cultural institutions: for example, the British Library estimates that 40 percent of its copyrighted collections are orphan works. 50,000 requests were also made for re-using orphan works in Europe's film archives according to a recent survey from the Association des Cinémathèques Européennes.
In parallel, the High Level Group on Digital Libraries, chaired by Viviane Reding, adopted practical guidelines for partnerships between cultural institutions and private organisations. These partnerships such as the existing collaboration between the British Library and Cengage Gale on historical newspapers – are essential to provide funding and expertise for digitisation projects
In relation to copyright issues, the High Level Group adopted a final report in which it endorsed a new model license for making works that are out of print or out of distribution accessible for all on the internet. It also gave guidance on copyright issues related to the preservation of web-content by cultural institutions. In the area of scientific information, publishers and scientists presented the progress of a large scale project on the effects of open access to scientific journals."
US Supreme Court: Patents are for promoting progress not creating private fortunes
The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday in an important patent case that will be unfamiliar to all but IP and Supreme Court geeks, LG Electronics Inc. v Quanta Computer Inc. The WSJ has the story (unfortunately behind a pay wall) but it is worth scanning the decision itself as there are some real gems from Justice Thomas (who delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court) in there. The WSJ says:
"The Supreme Court relaxed the grip that patent owners hold over third-party uses of their inventions, continuing a recent recalibration of intellectual-property law intended to foster competition and innovation.
"For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item...
The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item. This Court first applied the doctrine in 19th-century cases addressing patent extensions on the Woodworth planing machine. Purchasers of licenses to sell and use the machine for the duration of the original patent term sought to continue using the licenses through the extended term. The Court held that the extension of the patent term did not affect the rights already secured by purchasers who bought the item for use "in the ordinary pursuits of life." Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549 (1853); see also ibid. ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly")...
Although the Court permitted postsale restrictions on the use of a patented article in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1 (1912),2 that decision was short lived. In 1913, the Court refused to apply A. B. Dick to uphold price-fixing provisions in a patent license. See Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 14-17 (1913). Shortly thereafter, in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502, 518 (1917), the Court explicitly overruled A. B. Dick. In that case, a patent holder attempted to limit purchasers' use of its film projectors to show only film made under a patent held by the same company. The Court noted the "increasing frequency" with which patent holders were using A. B. Dick-style licenses to limit the use of their products and thereby using the patents to secure market control of related, unpatented items. 243 U. S., at 509, 516-517. Observing that "the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' " id., at 511 (quoting U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8), the Court held that "the scope of the grant which may be made to an inventor in a patent, pursuant to the [patent] statute, must be limited to the invention described in the claims of his patent." 243 U. S., at 511. Accordingly, it reiterated the rule that "the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it." Id., at 516."
That a Supreme Court Justice in a 2008 patent decision should find the need, in a unanimous decision, to cite historical Court doctrine from 1853 ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly") and 1917 ("the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' ") is really interesting.
The court was also particularly wary of patent holders voiding patent exhaustion doctrine through the use of patents on methods:
" LGE argues that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable here because it does not apply to method claims, which are contained in each of the LGE Patents. LGE reasons that, because method patents are linked not to a tangible article but to a process, they can never be exhausted through a sale. Rather, practicing the patent--which occurs upon each use of an article embodying a method patent--is permissible only to the extent rights are transferred in an assignment contract. Quanta, in turn, argues that there is no reason to preclude exhaustion of method claims, and points out that both this Court and the Federal Circuit have applied exhaustion to method claims. It argues that any other rule would allow patent holders to avoid exhaustion entirely by inserting method claims in their patent specifications.
Quanta has the better of this argument. Nothing in this Court's approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE's argument that method patents cannot be exhausted. It is true that a patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be "embodied" in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights...
Eliminating exhaustion for method patents would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine. Patentees seeking to avoid patent exhaustion could simply draft their patent claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus.5 Apparatus and method claims "may approach each other so nearly that it will be difficult to distinguish the process from the function of the apparatus." United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 559 (1904). By characterizing their claims as method instead of apparatus claims, or including a method claim for the machine's patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.
"The Supreme Court relaxed the grip that patent owners hold over third-party uses of their inventions, continuing a recent recalibration of intellectual-property law intended to foster competition and innovation.
The opinion delivered Monday involved a U.S. patent for computer chipsets, which South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. licensed to Intel Corp., of Santa Clara, Calif. Intel made the chips and sold them to computer manufacturers. When one of those manufacturers, Quanta Computer Inc. of Taiwan, used them in its products, LG sued for infringement, arguing Quanta needed a separate license from LG to install them in computers."
The Court essentially disagreed with LG Electronics and said the company was not entitled to control downstream use of the patent due to the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Justice Thomas said:"For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item...
The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item. This Court first applied the doctrine in 19th-century cases addressing patent extensions on the Woodworth planing machine. Purchasers of licenses to sell and use the machine for the duration of the original patent term sought to continue using the licenses through the extended term. The Court held that the extension of the patent term did not affect the rights already secured by purchasers who bought the item for use "in the ordinary pursuits of life." Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549 (1853); see also ibid. ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly")...
Although the Court permitted postsale restrictions on the use of a patented article in Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U. S. 1 (1912),2 that decision was short lived. In 1913, the Court refused to apply A. B. Dick to uphold price-fixing provisions in a patent license. See Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U. S. 1, 14-17 (1913). Shortly thereafter, in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502, 518 (1917), the Court explicitly overruled A. B. Dick. In that case, a patent holder attempted to limit purchasers' use of its film projectors to show only film made under a patent held by the same company. The Court noted the "increasing frequency" with which patent holders were using A. B. Dick-style licenses to limit the use of their products and thereby using the patents to secure market control of related, unpatented items. 243 U. S., at 509, 516-517. Observing that "the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' " id., at 511 (quoting U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8), the Court held that "the scope of the grant which may be made to an inventor in a patent, pursuant to the [patent] statute, must be limited to the invention described in the claims of his patent." 243 U. S., at 511. Accordingly, it reiterated the rule that "the right to vend is exhausted by a single, unconditional sale, the article sold being thereby carried outside the monopoly of the patent law and rendered free of every restriction which the vendor may attempt to put upon it." Id., at 516."
That a Supreme Court Justice in a 2008 patent decision should find the need, in a unanimous decision, to cite historical Court doctrine from 1853 ("[W]hen the machine passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly") and 1917 ("the primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners of patents but is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts,' ") is really interesting.
The court was also particularly wary of patent holders voiding patent exhaustion doctrine through the use of patents on methods:
" LGE argues that the exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable here because it does not apply to method claims, which are contained in each of the LGE Patents. LGE reasons that, because method patents are linked not to a tangible article but to a process, they can never be exhausted through a sale. Rather, practicing the patent--which occurs upon each use of an article embodying a method patent--is permissible only to the extent rights are transferred in an assignment contract. Quanta, in turn, argues that there is no reason to preclude exhaustion of method claims, and points out that both this Court and the Federal Circuit have applied exhaustion to method claims. It argues that any other rule would allow patent holders to avoid exhaustion entirely by inserting method claims in their patent specifications.
Quanta has the better of this argument. Nothing in this Court's approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE's argument that method patents cannot be exhausted. It is true that a patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be "embodied" in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights...
Eliminating exhaustion for method patents would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine. Patentees seeking to avoid patent exhaustion could simply draft their patent claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus.5 Apparatus and method claims "may approach each other so nearly that it will be difficult to distinguish the process from the function of the apparatus." United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 559 (1904). By characterizing their claims as method instead of apparatus claims, or including a method claim for the machine's patented method of performing its task, a patent drafter could shield practically any patented item from exhaustion.
This case illustrates the danger of allowing such an end-run around exhaustion. On LGE's theory, although Intel is authorized to sell a completed computer system that practices the LGE Patents, any downstream purchasers of the system could nonetheless be liable for patent infringement. Such a result would violate the longstanding principle that, when a patented item is "once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on [its] use to be implied for the benefit of the patentee." Adams, 17 Wall., at 457. We therefore reject LGE's argument that method claims, as a category, are never exhaustible."
Monday, June 09, 2008
Who needs drm when you've got backward incompatibility
Last week the Open University joined Stanford, MIT, Yale and other world-class universities in publishing materials via Apple’s iTunes U service. The project, which looks great btw and congrats to all involved,
had been an open secret in the OU for a couple of months but those in the know were banned from mentioning it to anyone.
In any case, so far so good - the OU is now on iTunes
Now for reasons too long-winded and uninteresting to mention most of my day job business is conducted in my office at the Open University on an ancient Windows 2000 PC. Unfortunately that means the even more ancient Apple v Microsoft antipathy comes calling if I want to look at the OU on iTunes in the office.
If I click on the "Visit the OU on iTunes" button I get a message saying "We are unable to find iTunes on your computer". I do get a button to click to claim I have indeed got iTunes, following which I get an external protocol request asking that I launch an external application, which I agree to do and up duly comes my version 4 (yes I never got round to upgrading it on this particular computer) of iTunes with the snazzy OU frontpage.
Great. Except that when I click on one of the offerings, say the Vice Chancellor's introduction, to see what it looks like on iTunes, I get a message telling me this item needs a later version of iTunes (version 6 or higher) and offering me a click button to upgrade. The click opens a browser window on the Apple site offering me the opportunity to download iTunes 7.6. Unfortunately iTunes 7.6 is incompatible with Windows 2000...
A search for iTunes 6 (easier to find via Google btw than the Apple search facility) finally locates a 36 MB downloadable file. 4 minutes later I find myself with an executable upgrade to version 6.0.5. 14 minutes later still, having installed the software and re-started the machine as per instructions I'm now in a position, finally to view the OU material.
Well nearly. I need to go through the 'you haven't got iTunes' accusation again and the threat er... sorry... the external protocol request that I need to launch an external application. Except that on this occasion agreeing to do so brings up an iTunes software licensing agreement that I need to accept before going any further. So accepted. Followed by iTunes opening up accompanied by a message: "iTunes could not connect to the music store. The network connection was terminated unexpectedly."
Oh dear. It seems as though I'm destined not to experience the Vice Chancellor's words of wisdom from the office. Never mind.
No blast it. I won't be put off. One last try for the summit. Tap tap tappity tap. Click click clickity clicky click and iTunes 6.0.5.20 is finally showing the OU front page on my screen. I nervously push the mouse in the direction of the VC's smiling face. The cursor reaches the annointed spot... my forefinger hovers over the left button of the mouse... dare I allow it to engage? Done. Progress at last! I'm through to the screen where I can "get tracks". Again, almost subconsciously the mouse moves, I've clicked on the button, the task bar indicates it is 'accessing music store' and it's downloading 1 of 5. I'm in! The download progress bar is halfway... three quarters... done. Now click on "Vice Chancellor" in the menu to the left of my screen and I get a window with the five tracks.
Double click number 1 and she's finally there 56 minutes after I first thought I might take a quick look at our iTunes offerings. A less than smooth experience you might say and it certainly brings back compatibility problems experienced over Christmas with my wife's iPod. Interestingly, in her closing comments the VC says we at the OU don't want the technology to get in the way of accessibility, yet it is exactly monetization through controlled and pay per view/ad/click accessibility that major commercial operations like Apple, the entertainment industry, retailers like Amazon, publishers, broadcasters, the big tech companies like Google and Microsoft and trade negotiators are trying to shape the market on.
had been an open secret in the OU for a couple of months but those in the know were banned from mentioning it to anyone.
In any case, so far so good - the OU is now on iTunes
Now for reasons too long-winded and uninteresting to mention most of my day job business is conducted in my office at the Open University on an ancient Windows 2000 PC. Unfortunately that means the even more ancient Apple v Microsoft antipathy comes calling if I want to look at the OU on iTunes in the office.
If I click on the "Visit the OU on iTunes" button I get a message saying "We are unable to find iTunes on your computer". I do get a button to click to claim I have indeed got iTunes, following which I get an external protocol request asking that I launch an external application, which I agree to do and up duly comes my version 4 (yes I never got round to upgrading it on this particular computer) of iTunes with the snazzy OU frontpage.Great. Except that when I click on one of the offerings, say the Vice Chancellor's introduction, to see what it looks like on iTunes, I get a message telling me this item needs a later version of iTunes (version 6 or higher) and offering me a click button to upgrade. The click opens a browser window on the Apple site offering me the opportunity to download iTunes 7.6. Unfortunately iTunes 7.6 is incompatible with Windows 2000...
A search for iTunes 6 (easier to find via Google btw than the Apple search facility) finally locates a 36 MB downloadable file. 4 minutes later I find myself with an executable upgrade to version 6.0.5. 14 minutes later still, having installed the software and re-started the machine as per instructions I'm now in a position, finally to view the OU material.
Well nearly. I need to go through the 'you haven't got iTunes' accusation again and the threat er... sorry... the external protocol request that I need to launch an external application. Except that on this occasion agreeing to do so brings up an iTunes software licensing agreement that I need to accept before going any further. So accepted. Followed by iTunes opening up accompanied by a message: "iTunes could not connect to the music store. The network connection was terminated unexpectedly."
Oh dear. It seems as though I'm destined not to experience the Vice Chancellor's words of wisdom from the office. Never mind.
No blast it. I won't be put off. One last try for the summit. Tap tap tappity tap. Click click clickity clicky click and iTunes 6.0.5.20 is finally showing the OU front page on my screen. I nervously push the mouse in the direction of the VC's smiling face. The cursor reaches the annointed spot... my forefinger hovers over the left button of the mouse... dare I allow it to engage? Done. Progress at last! I'm through to the screen where I can "get tracks". Again, almost subconsciously the mouse moves, I've clicked on the button, the task bar indicates it is 'accessing music store' and it's downloading 1 of 5. I'm in! The download progress bar is halfway... three quarters... done. Now click on "Vice Chancellor" in the menu to the left of my screen and I get a window with the five tracks.
Double click number 1 and she's finally there 56 minutes after I first thought I might take a quick look at our iTunes offerings. A less than smooth experience you might say and it certainly brings back compatibility problems experienced over Christmas with my wife's iPod. Interestingly, in her closing comments the VC says we at the OU don't want the technology to get in the way of accessibility, yet it is exactly monetization through controlled and pay per view/ad/click accessibility that major commercial operations like Apple, the entertainment industry, retailers like Amazon, publishers, broadcasters, the big tech companies like Google and Microsoft and trade negotiators are trying to shape the market on.
Friday, June 06, 2008
UK Intellectual Property Advisory Board
The UK's 'Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property' has officially come into being this week. Here's the announcement from the IPO in full:
"Launch of Intellectual Property Advisory Board
Update from Michael Holloway at ORG: "Speech by our first IP Minister, given on IP day (25 April) http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/morgan_IPday_250408.html"
"Launch of Intellectual Property Advisory Board
Increasing the evidence base for intellectual property (IP) policy is vital for the Government to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and globalised IP environment, the head of the new Strategic Advisory Board for IP (SABIP) outlined last night (June 5 2008).
Joly Dixon, Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property, set out his vision for the organisation at a reception in London to mark SABIP's formal establishment:.
Mr Dixon said:
"We live in a knowledge based economy in which economic prosperity and social wellbeing increasingly depend on our wise stewardship of intellectual property. Globalisation, technological change, and changing economic and social structures are challenging many of the past relationships between intellectual property rights and innovation.
"SABIP will work strenuously to increase the evidence base for policy by offering well-researched and independent advice to Government."
The UK's first Minister for Intellectual Property, Baroness Delyth Morgan, welcomed the establishment of SABIP:
"I want SABIP to drive the thinking on emerging IP issues in this country. Its research programme will be vital in creating a firm evidence base for policy making.
"Members of the SABIP have broad experience of IP issues. That will help ensure they can deliver advice of the quality and independence that I expect.
Notes to editors
* SABIP was officially established on June 2 2008. This follows the appointment of SABIP chairman Joly Dixon on March 7 2008 and the appointment of five members to the SABIP board on May 2 2008.
* SABIP is a Non-Departmental Public Body with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) as its sponsor department.
* Its role is to advise Ministers and the UK-IPO Chief Executive on the development of intellectual property (IP) policy. In formulating this advice, SABIP will provide an overview of IP policy, provide independent input into Government policy-making, and advise on the UK's stance in international negotiations."
This is a very important development for the IP landscape in the UK and I wish them well in gathering a sound empirical evidence base to underpin policymaking in this crucially important area.Update from Michael Holloway at ORG: "Speech by our first IP Minister, given on IP day (25 April) http://www.dius.gov.uk/speeches/morgan_IPday_250408.html"
Investigating P2P Enforcement
The University of Washington has just published a new report on the processes being used by the entertainment industry to track down and prosecute file sharers on P2P networks. The authors purport to be surprised by their findings. They suggest:
"
"The paper finds that there is a serious flaw in how these trade groups finger alleged file-sharers. It also suggests that some people might be getting improperly accused of sharing copyrighted content, and could even be purposely framed by other users.
In two separate studies in August of 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received over 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.
The researchers concluded that enforcement agencies are looking only at I.P. addresses of participants on these peer-to-peer networks, and not what files are actually downloaded or uploaded—a more resource-intensive process that would nevertheless yield more conclusive information.
In their report, the researchers also demonstrate a way to manipulate I.P. addresses so that another user appears responsible for the file-sharing."
"
- Practically any Internet user can be framed for copyright infringement today.
By profiling copyright enforcement in the popular BitTorrent file sharing system, we were able to generate hundreds of real DMCA takedown notices for computers at the University of Washington that never downloaded nor shared any content whatsoever.Further, we were able to remotely generate complaints for nonsense devices including several printers and a (non-NAT) wireless access point. Our results demonstrate several simple techniques that a malicious user could use to frame arbitrary network endpoints.
- Even without being explicitly framed, innocent users may still receive complaints.
Because of the inconclusive techniques used to identify infringing BitTorrent users, users may receive DMCA complaints even if they have not been explicitly framed by a malicious user and even if they have never used P2P software! - Software packages designed to preserve the privacy of P2P users are not completely effective.
To avoid DMCA complaints today, many privacy conscious users employ IP blacklisting software designed to avoid communication with monitoring and enforcement agencies. We find that this software often fails to identify many likely monitoring agents, but we also discover that these agents exhibit characteristics that make distinguishing them straightforward.
While our experiments focus on BitTorrent only, our findings imply the need for increased transparency in the monitoring and enforcement process for all P2P networks to both address the known deficiencies we have exposed as well as to identify lurking unknown deficiencies.
More details about our findings and our experimental methodology are available in our online FAQ. A more thorough treatment is available in our technical report."
Brad Stone at the NYT says:"The paper finds that there is a serious flaw in how these trade groups finger alleged file-sharers. It also suggests that some people might be getting improperly accused of sharing copyrighted content, and could even be purposely framed by other users.
In two separate studies in August of 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received over 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.
The researchers concluded that enforcement agencies are looking only at I.P. addresses of participants on these peer-to-peer networks, and not what files are actually downloaded or uploaded—a more resource-intensive process that would nevertheless yield more conclusive information.
In their report, the researchers also demonstrate a way to manipulate I.P. addresses so that another user appears responsible for the file-sharing."
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Adverse affect of formal child protection systems
The excellent ARCH blog has drawn my attention to this letter from the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS) to the government’s Chief Medical Officer. It covers the kinds of effects that the mass data collection and suspicion-by-default mindset amongst the child professionals are having on children and families.
"When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: 'when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.' We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.
"The approach Bexley chose was to deploy Vantage Technologies’ Sentinel Anti-Bullying software. This solution allows staff to report bullying incidents securely over the Internet into a central database, which is managed and monitored by Bexley. This web-based approach allows our schools to monitor bullying and racism incidents in real-time, providing effective support for all pupils.
The launch of this new initiative was announced at Bexley’s Southern Anti-Bullying Conference earlier this year. Two Bexley services were the driving force behind the proposal."
So instead of getting the head teacher and other talented teachers who are good with child behaviour out in the playground and dealing with it on the spot at source, they buy a piece of software and create a massive reporting system which schools can consult to see what's going on in their school! Bizarre when you put even the slightest thought into it.
"When instructions went out to all staff in contact with children to report concerns about risk, this seems to have been done with little prior thought, without consultation, and without provision for training. The result was the post-Climbie cover-your-back syndrome: 'when in the slightest doubt, report to social services.' We see a huge variety of standards, misunderstandings, prejudices, ill-informed interpretation of risk factors, cultural incompetence and even racism, in the initiation of cases from health visitors, teachers, midwives, nurses, doctors and others. Quite apart from the damage to families, each one of these reports pre-empts resources and often leads to substantial, and unnecessary, cost. Ironically, the basic, simple help or real support families would like, is unavailable because resources are lacking, that is not the focus of social work activity, and anyway nowadays many parents are afraid to ask because any contact with social services is too risky.
Community information grapevines work, and effectively circulate information about what people see as the growing risk of being investigated or labelled as a dangerous parent after contact with medical care. The risk is not merely perceived: it is real, and the consequences are devastating. Damage to the whole family structure (sometimes the extended family network and its support structure), to parental confidence and self-esteem, to children's sense of security and safety, and their sense of security that their parents can and will protect them - these are very serious adverse effects. Often we find it is the most sensitive parents, to whom family life means everything, who are most damaged. We also have many concerns about damage we have seen to authority of black parents vis-a-vis their children, many of whom are already coping with multiple racial prejudice problems. As we have pointed out to NICE as stakeholders in their consultation of diagnosis of child abuse, such potential for harm must now be considered, and it is long overdue. The sheer cultural incompetence of many social workers has to be seen to be believed."
Recommended reading about what happens in practice when mass surveillance is substituted for effective targetted support of professional services. A case in point: Logging on to Beat the Bullies"The approach Bexley chose was to deploy Vantage Technologies’ Sentinel Anti-Bullying software. This solution allows staff to report bullying incidents securely over the Internet into a central database, which is managed and monitored by Bexley. This web-based approach allows our schools to monitor bullying and racism incidents in real-time, providing effective support for all pupils.
The launch of this new initiative was announced at Bexley’s Southern Anti-Bullying Conference earlier this year. Two Bexley services were the driving force behind the proposal."
So instead of getting the head teacher and other talented teachers who are good with child behaviour out in the playground and dealing with it on the spot at source, they buy a piece of software and create a massive reporting system which schools can consult to see what's going on in their school! Bizarre when you put even the slightest thought into it.
SCOTUS backs free speech over IP in baseball data case
Earlier this week the US Supreme Court denied petition for a writ of certiorari in MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, ET AL. V. C.B.C. DISTRIBUTION & MARKETING. This relatively technical legal decision may have important implications for the conflict between intellectual property and free speech involving the use of sports statistics.
The folks at IP Justice seem to think that this is a big win for free speech advocates in this context in a world where there is an increasing level of commercialisation of the data associated with sports; including situations where journalists get thrown out of sports stadia for live blogging what's happening on the field.
The folks at IP Justice seem to think that this is a big win for free speech advocates in this context in a world where there is an increasing level of commercialisation of the data associated with sports; including situations where journalists get thrown out of sports stadia for live blogging what's happening on the field.
A 10-year old's copyright questions
My ten year old was examining the back of the box of one of his (currently) favorite CDs when I got home yesterday. After a repeated and thorough inspection he told me he didn't think the CD was copyrighted because it didn't have the © symbol. He was pleased because he's been thinking about doing a re-mix of some of the tracks.
I explained that just because the copyright symbol wasn't on the box did not mean the CD was not copyrighted...
"Ok then dad. How do I know if something is copyrighted or not?"
"Good question. And funny enough it's not too easy to answer. There is nowhere - no single place anyway - we can go to check up on whether something is covered by copyright or not. Usually if something is recently recorded you'll find it is protected by copyright, even if it doesn't have the © symbol."
"But how do I know if it is not copyrighted?"
"Well. It might have a notice on the box saying it was released under a creative commons licence." (We had the CC talk a long time ago)
"What about if it is not CC?"
"Well then it depends on when the copyright-protected thing was made up and how long the copyright lasts. So Mozart's music which was created hundreds of years ago is not protected by copyright."
"How long does copyright last then?"
"Ah... well for an author or a music composer it will last for the life of the author/composer plus seventy years. So it runs out 70 years after the author dies."
"Hmmm... is it really that long? That seems a lot."
"Yes it is quite a long time but it also depends on what is covered by the copyright. So the copyright in a sound recording only lasts fifty years."
"What? What's a sound recording when it comes to copyright?"
"What's on your CD is the sound recording. So the person that wrote the music gets copyright in the composition until 70 years after they die. And the person who sings the song or plays the instruments in a recording studio gets 50 years copyright coverage for recording the song. Or often it can be the company that owns the studio where the song was recorded that gets the 50 years worth of copyright protection."
"Hang on. You're saying there are lots of different copyrights in the same thing? Is that right?"
"Yes."
"That's a bit complicated isn't it. Lots of copyrights for lots of people and companies. 50 years, 70 years after someone dies. So copyright can last for 140 years or more? Isn't that really a bit too long."
"Lots of people think so. You know when copyright started in England in 1709 it only lasted for 14 years. The author could ask for it to go on for another 14 years after that but the basic cover was 14 years."
"Now that's much more sensible."
So it would seem that Jack has come to the same conclusion as Cambridge economist Rufus Pollock. Is it that because, like Phillip Pulllman's Lyra Belacqua and her alethiometer, he is just able to see things more clearly now and when he reaches adulthood he'll have to engage in detailed and arduous research to attain the same understanding at a deeper level? Or is it because the copyright system is so out of synch with what it should be that even (or maybe especially) a ten year old can tell it needs fixing?
I explained that just because the copyright symbol wasn't on the box did not mean the CD was not copyrighted...
"Ok then dad. How do I know if something is copyrighted or not?"
"Good question. And funny enough it's not too easy to answer. There is nowhere - no single place anyway - we can go to check up on whether something is covered by copyright or not. Usually if something is recently recorded you'll find it is protected by copyright, even if it doesn't have the © symbol."
"But how do I know if it is not copyrighted?"
"Well. It might have a notice on the box saying it was released under a creative commons licence." (We had the CC talk a long time ago)
"What about if it is not CC?"
"Well then it depends on when the copyright-protected thing was made up and how long the copyright lasts. So Mozart's music which was created hundreds of years ago is not protected by copyright."
"How long does copyright last then?"
"Ah... well for an author or a music composer it will last for the life of the author/composer plus seventy years. So it runs out 70 years after the author dies."
"Hmmm... is it really that long? That seems a lot."
"Yes it is quite a long time but it also depends on what is covered by the copyright. So the copyright in a sound recording only lasts fifty years."
"What? What's a sound recording when it comes to copyright?"
"What's on your CD is the sound recording. So the person that wrote the music gets copyright in the composition until 70 years after they die. And the person who sings the song or plays the instruments in a recording studio gets 50 years copyright coverage for recording the song. Or often it can be the company that owns the studio where the song was recorded that gets the 50 years worth of copyright protection."
"Hang on. You're saying there are lots of different copyrights in the same thing? Is that right?"
"Yes."
"That's a bit complicated isn't it. Lots of copyrights for lots of people and companies. 50 years, 70 years after someone dies. So copyright can last for 140 years or more? Isn't that really a bit too long."
"Lots of people think so. You know when copyright started in England in 1709 it only lasted for 14 years. The author could ask for it to go on for another 14 years after that but the basic cover was 14 years."
"Now that's much more sensible."
So it would seem that Jack has come to the same conclusion as Cambridge economist Rufus Pollock. Is it that because, like Phillip Pulllman's Lyra Belacqua and her alethiometer, he is just able to see things more clearly now and when he reaches adulthood he'll have to engage in detailed and arduous research to attain the same understanding at a deeper level? Or is it because the copyright system is so out of synch with what it should be that even (or maybe especially) a ten year old can tell it needs fixing?
Monday, June 02, 2008
Government education policy is damaging its own objectives
Letter to the Independent today from respected education experts:
"Government education policy is damaging its own objectives
"Government education policy is damaging its own objectives
Sir: We are specialists with considerable experience collectively in the different phases of education who have come independently to the same conclusion; that government policy is no longer the solution to the difficulties we face but our greatest problem.
We have the same objectives as this Government in wanting to offer a first-class education and training to all and, in particular, to narrow the attainment gap between the most and least advantaged. We have, however, become increasingly dismayed by ministers who are intent on permanent revolution of every aspect of the education system: in so acting, they demonstrate a deep lack of trust in the professional education community.
It is not only the torrent of new policy that rains down on each sector, the constant changes in direction and the automatic rubbishing of any discomforting evidence by ministers: it's also the failure of successive ministers to appreciate that reform has to be accompanied by continuity if the stability of our educational institutions and the high quality of their courses are to be preserved.
For example, despite its rhetorical advocacy of lifelong learning, the reality of government policy is that there are now 1.4million fewer adult learners in the FE sector, broadly defined, than there were two years ago. Similarly, the new policy in HE of withdrawing funding support for all those learners studying for an equivalent or lower qualification (ELQ) to that which they already possess, will reduce dramatically the numbers of adult learners in the system. These policies are being pursued despite near universal condemnation – the Select Committee report on ELQs was particularly damning.
Despite significant, additional investment in education since 1997, our research shows that government policy is now working against the government's own intentions and that the current frenetic pace of change must slow down to what is pedagocially (and structurally) possible.
We need a more consultative, democratic and inclusive way of developing and enacting policy for all the public services. The one change we need above all is for government to consult the professionals and learners before it announces policies which will damage the objectives that we all share.
Emeritus Professor Frank Coffield Institute of Education, University of London
Professor Richard Taylor Director of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Cambridge,
Professor Sir Peter Scott, Vice-Chancellor, University of Kingston,
Professor Stephen Ball Institute of Education, University of London"
And so say all of us!Thursday, May 29, 2008
Finnish appeals court overturns controversial CSS ruling
From Afterdawn: Finnish appeals court overturns controversial CSS ruling
"The Helsinki Court of Appeals has overturned a controversial ruling made last year, which found that CSS copy protection in use on almost all retail movie DVDs was "ineffective". Finnish copyright law (amended in 2006 by adoption of EUCD) prohibits circumventing "effective technological measures", but the court original found that CSS cannot be described as an "efficient copy protection mechanism" anymore...
However, there have been two major errors claimed in the appeals court decision. Firstly, the court claimed that circumventing an access control would have been legal but that the defendants had circumvented a full copy protection system (CSS). In reality, the defendants actually had only circumvented an access control.
Secondly, the court found that the circumvention was only legally ok if no additional software was installed to perform the process, and claimed that you always need to install some form of "hack" software to watch DVDs on Linux. Again, this is not true as you can get legal players that can play DVDs"
Thanks to Rob Myers via the ORG list for the link.
"The Helsinki Court of Appeals has overturned a controversial ruling made last year, which found that CSS copy protection in use on almost all retail movie DVDs was "ineffective". Finnish copyright law (amended in 2006 by adoption of EUCD) prohibits circumventing "effective technological measures", but the court original found that CSS cannot be described as an "efficient copy protection mechanism" anymore...
However, there have been two major errors claimed in the appeals court decision. Firstly, the court claimed that circumventing an access control would have been legal but that the defendants had circumvented a full copy protection system (CSS). In reality, the defendants actually had only circumvented an access control.
Secondly, the court found that the circumvention was only legally ok if no additional software was installed to perform the process, and claimed that you always need to install some form of "hack" software to watch DVDs on Linux. Again, this is not true as you can get legal players that can play DVDs"
Thanks to Rob Myers via the ORG list for the link.
ACTA takes aim at iPods
From the Ottawacitizen:
"The Canadian government is secretly negotiating an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make information on iPods, laptops and other personal electronic devices illegal and greatly increase the difficulty of travelling with such devices.
The agreement could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing those companies to hand over customer information without a court order.
Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.
Details of the agreement, which is expected to be tabled at July's meeting of G8 nations in Tokyo, were leaked on the Internet on Friday.
The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement, except it would create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws. Federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval.
The agreement would create an international regulator that would turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.
The guards would also be responsible for determining which content infringes on copyright laws."
The ACTA document is available here and here.
"The Canadian government is secretly negotiating an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make information on iPods, laptops and other personal electronic devices illegal and greatly increase the difficulty of travelling with such devices.
The agreement could also impose strict regulations on Internet service providers, forcing those companies to hand over customer information without a court order.
Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.
Details of the agreement, which is expected to be tabled at July's meeting of G8 nations in Tokyo, were leaked on the Internet on Friday.
The agreement is being structured much like the North American Free Trade Agreement, except it would create rules and regulations regarding private copying and copyright laws. Federal trade agreements do not require parliamentary approval.
The agreement would create an international regulator that would turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.
The guards would also be responsible for determining which content infringes on copyright laws."
The ACTA document is available here and here.
Blackberry spurns Indian spy call
From th BBC: Blackberry spurns Indian spy call
"The Canadian manufacturer of Blackberry mobile phones has rejected demands by the Indian government that it help decrypt suspicious text messages.
Research in Motion says its technology does not allow any third party - even the company itself - to read information sent over its network.
The Indian authorities have been reluctant to allow the widespread use of Blackberries in the country.
They fear militants and criminals may take advantage of the secure system.
A number of other countries around the world have expressed similar fears. "
"The Canadian manufacturer of Blackberry mobile phones has rejected demands by the Indian government that it help decrypt suspicious text messages.
Research in Motion says its technology does not allow any third party - even the company itself - to read information sent over its network.
The Indian authorities have been reluctant to allow the widespread use of Blackberries in the country.
They fear militants and criminals may take advantage of the secure system.
A number of other countries around the world have expressed similar fears. "
Jury hands feds first guilty verdict for Web music piracy
From CNet news blog:
"For the first time ever, the federal government has successfully won a jury verdict against someone accused of illegally downloading music, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.
A jury in Alexandria, Va, found Barry Gitarts, 25, allegedly a member of Internet music piracy group, Apocalypse Production Crew (APC), was found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.
Gitarts faces up to five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and must make full restitution, according to a statement released by the DOJ. "
"For the first time ever, the federal government has successfully won a jury verdict against someone accused of illegally downloading music, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.
A jury in Alexandria, Va, found Barry Gitarts, 25, allegedly a member of Internet music piracy group, Apocalypse Production Crew (APC), was found guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement.
Gitarts faces up to five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and must make full restitution, according to a statement released by the DOJ. "
Belgian copyright group demands Google pay up to €49 million
From the IHT: Belgian copyright group demands Google pay up to €49 million
"Belgian French-language newspapers said Tuesday they want search engine Google Inc. to pay up to €49 million (US$77 million) in damages for publishing and storing their content without permission.
The newspaper copyright group Copiepresse said it had summoned Google to appear again before a Brussels court in September that will decide on their claim that they suffered damages of between €32.8 million (US$51.7 million) and €49.2 million (US$77.5 million).
The group called on Google to pay a provisional amount of €4 million (US$6.3 million)."
"Belgian French-language newspapers said Tuesday they want search engine Google Inc. to pay up to €49 million (US$77 million) in damages for publishing and storing their content without permission.
The newspaper copyright group Copiepresse said it had summoned Google to appear again before a Brussels court in September that will decide on their claim that they suffered damages of between €32.8 million (US$51.7 million) and €49.2 million (US$77.5 million).
The group called on Google to pay a provisional amount of €4 million (US$6.3 million)."
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Nottingham student to be deported for accessing 'terrorism manual' on US government site
On the face of it, this story about a student being arrested and marked for imminent deportation because he dowloaded a research document - described by the Gaurdian as 'the al-Qaida training manual' - from a US government website, should be of concern not just to academics, students and university administrators, but to every citizen. The government's repeated leaning on universities and academics to report any student that might possibly engage in suspicious behaviour showed shades of Mao's cultural revolution and the former eastern bloc communist states. But few outside of the civil liberties community took them too seriously because of the "it could never happen here" mindset and the relatively benign and generally welcoming nature of the UK and its governing infrastructure.
It is difficult to know for sure, without complete details of the case, what parameters in particular led to the authorities' decision to deport the man at the centre of this controversy. Inevitably, though, when paranoia and fear are widely promoted, as they have been by politicians and the media in the wake of the 11th September 2001 attacks, innocent people suffer. Friends of Hicham Yezza, the student facing deportation, have set up a website to campaign for his release.
Polly Curtis and Martin Hodgson at the Guardian say:
"A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.
Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.
The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a "prevent agenda" against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.
Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator's computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. The pair were arrested under the Terrorism Act, Sabir's family home was searched and their computer and mobile phones seized. They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation...
A spokesman for Nottingham University said it had a duty to inform police of "material of this nature". The spokesman said it was "not legitimate research material", but later amended that view, saying: "If you're an academic or a registered student then you have very good cause to access whatever material your scholarship requires. But there is an expectation that you will act sensibly within current UK law and wouldn't send it on to any Tom, Dick or Harry."
At its annual conference next week the University and College Union will debate a motion on "assaults on academic freedom by the DIUS [Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]". Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said: "If we really want to tackle problems like extremism and terrorism, then we need to be safe to explore the issues and get a better understanding. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue or research a subject because they fear being arrested or reported."
The higher education minister, Bill Rammell, said: "The government does not want to or has never asked for staff or students to spy on their colleagues or friends. We want universities to work with staff and students on campus to isolate and challenge the very small minority who promote violent extremism.""
I suspect Mr Hicham Yezza and his friends and colleagues at Nottingham will derive little consolation from such sophistry on the part of the minister, who as someone in charge of Higher Education, should know better. Could I suggest the minister read ( or re-read?) Professor Ian Loader's letter to Tony Blair when he was the Prime Minister advising him about balance in the criminal justice system.
Update: The Resistance Studies Network at the University of Göteborg are suggesting academics should protest by downloading the manual. They provide a link containing the files but the DOJ has now removed the manual from its website.
It is difficult to know for sure, without complete details of the case, what parameters in particular led to the authorities' decision to deport the man at the centre of this controversy. Inevitably, though, when paranoia and fear are widely promoted, as they have been by politicians and the media in the wake of the 11th September 2001 attacks, innocent people suffer. Friends of Hicham Yezza, the student facing deportation, have set up a website to campaign for his release.
Polly Curtis and Martin Hodgson at the Guardian say:
"A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.
Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.
The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a "prevent agenda" against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.
Sabir was arrested on May 14 after the document was found by a university staff member on an administrator's computer. The administrator, Hisham Yezza, an acquaintance of Sabir, had been asked by the student to print the 1,500-page document because Sabir could not afford the printing fees. The pair were arrested under the Terrorism Act, Sabir's family home was searched and their computer and mobile phones seized. They were released uncharged six days later but Yezza, who is Algerian, was immediately rearrested on unrelated immigration charges and now faces deportation...
A spokesman for Nottingham University said it had a duty to inform police of "material of this nature". The spokesman said it was "not legitimate research material", but later amended that view, saying: "If you're an academic or a registered student then you have very good cause to access whatever material your scholarship requires. But there is an expectation that you will act sensibly within current UK law and wouldn't send it on to any Tom, Dick or Harry."
At its annual conference next week the University and College Union will debate a motion on "assaults on academic freedom by the DIUS [Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills]". Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said: "If we really want to tackle problems like extremism and terrorism, then we need to be safe to explore the issues and get a better understanding. The last thing we need is people too frightened to discuss an issue or research a subject because they fear being arrested or reported."
The higher education minister, Bill Rammell, said: "The government does not want to or has never asked for staff or students to spy on their colleagues or friends. We want universities to work with staff and students on campus to isolate and challenge the very small minority who promote violent extremism.""
I suspect Mr Hicham Yezza and his friends and colleagues at Nottingham will derive little consolation from such sophistry on the part of the minister, who as someone in charge of Higher Education, should know better. Could I suggest the minister read ( or re-read?) Professor Ian Loader's letter to Tony Blair when he was the Prime Minister advising him about balance in the criminal justice system.
Update: The Resistance Studies Network at the University of Göteborg are suggesting academics should protest by downloading the manual. They provide a link containing the files but the DOJ has now removed the manual from its website.
Monday, May 26, 2008
DRM on Nokia phones
The drm on nokia phones locks N-Gage games to individual handsets, so when you upgrade you need to buy a new copy of the game. Nokia gamers are not very happy.
"Nokia has said it is "working on a solution" to allow people to transfer N-Gage games between handsets.
"Nokia has said it is "working on a solution" to allow people to transfer N-Gage games between handsets.
The announcement was made following anger by gamers who found out that titles bought for a handset were locked to the device forever.
Nokia said it had made the decision to lock down the system to prevent piracy and guarantee revenue for games makers."
Friday, May 23, 2008
FTC Proposes Online Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles
In the US the FTC has proposed some online advertising behavioral principles.
"To address the need for greater transparency and consumer control regarding privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising, the FTC staff proposes:
"To address the need for greater transparency and consumer control regarding privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising, the FTC staff proposes:
- Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement that data is being collected to provide ads targeted to the consumer and give consumers the ability to choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.
To address the concern that data collected for behavioral advertising may find its way into the hands of criminals or other wrongdoers, and concerns about the length of time companies are retaining consumer data, the FTC staff proposes:
- Any company that collects or stores consumer data for behavioral advertising should provide reasonable security for that data and should retain data only as long as is necessary to fulfill a legitimate business or law enforcement need.
- Companies should obtain affirmative express consent from affected consumers before using data in a manner materially different from promises the company made when it collected the data.
To address the concern that sensitive data – medical information or children’s activities online, for example – may be used in behavioral advertising, FTC staff proposes:
- Companies should only collect sensitive data for behavioral advertising if they obtain affirmative express consent from the consumer to receive such advertising.
- FTC staff also seeks comment on what constitutes “sensitive data” and whether the use of sensitive data should be prohibited, rather than subject to consumer choice.
The staff is seeking additional information about whether tracking data is being used for purposes other than behavioral advertising and whether such secondary uses, if they occur, merit some form of heightened protection."
Defence giant could give UK secrets to US spies
Also in this morning's times: MPs warn that defence giant could give census secrets to US spy chiefs
"Personal details from the next census could be disclosed to US authorities if an American defence company wins the contract to run it, the Treasury Select Committee says today. MPs on the committee are demanding that the Government seeks firm assurances that detailed information about the UK population will not be at risk of being handed to US intelligence agencies...
Two companies, Lockheed Martin, the US defence group, and the German telecommunications company TSystems, are bidding for the £450 million contract to run the 2011 Census.
The US Patriot Act allows personal data held by companies in the US to be made available to the intelligence agencies.
Angela Eagle, a Treasury minister, said that if Lockheed won the contract, provisions preventing the removal from the UK of census information would be put in the contract"
Someone should inform the minister that in the US, the PATRIOT Act trumps contract law and any such provisions in the contract wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on.
"Personal details from the next census could be disclosed to US authorities if an American defence company wins the contract to run it, the Treasury Select Committee says today. MPs on the committee are demanding that the Government seeks firm assurances that detailed information about the UK population will not be at risk of being handed to US intelligence agencies...
Two companies, Lockheed Martin, the US defence group, and the German telecommunications company TSystems, are bidding for the £450 million contract to run the 2011 Census.
The US Patriot Act allows personal data held by companies in the US to be made available to the intelligence agencies.
Angela Eagle, a Treasury minister, said that if Lockheed won the contract, provisions preventing the removal from the UK of census information would be put in the contract"
Someone should inform the minister that in the US, the PATRIOT Act trumps contract law and any such provisions in the contract wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on.
Police forces spending £40 million on PR
According to the Times, police forces in the UK are spending £40 million per year on public relations and news management.
Given that their political masters at the Home Office now measure police performance partly against public perception of crime, the only real surprise should be that the figure is not significantly bigger.
Given that their political masters at the Home Office now measure police performance partly against public perception of crime, the only real surprise should be that the figure is not significantly bigger.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Commissioner McCreevy on Copyright
Charlie McCreevy has been speaking to the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) about company law, accounting & auditing and intellectual property rights. One the latter he had this to say:
"The second key area in my portfolio of issues under the responsibility of this Committee is Intellectual Property Rights. IP is a central competitive asset in Europe's ability to compete in the global economy. There are perhaps many reasons for this, the main one though is that through innovation, high quality design, effective branding and top quality production, EU companies have the ability to remain at the top of the value chain. We are progressing well on the initiatives announced before.
Let me start by looking at copyright protection for performers. European performers do not enjoy sufficient term protection. 95% of them do not earn enough from their profession and have to take up parallel jobs. I want all performers, whether featured artists or session musicians, to be able to earn more from their work. This allows them to spend more time doing what they do best – namely performing.
Authors enjoy copyright protection that lasts for 70 years after their death. Performers on the other hand enjoy protection for 50 years from the time of their performance. This means that an increasing number of them are seeing their performances fall into the public domain during their lifetimes. Not only do they no longer have a say in how their performances are used, but also their royalty payments and their airplay remuneration dry up.
And it usually happens at a time in their lives when they are getting older and not working as much. The music business is not the type that comes with a pension scheme. The principal beneficiaries of our proposal are the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings at that time.
That is why I propose is to extend protection for performers and sound recordings from the current 50 to 95 years. I aim to present a proposal for an amendment to the Directive on term protection by this summer.
By doing this we will go some way towards solving a number of problems. Firstly, performers will be able to control how their performances are used. This will allow them to object to their work being abused or used in a way they do not agree with. Secondly, they will continue to receive royalties and airplay remuneration for their entire lifetime, and as for authors, their heirs will benefit a little after their death.
Extending the term is not enough in itself. I also propose that each record company set up a special fund specifically devoted to session musicians. The company will have to pay a percentage of its increased revenues in the extended period into this fund. This will mean that the thousands of session musicians will increase their earnings.
Another area of work at present in the Intellectual Property field is private copying levies. You will be aware I re-launched work some months back on this issue. Some have suggested that I want to trade off term extension with private copying levies. I want to clearly dispel this rumour. Both initiatives have their own independent merit.
I perceive a clear need for the societies that administer the levies, and the industry that have to pay them, to get together and find a way out of their current disagreements. The latest round of consultation took place between February and April of this year. This consultation yielded some 120 replies, primarily from collecting societies that administer levies and from the industry that has to pay them. This response rate shows that the issue is still very much alive.
I have decided to organise a public hearing on 27 May to discuss the results of this public consultation. I would like to see this public hearing leading to the setting up of a structured dialogue between the stakeholders in the search for common ground in addressing this complex issue.
My ultimate wish would be that everyone that is concerned with levies could be able to agree on some basic principles to apply to the calculation of the different levies.
A third area of work in the IP field is Community trade mark fees. The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a further substantial reduction of these fees. The Community Trademark Office in Alicante is an agency financing itself, independently from the Community budget. The Office is financially very well off and is generating considerable cash every year. This is partly due to its attractiveness, as companies continue to submit more and more trade mark and design applications. However, the Agency has to balance its revenues and expenditure. I intend to present this proposal in the next months. We have also started working on the evaluation of the trademark systems in the EU with a view to identify potential needs for improvement and future developments.
Work continues on the patent litigation system and on the Community patent. Since the Commission adopted the Communication "Enhancing a patent system in Europe" in April 2007, we have been actively working towards a consensus on the key elements among Member States in the Council under the German, Portuguese and now the Slovenian Presidency. I hope the encouraging progress made over the past year continues and it is something we can come back to a little further down the line.
Work is also continuing on the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy. The purpose of this Green Paper is to encourage debate on how copyright legislation can continue to serve the objective of the dissemination of knowledge for research, science and education – particularly in the online environment. The Green Paper aims to set out a number of issues connected with the role of copyright in the "knowledge economy", relying as it does not on natural resources such as land or minerals, but on intellectual resources such as know-how and expertise. It could be adopted just before or just after the summer break and it is intended to launch a public consultation.
A last point on intellectual property rights is the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. This is a key priority for the Commission. Last week's high-level conference marked the starting point for our efforts in order to find practical solutions to combat counterfeiting and piracy. We need all stakeholders to engage in working on practical and concrete ways to fight off fakes rather than camping on positions of principle. More regulation is certainly not the answer. I am grateful to the Parliament's support on this issue and for your active participation at the conference.
Finally, I wish to say a few words on the Annual Policy Strategy for 2009.
The time has come to assess how the existing copyright legislation works. It has been in place for more than 10 years now. The issue is whether and how we need to adapt thee rules to new technological and market developments. We will launch a consultation process next year on these questions to arm my successor with the necessary elements for deciding on concrete initiatives.
All of our actions are part of our single market policy. A key element of last year's Single Market Review is to make the Internal Market rules function on the ground. Member States' actions are crucial in achieving this objective. In this context we will prepare an initiative in early 2009 to give guidance to Member States on how to improve the practical functioning of the Internal Market.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude. It is crucial that the European regulatory framework responds to market needs. Where there is no proven need for EU intervention, I will not make proposals or add further layers of EU requirements. We are updating existing legislation in the area of company law and intellectual property rights to make it simpler, flexible and more dynamic. Your support and active engagement are essential if we are to deliver what EU business needs."
There is nothing new in the statement but his final paragraph statement to the effect that "Where there is no proven need for EU intervention, I will not make proposals or add further layers of EU requirements" bears serious scrutiny. There is simply a massive black hole where empirical evidence informing intellectual property policy making should be. Solid evidence on whether IP regulations should be strengthened or weakened is sparse to non-existent. So, in other words, there is no proven need for EU intervention.
"The second key area in my portfolio of issues under the responsibility of this Committee is Intellectual Property Rights. IP is a central competitive asset in Europe's ability to compete in the global economy. There are perhaps many reasons for this, the main one though is that through innovation, high quality design, effective branding and top quality production, EU companies have the ability to remain at the top of the value chain. We are progressing well on the initiatives announced before.
Let me start by looking at copyright protection for performers. European performers do not enjoy sufficient term protection. 95% of them do not earn enough from their profession and have to take up parallel jobs. I want all performers, whether featured artists or session musicians, to be able to earn more from their work. This allows them to spend more time doing what they do best – namely performing.
Authors enjoy copyright protection that lasts for 70 years after their death. Performers on the other hand enjoy protection for 50 years from the time of their performance. This means that an increasing number of them are seeing their performances fall into the public domain during their lifetimes. Not only do they no longer have a say in how their performances are used, but also their royalty payments and their airplay remuneration dry up.
And it usually happens at a time in their lives when they are getting older and not working as much. The music business is not the type that comes with a pension scheme. The principal beneficiaries of our proposal are the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings at that time.
That is why I propose is to extend protection for performers and sound recordings from the current 50 to 95 years. I aim to present a proposal for an amendment to the Directive on term protection by this summer.
By doing this we will go some way towards solving a number of problems. Firstly, performers will be able to control how their performances are used. This will allow them to object to their work being abused or used in a way they do not agree with. Secondly, they will continue to receive royalties and airplay remuneration for their entire lifetime, and as for authors, their heirs will benefit a little after their death.
Extending the term is not enough in itself. I also propose that each record company set up a special fund specifically devoted to session musicians. The company will have to pay a percentage of its increased revenues in the extended period into this fund. This will mean that the thousands of session musicians will increase their earnings.
Another area of work at present in the Intellectual Property field is private copying levies. You will be aware I re-launched work some months back on this issue. Some have suggested that I want to trade off term extension with private copying levies. I want to clearly dispel this rumour. Both initiatives have their own independent merit.
I perceive a clear need for the societies that administer the levies, and the industry that have to pay them, to get together and find a way out of their current disagreements. The latest round of consultation took place between February and April of this year. This consultation yielded some 120 replies, primarily from collecting societies that administer levies and from the industry that has to pay them. This response rate shows that the issue is still very much alive.
I have decided to organise a public hearing on 27 May to discuss the results of this public consultation. I would like to see this public hearing leading to the setting up of a structured dialogue between the stakeholders in the search for common ground in addressing this complex issue.
My ultimate wish would be that everyone that is concerned with levies could be able to agree on some basic principles to apply to the calculation of the different levies.
A third area of work in the IP field is Community trade mark fees. The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a further substantial reduction of these fees. The Community Trademark Office in Alicante is an agency financing itself, independently from the Community budget. The Office is financially very well off and is generating considerable cash every year. This is partly due to its attractiveness, as companies continue to submit more and more trade mark and design applications. However, the Agency has to balance its revenues and expenditure. I intend to present this proposal in the next months. We have also started working on the evaluation of the trademark systems in the EU with a view to identify potential needs for improvement and future developments.
Work continues on the patent litigation system and on the Community patent. Since the Commission adopted the Communication "Enhancing a patent system in Europe" in April 2007, we have been actively working towards a consensus on the key elements among Member States in the Council under the German, Portuguese and now the Slovenian Presidency. I hope the encouraging progress made over the past year continues and it is something we can come back to a little further down the line.
Work is also continuing on the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy. The purpose of this Green Paper is to encourage debate on how copyright legislation can continue to serve the objective of the dissemination of knowledge for research, science and education – particularly in the online environment. The Green Paper aims to set out a number of issues connected with the role of copyright in the "knowledge economy", relying as it does not on natural resources such as land or minerals, but on intellectual resources such as know-how and expertise. It could be adopted just before or just after the summer break and it is intended to launch a public consultation.
A last point on intellectual property rights is the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. This is a key priority for the Commission. Last week's high-level conference marked the starting point for our efforts in order to find practical solutions to combat counterfeiting and piracy. We need all stakeholders to engage in working on practical and concrete ways to fight off fakes rather than camping on positions of principle. More regulation is certainly not the answer. I am grateful to the Parliament's support on this issue and for your active participation at the conference.
Finally, I wish to say a few words on the Annual Policy Strategy for 2009.
The time has come to assess how the existing copyright legislation works. It has been in place for more than 10 years now. The issue is whether and how we need to adapt thee rules to new technological and market developments. We will launch a consultation process next year on these questions to arm my successor with the necessary elements for deciding on concrete initiatives.
All of our actions are part of our single market policy. A key element of last year's Single Market Review is to make the Internal Market rules function on the ground. Member States' actions are crucial in achieving this objective. In this context we will prepare an initiative in early 2009 to give guidance to Member States on how to improve the practical functioning of the Internal Market.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude. It is crucial that the European regulatory framework responds to market needs. Where there is no proven need for EU intervention, I will not make proposals or add further layers of EU requirements. We are updating existing legislation in the area of company law and intellectual property rights to make it simpler, flexible and more dynamic. Your support and active engagement are essential if we are to deliver what EU business needs."
There is nothing new in the statement but his final paragraph statement to the effect that "Where there is no proven need for EU intervention, I will not make proposals or add further layers of EU requirements" bears serious scrutiny. There is simply a massive black hole where empirical evidence informing intellectual property policy making should be. Solid evidence on whether IP regulations should be strengthened or weakened is sparse to non-existent. So, in other words, there is no proven need for EU intervention.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Supreme Court uphold anti-child porn PROTECT Act and other stories
Busy times at the moment with a lot going on in my day job and a lot going on in cyberlaw as ever. Yesterday the US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld Congress's latest effort to tackle child abuse facilitated by the Net, the 2003 PROTECT Act. Kevin Russell has a full analysis over at Scotusblog.
Today the Times has a front page story on the communications bill which contains the seeds of the government's latest big database surveillance plans. This one's been doing the rounds of the cyber rights communities for a while now but it's interesting that the mainstream media does occasionally notice and provide prominence to such matters, however ephemerally.
Declan McCullagh tells us that a couple of congress men have cottoned onto the probable technical illegality of the widespread clandestine commercial monitoring and profiling of online behaviour. They probably wouldn't like shopping centers secretly tracking people's movements via their mobile phones either. Politicians, like their mainstream media cousins can also be a bit slow on the uptake.
William Patry is indignant at the US labeling Canada a pirate nation just because it has not yet implemented a version of the DMCA into domestic law.
The NYT, of all auspicious bodies, is supporting net neutrality.
"Users of the Internet take for granted their ability to access all Web sites on an equal basis. That could change, however, if Internet service providers started discriminating among content, to make more money or to suppress ideas they do not like. A new “net neutrality” bill has been introduced in the House, which would prohibit this sort of content discrimination. Congress has delayed on this important issue too long and should pass net neutrality legislation now...
Cable and telecommunications companies are fighting net neutrality with lobbyists and campaign contributions, but these special interests should not be allowed to set Internet policy. It is the job of Congress to protect the Internet’s democratic form."
Larry Lessig is worried about little orphan works and proposed changes to US copyright law.
The Sunday Telegraph has been speculating that the government's huge and dangerously insecure NHS Care Records System could be scuppered.
The Dutch have banned electronic voting.
"On May 16, 2008 the Dutch government decided that elections in the Netherlands will be held using paper ballots and red pencil only. A proposal to develop a new generation of voting computers was rejected.
The paperless voting computers had been creeping into our election systems since the mid-1980s, creating a deeply rooted everything-is-just-fine-with-them feeling. This made the task we had set ourselves that much more difficult. We examined the Dutch voting computer, the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B previously in use in about 8 out of 9 poling stations, and proved it insecure. For political reasons, with general elections in the near future, the responsible Minister did not want to make the decision at that time. Although frustrating for us, he basically did the next best thing: two commissions were formed the first was to see who, if anyone, was to blame for the current debacle. The other would, effectively, determine if we were right and election systems in the Netherlands as flawed were as we had made them out to be. The first committee determined that, basically, no one in particular was to blame and everything concerning voting computers was wrong. The second, the Election Process Advisory Commission, issued its report which basically states that we were right all along and the system needed to be changed.
We are proud to have made this impact. Democratic Elections are Really Really Really important. Paperless voting computers enable election fraud on a frightening scale, a tiny group of people can throw elections in which ever way they want. Our initiative, which is one of many similar movements around the world, has removed that risk from our country."
Google has done a Yahoo!-China in India by handing over the personal details of a man to the authorities after he posted a comment to the effect that he hated Sonja Ghandi on Google's Orkut social networking site. The man has since been arrested.
The UK Home Office website has been struggling to stay online.
Cory has yet another nice explanation why he releases his books under a creative commons licence in the context of his teen novel, Little Brother.
Lots going on on the ID card and identity front; likewise on the US constitutional scene.
Yet another inadvertent indication from government quarters of how you can't make better kids by measuring them, or pretending to measure them. The chief inspector says standards have "stalled" and it is "unacceptable that 20% of pupils go from primary to secondary not fully functional in literacy and numeracy". For goodness sake the idea that you can measure a child... how insane is that and yet the whole education system is built on the notion... says yours truly, a university teacher in exam season.
Teachers should be storytellers, curiosity stimulators (remember curiosity is the cure for boredom), observers, listeners, challengers (in the sense of posing challenges for their charges), confidence builders, and practitioners prepared to get their hands dirty in any area they or their pupils/students decide to explore. Not bloody administrators with the incentive to fill in forms which say the child was useless when they arrived in this administrative miracle worker's class and have progressed the requisite number of points on the SATS scale by the time they leave the class. And if the form says that's what happened, then the reality of a child struggling to learn, getting bullied and in fact regressing in all areas is completely irrelevant to the system. Scott Adams has it pegged:
Ho hum. Yes blogging is displacement activity. Now I'd better get back to assessing scripts and filling in forms.
Today the Times has a front page story on the communications bill which contains the seeds of the government's latest big database surveillance plans. This one's been doing the rounds of the cyber rights communities for a while now but it's interesting that the mainstream media does occasionally notice and provide prominence to such matters, however ephemerally.
Declan McCullagh tells us that a couple of congress men have cottoned onto the probable technical illegality of the widespread clandestine commercial monitoring and profiling of online behaviour. They probably wouldn't like shopping centers secretly tracking people's movements via their mobile phones either. Politicians, like their mainstream media cousins can also be a bit slow on the uptake.
William Patry is indignant at the US labeling Canada a pirate nation just because it has not yet implemented a version of the DMCA into domestic law.
The NYT, of all auspicious bodies, is supporting net neutrality.
"Users of the Internet take for granted their ability to access all Web sites on an equal basis. That could change, however, if Internet service providers started discriminating among content, to make more money or to suppress ideas they do not like. A new “net neutrality” bill has been introduced in the House, which would prohibit this sort of content discrimination. Congress has delayed on this important issue too long and should pass net neutrality legislation now...
Cable and telecommunications companies are fighting net neutrality with lobbyists and campaign contributions, but these special interests should not be allowed to set Internet policy. It is the job of Congress to protect the Internet’s democratic form."
Larry Lessig is worried about little orphan works and proposed changes to US copyright law.
The Sunday Telegraph has been speculating that the government's huge and dangerously insecure NHS Care Records System could be scuppered.
The Dutch have banned electronic voting.
"On May 16, 2008 the Dutch government decided that elections in the Netherlands will be held using paper ballots and red pencil only. A proposal to develop a new generation of voting computers was rejected.
The paperless voting computers had been creeping into our election systems since the mid-1980s, creating a deeply rooted everything-is-just-fine-with-them feeling. This made the task we had set ourselves that much more difficult. We examined the Dutch voting computer, the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B previously in use in about 8 out of 9 poling stations, and proved it insecure. For political reasons, with general elections in the near future, the responsible Minister did not want to make the decision at that time. Although frustrating for us, he basically did the next best thing: two commissions were formed the first was to see who, if anyone, was to blame for the current debacle. The other would, effectively, determine if we were right and election systems in the Netherlands as flawed were as we had made them out to be. The first committee determined that, basically, no one in particular was to blame and everything concerning voting computers was wrong. The second, the Election Process Advisory Commission, issued its report which basically states that we were right all along and the system needed to be changed.
We are proud to have made this impact. Democratic Elections are Really Really Really important. Paperless voting computers enable election fraud on a frightening scale, a tiny group of people can throw elections in which ever way they want. Our initiative, which is one of many similar movements around the world, has removed that risk from our country."
Google has done a Yahoo!-China in India by handing over the personal details of a man to the authorities after he posted a comment to the effect that he hated Sonja Ghandi on Google's Orkut social networking site. The man has since been arrested.
The UK Home Office website has been struggling to stay online.
Cory has yet another nice explanation why he releases his books under a creative commons licence in the context of his teen novel, Little Brother.
Lots going on on the ID card and identity front; likewise on the US constitutional scene.
Yet another inadvertent indication from government quarters of how you can't make better kids by measuring them, or pretending to measure them. The chief inspector says standards have "stalled" and it is "unacceptable that 20% of pupils go from primary to secondary not fully functional in literacy and numeracy". For goodness sake the idea that you can measure a child... how insane is that and yet the whole education system is built on the notion... says yours truly, a university teacher in exam season.
Teachers should be storytellers, curiosity stimulators (remember curiosity is the cure for boredom), observers, listeners, challengers (in the sense of posing challenges for their charges), confidence builders, and practitioners prepared to get their hands dirty in any area they or their pupils/students decide to explore. Not bloody administrators with the incentive to fill in forms which say the child was useless when they arrived in this administrative miracle worker's class and have progressed the requisite number of points on the SATS scale by the time they leave the class. And if the form says that's what happened, then the reality of a child struggling to learn, getting bullied and in fact regressing in all areas is completely irrelevant to the system. Scott Adams has it pegged:
Ho hum. Yes blogging is displacement activity. Now I'd better get back to assessing scripts and filling in forms.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Judge may have erred in Jammie Thomas $222,000 file sharing award
The judge in the Jammie Thomas trial has found a precedent which indicates he may have mistakenly directed the jury to conclude that Ms Thomas had infringed the copyright in the 24 songs she was found to have made available on Kazaa, merely by making those songs available. He suggested in summation for the jury that no prove that these 24 songs had actually been copied from Ms Thomas's computer was actually required.
"A Minnesota woman ordered to pay $222,000 in the nation's first music download trial may get another chance with a jury.
"A Minnesota woman ordered to pay $222,000 in the nation's first music download trial may get another chance with a jury.
The issue is whether record companies have to prove anyone else actually downloaded their copyrighted songs, or whether it's enough to argue that a defendant made copyrighted music available for copying.
The recording industry has sued thousands of people who shared music online, and has argued that all they have to prove is that the defendant made the music available. They compared it to someone displaying pirated DVDs for sale on a table.
Music-sharers have argued that the only proven downloaders of their music were investigators working for the record companies themselves.
That was the case in the trial last fall of Jammie Thomas of Brainerd. U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. Davis instructed jurors that making sound recordings available without permission violates record company copyrights "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
On Thursday Davis said that may have been a mistake...
The question of how much the record companies must prove to win their lawsuits seems destined for more dates with appeals court judges.
Different judges have ruled different ways on the matter. Last month a federal judge at a pretrial ruling in Boston said that merely making the songs available online is not copyright infringement. But a ruling by a New York judge took the opposite position.
Ray Beckerman, an attorney who has represented other downloading defendants and runs a blog tracking the most prominent cases, said the Recording Industry Association of America has been using the Thomas verdict to support its side.
"We've been saying all along that it was submitted to the jury on an improper theory, and now the judge recognizes his error and he realizes he was misled by record industry lawyers," Beckerman said."
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)... the wha...?
Few people other than intellectual property geeks and stakeholders will be aware of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, ACTA. And why should they? It is an abstract proposal about a complicated area of law, the very mention of which induces a glazed-eyed stupor in the listener's demeanor.
Nevertheless, ACTA, should it ever come to pass, will become a hugely important global instrument governing the flow of information and information-based products around the world. Aaron Shaw, writing for the Knowledge Ecology Studies journal, provides a critical perspective of what he sees as this latest information feudalist's charter, as well as an emotive call to arms to oppose said charter. Though severely critical, it is, nevertheless, the most comprehensive and accessible analysis of the still scarcely available details of ACTA that I've come across. Thoroughly recommended for those who support and oppose ACTA, in addition to the wider general public, who really should be aware of initiatives likely to have a fundamental impact on downstream access to information.
Nevertheless, ACTA, should it ever come to pass, will become a hugely important global instrument governing the flow of information and information-based products around the world. Aaron Shaw, writing for the Knowledge Ecology Studies journal, provides a critical perspective of what he sees as this latest information feudalist's charter, as well as an emotive call to arms to oppose said charter. Though severely critical, it is, nevertheless, the most comprehensive and accessible analysis of the still scarcely available details of ACTA that I've come across. Thoroughly recommended for those who support and oppose ACTA, in addition to the wider general public, who really should be aware of initiatives likely to have a fundamental impact on downstream access to information.
"In mid-February 2008, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a request for public comments on the proposed “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA). However, with the exception of a handful of press releases, information about the proposal itself remains scarce. Mainstream media outlets have printed USTR officials' talking points about the importance of winning “the fight against fakes,” but have failed to analyze either the origins or the nature of the ACTA in any detail. What is ACTA? Where did it come from? How would it affect the trade and governance of the knowledge-based economy? In what follows, I provide preliminary answers to these questions and argue that ACTA would impose a narrow trade agenda at the expense of global cooperation and evidence-based policies.
ACTA is a proposed “plurilateral” agreement that would apply new, stricter legal and enforcement standards to the trade in informational goods. These new standards would extend far beyond those required by the WTO TRIPS Agreement. In addition, some of the proposals for the ACTA include sweeping provisions to criminalize information use practices currently allowed under U.S., European, and international law. In these proposals, the agreement would be obligate states, law enforcement officials, and private firms to intrude on the privacy of “alleged” infringers without sufficient legal due process.[1] A small coalition of powerful states supports ACTA, led by the trade representatives of the United States, Japan, Switzerland and the 27 member states of the European Union, represented by the European Commission. These states have also invited representatives from Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Australia and South Korea to participate in the negotiations. Although ACTA remains in pre-negotiation stages, the signatories would likely seek to impose the terms of the agreement onto developing countries in subsequent bilateral negotiations...
So why is ACTA such a big deal? If signed, the agreement would constitute a diplomatic putsch by a handful of wealthy states and corporations against the rest of the world. Already, it signals an overt and troubling rejection of multilateralism. The so-called “plurilateral” approach represents an outdated model of international treaty-making whereby the unelected representatives of Northern states and a few corporate lobbyists dictate the rules of global markets. Such arrangements were commonplace during the 1990s under the neo-liberal “Washington Consensus” and prior to the Doha Round of negotiations in the WTO. Today, however, this kind of blatant disregard for global consensus and the needs of developing regions poses a threat to the world's prosperity, security and health.
ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement.[6] For example, ACTA advocates intend to further criminalize non-commercial copyright and trademark infringements. They also aim to reinforce so-called “Digital Rights Management” (DRM) technologies that currently prevent the personal, legal reproduction of optical discs like DVDs and trample on “fair use” rights. In addition, rights owner lobby groups want the agreement to undermine legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from liability for the actions of their subscribers. It would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process...
ACTA would require signatories to undertake an unprecedented expansion of customs and law enforcement officials' abilities to police goods and information.[9] It would also create a dispute settlement system outside of existing multilateral institutions such as the WTO Tribunal or TRIPS Council to enforce these new powers. Rather than promote cooperation, ACTA signatories would seek to impose a one-sided vision of the knowledge-based economy on the rest of the world. They do so with no regard for the costs of their actions.
In the absence of widespread support for their position, the states behind the ACTA proposals have restricted participation to those organizations that already share their views... Much recent research in economics, law, sociology, business, and political science examine the claim that strict IP-rights regimes promote growth, innovation, and well-being.[10] Several of these empirical studies suggest that alternative regulatory and enforcement practices allocate public goods more efficiently.[11] Of course, other studies contradict the claims of these authors. The point, however, is precisely that such disagreement exists; the prospective ACTA signatories appear to have ignored any findings that do not reflect their ideological agenda."
Indictment sought in MySpace suidcide case
From AP via Findlaw: "Indictment sought in MySpace cyberbullying case"
Federal prosecutors are reportedly going to pursue a mother who allegedly helped her daughter set up a MySpace account to victimise another girl. Tragically th victim committed suicide.
There are no details available yet as to the legal grounds for the prosecution.
Update from SiliconValley:
" Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis, who allegedly helped create a MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist to convince Megan Meier she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans, was charged with conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else's computer... Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."
Federal prosecutors are reportedly going to pursue a mother who allegedly helped her daughter set up a MySpace account to victimise another girl. Tragically th victim committed suicide.
There are no details available yet as to the legal grounds for the prosecution.
Update from SiliconValley:
" Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis, who allegedly helped create a MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist to convince Megan Meier she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans, was charged with conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else's computer... Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl."
Thursday, May 15, 2008
RIAA explain to the Chronicle how to track file sharers
The RIAA has outlined to the Chronicle of Higher Education how it tracks files sharers.
"To catch college students trading copyrighted songs online, the Recording Industry Association of America uses the same file-sharing software that online pirates love, an RIAA representative told The Chronicle at the organization's offices during a private demonstration of how it catches alleged music pirates. He also said the group does not single out specific colleges in its investigations.The demonstration was given by an RIAA employee who would speak only on condition of anonymity because of concern that he would receive hate e-mail.
The official explained that one way the RIAA identifies pirates is by using LimeWire, a popular peer-to-peer file-sharing program that is free online and used by many college students (there is also a more-robust version of the program sold for a small fee).
Here's how the process works: The RIAA maintains a list of songs whose distribution rights are owned by the RIAA's member organizations. It has given that list to Media Sentry, a company it hired to search for online pirates. That company runs copies of the LimeWire program and performs searches for those copyrighted song titles, one by one, to see if any are being offered by people whose computers are connected to the LimeWire network. For popular songs, the search can turn up dozens, if not hundreds, of hits. A search on Madonna's latest release, "4 Minutes," turned up more than a hundred users trading various copies of the song.
The LimeWire software allows users who right-click on any song entry and choose "browse host" to see all of the songs that a given file sharer is offering to others for download. The software also lists the IP address of active file sharers. (An IP address is a unique number, assigned by Internet-service providers, that identifies every connection to the Internet.) While the names of the people associated with particular IP addresses are not public, it is easy to find out which IP addresses are registered to each Internet-service provider. Using public, online databases (such as those at arin.net or samspade.org), Media Sentry locates the name of the Internet-service provider and determines which traders are located at colleges or universities."
BECTA complain to EU about OOXML
Apparently the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) are complaining to the EU Commission about Microsoft's OOXML. I've never been a big fan of Becta but they are claiming that Microsoft's lack of interoperability is costing the UK education system a fortune.
"The British commission has asserted that because of Microsoft products’ lack of interoperability, the British Educational System is paying more money on software products than it should. In 2005, the same commission published a study according to which British primary schools could save up to half their costs if they would choose open source software products, and give up the proprietary ones.
Another issue raised by the commission is the way Microsoft licenses its products to the schools. The company’s policy is that all computers in a campus must have Microsoft license. BECTA has considered this an anticompetitive practice.
According to the Associated Press, Microsoft’s spokeswoman Anne-Sophie de Brancion stated that “Microsoft is deeply committed to education and interoperability”, and that the company has started to develop tools that will enable Office to work better with files in ODF."
Thanks to Manon Ress via the A2K list for the pointer.
"The British commission has asserted that because of Microsoft products’ lack of interoperability, the British Educational System is paying more money on software products than it should. In 2005, the same commission published a study according to which British primary schools could save up to half their costs if they would choose open source software products, and give up the proprietary ones.
Another issue raised by the commission is the way Microsoft licenses its products to the schools. The company’s policy is that all computers in a campus must have Microsoft license. BECTA has considered this an anticompetitive practice.
According to the Associated Press, Microsoft’s spokeswoman Anne-Sophie de Brancion stated that “Microsoft is deeply committed to education and interoperability”, and that the company has started to develop tools that will enable Office to work better with files in ODF."
Thanks to Manon Ress via the A2K list for the pointer.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
NJ Voting Machine Tape Shows Phantom Obama Vote
Also from Freedom to Tinker, this time from Ed Felten: NJ Voting Machine Tape Shows Phantom Obama Vote.
"I’ve written before (1, 2, 3) about discrepancies in the election results from New Jersey’s February 5 presidential primary. Yesterday we received yet another set of voting machine result tapes. They show a new kind of discrepancy which we haven’t seen before — and which contradicts the story told by Sequoia (the vendor) and the NJ Secretary of State about what went wrong in the election.
Ed provides scanned images of the tapes in his blog entry and the conclusion as he suggests is inescapable:
"It is inconsistent with Sequoia’s explanation for the previously-noticed discrepancies. It is inconsistent with the State’s theory of what went wrong in the election.
It’s time for an independent investigation."
"I’ve written before (1, 2, 3) about discrepancies in the election results from New Jersey’s February 5 presidential primary. Yesterday we received yet another set of voting machine result tapes. They show a new kind of discrepancy which we haven’t seen before — and which contradicts the story told by Sequoia (the vendor) and the NJ Secretary of State about what went wrong in the election.
The new records are from three voting machines in Pennsauken, District 6. We have the result tapes printed out by all three voting machines in that district (1, 2, 3). As usual, each result tape has a “Candidate Totals” section giving the vote count for each candidate, and a separate “Option Switch Totals” section giving the voter turnout in each party. We also have the Democratic vote totals reported by the county clerk for that district (and some others), which were apparently calculated from the memory cartridges used in the three machines.
The county clerk’s totals show 279 votes in Pennsauken District 6. The per-candidate counts are Clinton 181, Obama 94, Richardson 2, Edwards 1, Kucinich 0, Biden 1, which adds up correctly to 279. The turnout sections of the three result tapes also show a total Democratic turnout of 279 (133+126+20).
But the Candidate Totals sections of the tapes tell a different story. Adding up the three tapes, the totals are Clinton 181, Obama 95, Richardson 2, Edwards 1, Kucinich 0, Biden 1, which adds up to 280. The Candidate Totals on the tapes show an extra Obama vote that doesn’t appear anywhere else.
(Everything seems to add up on the Republican side.)
The State claimed, in response to some (but not all) of the discrepancies I pointed out previously, that I had misread the tapes. This time the tapes are absolutely clear."Ed provides scanned images of the tapes in his blog entry and the conclusion as he suggests is inescapable:
"It is inconsistent with Sequoia’s explanation for the previously-noticed discrepancies. It is inconsistent with the State’s theory of what went wrong in the election.
It’s time for an independent investigation."
F.B.I. Says the Military Had Bogus Computer Gear
From the NYT: F.B.I. Says the Military Had Bogus Computer Gear
"Counterfeit products are a routine threat for the electronics industry. However, the more sinister specter of an electronic Trojan horse, lurking in the circuitry of a computer or a network router and allowing attackers clandestine access or control, was raised again recently by the F.B.I. and the Pentagon.Dan Wallach makes the point over at Freedom to Tinker that the key story here is the integrity of the supply chain.The new law enforcement and national security concerns were prompted by Operation Cisco Raider, which has led to 15 criminal cases involving counterfeit products bought in part by military agencies, military contractors and electric power companies in the United States. Over the two-year operation, 36 search warrants have been executed, resulting in the discovery of 3,500 counterfeit Cisco network components with an estimated retail value of more than $3.5 million, the F.B.I. said in a statement.
The F.B.I. is still not certain whether the ring’s actions were for profit or part of a state-sponsored intelligence effort. The potential threat, according to the F.B.I. agents who gave a briefing at the Office of Management and Budget on Jan. 11, includes the remote jamming of supposedly secure computer networks and gaining access to supposedly highly secure systems. Contents of the briefing were contained in a PowerPoint presentation leaked to a Web site, Above Top Secret."
"The really interesting story is all about the supply chain. Consider how you might buy yourself a new Mac. You could go to your local Apple store. Or you could get it from any of a variety of other stores, who in turn may have gotten it from Apple directly or may have gone through a distributor. Apparently, for Cisco gear, it’s much more complicated than that. The U.S. government buys from “approved” vendors, who might then buy from multiple tiers of sub-contractors. In one case, one person bought shady gear from eBay and resold it to the government, moving a total of $1M in gear before he was caught. In a more complicated case, Lockheed Martin won a bid for a U.S. Navy project. They contracted with an unauthorized Cisco reseller who in turn contracted with somebody else, who used a sub-contractor, who then directly shipped the counterfeit gear to the Navy. (The slides say that $250K worth of counterfeit gear was sold; duplicate serial numbers were discovered.)Why is this happening? The Government wants to save money, so they look for contractors who can give them the best price, and their contracts allow for subcontracts, direct third-party shipping, and so forth. There is no serious vetting of this supply chain by either Cisco or the government. Apparently, Cisco doesn’t do direct sales except for high-end, specialized gear. You’d think Cisco would follow the lead of the airline industry, among others, and cut out the distributors to keep the profit for themselves.
Okay, on to the speculation. Both the New York Times and the FBI presentation concern themselves with Trojan Horses. Even though there’s no evidence that any of this counterfeit gear was actually malicious, the weak controls in the supply chain make it awfully easy for such compromised gear to be sold into sensitive parts of the government, raising all the obvious concerns.
Consider a recent paper by U. Illinois’s Sam King et al. where they built a “malicious processor”. The idea is pretty clever. You send along a “secret knock” (e.g., a network packet with a particular header) which triggers a sensor that enables “shadow code” to start running alongside the real operating system. The Illinois team built shadow code that compromised the Linux login program, adding a backdoor password. After the backdoor was tripped, it would disable the shadow code, thus going back to “normal” operation.
The military is awfully worried about this sort of threat, as well they should be. For that matter, so are voting machine critics. It’s awfully easy for “stealth” malicious behavior to exist in legitimate systems, regardless of how carefully you might analyze or test it. Ken Thompson’s classic paper, Reflections on Trusting Trust, shows how he designed a clever Trojan Horse for Unix. [Edit: it's unclear that it ever got released into the wild.]
[...]
In summary, it’s probably a good thing, from the perspective of the U.S. military, to discover that their supply chain is allowing counterfeit gear into production. This will help them clean up the supply chain, and will also provide an extra push to consider just how much they trust the sources of their equipment to ship clean software and hardware."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)