Corporate Watch have produced a report on the proposed UK ID cards system.
"Most of the implementation of the scheme is likely to be done by private companies, some of which have already been meeting and lobbying government. These include companies with previous poor records in outsourced public sector work. Corporate Watch decided to investigate and bring to public attention which companies have shown interest in the ID cards scheme and (where relevant) their records in public-sector projects. We have also provided a brief overview of some of the opinions of industry and official bodies on the IT procurement process and ID card technologies."
The 16 page report is available online. Companies featured include
Atos Origin, (criticised by the BMA over the security of their NHS e-booking system, currently running 12 months behind schedule)
BT Global Services (responsible for the phone services system which routed Child Support Agency calls to the wrong offices)
EDS, which has been heavily involved with the Home Office ID cards implementation team (whose huge revenue generating UK government contract have been dogged with controversy e.g. their failed tax credits system)
Iridian Technologies (which holds the only UK patents on iris recognition, so have a guranteed pay day from UK ID cards)
NEC (which dominates the world market in digital fingerprint technologies)
PA Consulting Group, 'the Home Office's "Development Partner" for the ID cards scheme, on a contract likely to be worth at least £19 million over 18 months'
SBS (whose systems were involved in high profile failures at the Passport Agency and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and whose company representatives have described biometric technologies as 'emergent' and 'future technologies' as well as 'well proven'.
Thales (which supplies ID cards to China and Morocco)
Unisys (which supplied an ID card system to Panama and subsequently got sacked over security problems after admitting holding 30000 blank cards
The report goes on to criticise the government's record in IT procurement and their high profile expensive IT disasters. One quote from an IT partner in a prestigious says
"The government has no lawyers who deal with technology procurement. They're fantastic at drafting legislation and I couldn't touch them on planning, but they have no technology expertise. The government is the dream client."
The IT press quote, from Tony Collins at Computer Weekly, is even better:
"[...] too often ministers and suppliers encourage each other to think big: to launch something that is immeasurably more complex than what has gone before, to beat the rest of the world, to do it quickly, but in stages, with as little transparency as possible."
John Lettice is quoted supporting the much criticise contractors:
"Blame the contractor, sure, but (sympathy for EDS), if you go to the contractor with something vague, then continually change your mind as the project goes ahead, your costs will climb, it will be late and it won't work. So I think we should bar ourselves from specifying an ID schene until UK.gov has passed its IT proficiency test."
The report also includes on pages 14 and 15 a table of companies that have shown an interest in the ID card system.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
GPL Version 3 released
The first draft of version 3 of the Free Software Foundation's GPL has been released. Lots of talking points but the most important for me relates to the built in attack on digital rights management and anti-circumvention laws like the DMCA and the EU copyright directive, plus the anti software patent note.
"Preamble...
Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users
to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally
incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users'
freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will
neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions
from which escape is forbidden.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL makes it clear that any patent must
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all...
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share
copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of
this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any
other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute
covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of
distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of
the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
software capable of accessing the same data."
This isn't just an academic issue, since nearly all the big entertainment companies use GNU/linux in at least some of their devices and production/editing processes. [And Internet distribution will almost certainly be via open source enabled server farms.] It would be interesting to hear from some lawyers on this but theoretically this might mean that those companies could be challenged in court for embedding copy protection (drm) in CDs, DVDs and Internet distributed files. Not only would that be a fun case to watch but it would potentially offer an open legal battle on key intellectual property public policy issues. Given the widespread deployment of anti-circumvention laws now, there's no guarantee of the outcome either way; and even if the FSF did win, the likely reaction would be further heavy lobbying for changes in the law to effectively outlaw free and open source software.
"Preamble...
Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables users
to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is fundamentally
incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users'
freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will
neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions
from which escape is forbidden.
Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the special danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL makes it clear that any patent must
be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all...
3. Digital Restrictions Management.
As a free software license, this License intrinsically disfavors
technical attempts to restrict users' freedom to copy, modify, and share
copyrighted works. Each of its provisions shall be interpreted in light of
this specific declaration of the licensor's intent. Regardless of any
other provision of this License, no permission is given to distribute
covered works that illegally invade users' privacy, nor for modes of
distribution that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of
the legal rights granted by this License.
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological protection
measure: that is to say, distribution of a covered work as part of a system
to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least
for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other
software capable of accessing the same data."
This isn't just an academic issue, since nearly all the big entertainment companies use GNU/linux in at least some of their devices and production/editing processes. [And Internet distribution will almost certainly be via open source enabled server farms.] It would be interesting to hear from some lawyers on this but theoretically this might mean that those companies could be challenged in court for embedding copy protection (drm) in CDs, DVDs and Internet distributed files. Not only would that be a fun case to watch but it would potentially offer an open legal battle on key intellectual property public policy issues. Given the widespread deployment of anti-circumvention laws now, there's no guarantee of the outcome either way; and even if the FSF did win, the likely reaction would be further heavy lobbying for changes in the law to effectively outlaw free and open source software.
France rethink copyright bill
Following the unexpected success of a small number of French MPs in voting through an amendment to the French government's bill to implement the EU copyright directive, which would have meant legalising peer to peer music copying, the bill has been withdrawn.
"Set aback by rebellious MPs and an outcry by consumer groups, the French government is reworking a digital copyright protection bill to lighten restrictions on CD- and DVD-copying and mete out smaller penalties to small-time downloaders.
The culture ministry issued a statement Saturday saying the bill was being amended on the orders of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to notably enshrine the right of consumers to make private copies of music and film disks.
It would also make a distinction between people illegally downloading for profit and the estimated eight million individuals in France who occasionally add to their music and movie collections via Internet peer-to-peer sites.
The changes follow the French government's decision to withdraw its original bill from parliament when a small group of MPs from the ruling party and opposition benches managed, in a middle-of-the-night vote, to legalise peer-to-peer file-sharing in December.
That stunning vote, on top of arguments from consumer groups that private users should continue to enjoy the right to make copies of CDs and DVDs for, say, second homes or family members, forced the government rethink."
Thanks again to Michael Geist for the link. I suspect Michael might welcome a solid injection of French values into the Canadian copyright debate.
"Set aback by rebellious MPs and an outcry by consumer groups, the French government is reworking a digital copyright protection bill to lighten restrictions on CD- and DVD-copying and mete out smaller penalties to small-time downloaders.
The culture ministry issued a statement Saturday saying the bill was being amended on the orders of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin to notably enshrine the right of consumers to make private copies of music and film disks.
It would also make a distinction between people illegally downloading for profit and the estimated eight million individuals in France who occasionally add to their music and movie collections via Internet peer-to-peer sites.
The changes follow the French government's decision to withdraw its original bill from parliament when a small group of MPs from the ruling party and opposition benches managed, in a middle-of-the-night vote, to legalise peer-to-peer file-sharing in December.
That stunning vote, on top of arguments from consumer groups that private users should continue to enjoy the right to make copies of CDs and DVDs for, say, second homes or family members, forced the government rethink."
Thanks again to Michael Geist for the link. I suspect Michael might welcome a solid injection of French values into the Canadian copyright debate.
Bertlesmann to back Quaero
It seems Bertelsmann are about to invest in the European search engine Quaero.
AFAIK Quaero remains just a project in computer labs at the moment but I spy a few fundamental difficulties with their url, http://www.thomson.net/EN/Home/Quaero/. Firstly it is not exactly obvious. Secondly you need a thompson.net username and password to get at it. Thirdly someone already owns the Quaero top level domain, http://www.quaero.com/, a marketing consultancy which describes itself as a "marketing and technology services company that provides unparalleled value to firms looking to improve the effectiveness of their comprehensive marketing efforts and marketing technology investments."
AFAIK Quaero remains just a project in computer labs at the moment but I spy a few fundamental difficulties with their url, http://www.thomson.net/EN/Home/Quaero/. Firstly it is not exactly obvious. Secondly you need a thompson.net username and password to get at it. Thirdly someone already owns the Quaero top level domain, http://www.quaero.com/, a marketing consultancy which describes itself as a "marketing and technology services company that provides unparalleled value to firms looking to improve the effectiveness of their comprehensive marketing efforts and marketing technology investments."
Lifting the lid on backroom deals in copyright
Michael Geist has been lifting the lid on Canadian lobbyists' success in the copyright arena.
"The mushrooming controversy over Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte's coming Thursday night fundraiser hosted by the entertainment lobby is a powerful illustration of the public's growing interest in copyright issues as well as the emerging influence of Internet weblogs or blogs. The incident has opened the door to a new public discussion of the links between lobbying, campaign contributions, elected officials and the making of copyright law and policy that promises to continue well beyond next Monday's election..
The Bulte controversy has highlighted the close connection between Canada' s Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage and the largely U.S.-backed copyright lobby with many copyright groups contributing hundreds of dollars exclusively to the Parkdale-High Park MP. Beyond the Bulte story, lobbyist registration records, campaign finance returns, and documents newly obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal a process that is badly skewed toward lobby interests and in serious need of reform...
The copyright lobby also meets regularly with government officials. A document obtained under the Access to Information Act titled “List of meetings between Canadian Heritage' s Copyright Policy Branch and its stakeholders in copyright reform” indicates that in the nearly thirteen months between April 1, 2004 and April 25, 2005, government and policy officials from that department met or held teleconferences 15 times with Access Copyright, 14 times with music collectives, seven times with CRIA, and five times with publisher associations. Meanwhile, the document lists only one meeting with education groups, two meetings with public interest groups, and two meetings with technology groups.
In fact, the close connection between the copyright lobby and government can even extend to contracts. Last year, the Canadian Publishers' Council, whose executive director is one of the hosts of the Bulte fundraiser, obtained a $20,000 contract for a “copyright awareness initiative” whose goal was to develop an Internet-based social awareness campaign to “engage young people in a new conversation about copyright.”
The cumulative effect of the lobbyist influence has left many stakeholders concerned that there is little room for the interests of the public and the balanced approach supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Copyright policy must be both fair and seen to be fair. It is time for a new approach that starts with a commitment from all MPs who accept funds from the copyright lobby not to serve in Ministerial positions or on legislative committees that involve copyright policy."
"The mushrooming controversy over Toronto MP Sarmite Bulte's coming Thursday night fundraiser hosted by the entertainment lobby is a powerful illustration of the public's growing interest in copyright issues as well as the emerging influence of Internet weblogs or blogs. The incident has opened the door to a new public discussion of the links between lobbying, campaign contributions, elected officials and the making of copyright law and policy that promises to continue well beyond next Monday's election..
The Bulte controversy has highlighted the close connection between Canada' s Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage and the largely U.S.-backed copyright lobby with many copyright groups contributing hundreds of dollars exclusively to the Parkdale-High Park MP. Beyond the Bulte story, lobbyist registration records, campaign finance returns, and documents newly obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal a process that is badly skewed toward lobby interests and in serious need of reform...
The copyright lobby also meets regularly with government officials. A document obtained under the Access to Information Act titled “List of meetings between Canadian Heritage' s Copyright Policy Branch and its stakeholders in copyright reform” indicates that in the nearly thirteen months between April 1, 2004 and April 25, 2005, government and policy officials from that department met or held teleconferences 15 times with Access Copyright, 14 times with music collectives, seven times with CRIA, and five times with publisher associations. Meanwhile, the document lists only one meeting with education groups, two meetings with public interest groups, and two meetings with technology groups.
In fact, the close connection between the copyright lobby and government can even extend to contracts. Last year, the Canadian Publishers' Council, whose executive director is one of the hosts of the Bulte fundraiser, obtained a $20,000 contract for a “copyright awareness initiative” whose goal was to develop an Internet-based social awareness campaign to “engage young people in a new conversation about copyright.”
The cumulative effect of the lobbyist influence has left many stakeholders concerned that there is little room for the interests of the public and the balanced approach supported by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Copyright policy must be both fair and seen to be fair. It is time for a new approach that starts with a commitment from all MPs who accept funds from the copyright lobby not to serve in Ministerial positions or on legislative committees that involve copyright policy."
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Knopf on more excess r copyright rhetoric
Knopf on more excess r copyright rhetoric in Canada.
“Piracy” is a word that should be used carefully and properly and applied only to harmful intentional commercial scale infringement. It is wholly inappropriate to apply the word to teenagers who engage in downloading music that they love, or their grandmothers who provide them internet access on occasion, or to law professors who have the temerity to believe in the inconvenient fact (as seen by the corporate and collective point of view) that there are also users’ rights in copyright law.
Overuse of the rhetoric of piracy is at best crying wolf. At worst, it is crude propaganda that has fooled some of the politicians some of the time in Canada and elsewhere but won’t work in the long run.
If there is going to be a meaningful debate about this in Canada, the Creators' Copyright Coalition and their friends should apply their creative and communication skills in a less hysteric and more constructive manner.
Ben Franklin's warning
Martin Garbus in the Huffington Post reckons We Cannot Say Ben Franklin Did Not Warn Us
Felton, the analog hole bill and the new SDMI
Ed Felton's been writing lucidly and informatively about the analog hole bill again.
Bush statement with torture bill
The NYT are not too impressed with President Bush at the moment it seems as they are also running a story saying the president issues quiet parallel statements with bills he has signed into law, saying he can interpret them as he sees fit.
" Congress late last year passed what became known as the torture amendment, sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to ban cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. Mr. Bush at first opposed the amendment, but gave in when it became clear that it had overwhelming support from the two parties on Capitol Hill. The president then invited Mr. McCain, his old political nemesis, to the Oval Office to announce that he agreed with him and "to make clear to the world that this government does not torture."
But on Dec. 30, after signing the legislation into law with no ceremony at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush issued an accompanying "signing statement" - the 8 p.m. e-mail message - that Democrats and some Republicans say asserted that he could ignore the law if he wished.
Specifically, the statement said that the administration would interpret the amendment "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power."
Mr. McCain issued a strong statement rejecting Mr. Bush's assertion, even as the White House has repeatedly declined to say what the president meant. "
" Congress late last year passed what became known as the torture amendment, sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to ban cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. Mr. Bush at first opposed the amendment, but gave in when it became clear that it had overwhelming support from the two parties on Capitol Hill. The president then invited Mr. McCain, his old political nemesis, to the Oval Office to announce that he agreed with him and "to make clear to the world that this government does not torture."
But on Dec. 30, after signing the legislation into law with no ceremony at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush issued an accompanying "signing statement" - the 8 p.m. e-mail message - that Democrats and some Republicans say asserted that he could ignore the law if he wished.
Specifically, the statement said that the administration would interpret the amendment "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power."
Mr. McCain issued a strong statement rejecting Mr. Bush's assertion, even as the White House has repeatedly declined to say what the president meant. "
Bush authorised spying led to dead ends
From the New York Times,
2 In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said."
2 In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.
As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said."
Software patent fairtytale
There is a terrific article on Groklaw by a UK lawyer, Cristian Miceli, covering the story of developments on the software patents front in the EU and the UK in 2005. The legalese up front on the UK cases can is a bit heavy but mostly the story is very well told. Sample:
"When you wish to conduct an independent survey about whether it is good to be catholic, if you are only going to ask the pope and his cardinals, you cannot call the results objective.
We have asked the pope and cardinals of the patent system and accepted their version of events not only on what the CII Directive intended to achieve but, somewhat more subtly, whether software patents are desirable. We, as lawyers, should recognise the conflict of interest but let me instead use the words of a more enlightened cardinal:
“most patent lawyers -- most lawyers in general - …. unthinkingly spout pro-patent slogans. That is because most patent and IP and even other attorneys with an opinion on this issue mindlessly parrot the simpleminded economics with which they were propagandized in law school. Virtually every patent lawyer will reiterate the mantra that "we need patents to stimulate innovation," as if they have given deep and careful thought to this…..It does not take a genius to figure out why most patent lawyers are in favor of the patent system; and it is not because they have really studied the matter and dispassionately concluded that society is better off with a patent system -- it is because they don't want to see the system that pays the mortgage for them eroded or abolished.”2
This article is not meant to be a sermon, what I have tried to do is independently review the issues at stake and leave it the reader to make his/her own analysis. However, if I am to preach about objectivity, then that must start with me the author. Do I believe in intellectual property rights (“IPR”)? Yes I do and, as part of this, I see the benefits that patents can potentially bring in certain sectors. However, as one law professor recently commented, “good policy does not just consist of ‘more rights'; it consists of maintaining a balance between the realm of property and the realm of the public domain”.3
I do not work nor have any financial interest in an open source software company nor am I getting paid, whether directly or indirectly, for writing this article or for expressing a particular view point. In fact, rather than standing to gain financially by encouraging the reader to adopt the views that I am espousing, I am more likely to have put a damper on any prospect of having a lucrative in-house position overlooking the M4 motorway (perhaps a good thing).
The CII Directive: the fairy tale
Myth 1: the European Competiveness Council, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, as the white knights of European democracy and with our (European) best interests at heart, gallantly proposed a directive which, in its several drafts, sought to do nothing more than to codify and unify our existing laws on patents (commendable) in the area of computer related inventions whilst at the same time not extending the scope of patentability.
It is a wonderful fairy tale. Unfortunately for the knights, they were robbed by a bunch of European peasants, knocked to the ground once, got to their feet as if nothing had happened (and didn’t change their noble rhetoric) and proceeded to get knocked down for the second time, this time by more peasants and, if not a little belatedly, one or two noble men.
Those who are not interested in an objective debate about the benefit of software patents for the software industry want you to believe that the fairy tale is true and that MEPs for the last couple of years have been misled by a group of hairy open source hippies hell bent on preventing such unification of existing laws.
Upon what basis do they claim so valiantly that the CII Directive was not seeking to change the law (i.e., extend patentability) and that the hairy open source hippies, or peasants in my (or their) little fairy tale, got it wrong? Well, to put it bluntly, because these bastions of European democracy told us that this was the case. In other words, the pronouncements of these institutions is rightly to be treated as divine against the heretical statements of the open source community who should be burnt at the stake for having the audacity to question the knights’ intentions and disrupt the march of software patents across the world. The history of the passage of the CII Directive through the EU institutions exposes this myth.
If the actual words of the various drafts were so clear, why did the EU Parliament propose substantial amendments at the first reading, why did the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) vote overwhelmingly to restart the legislative process and, finally, why was a directive rejected for the first time in European history at its second reading? Was this purely the result of MEPs being misled by a misguided open source software community? To continue to make such a claim in the light of the history of the CII Directive is asking us to accept that MEPs are incapable of undertaking a simple analysis of the patent system or making independent judgements. It also discredits one of the greatest grass roots movements in recent European political history.
European laws should be made for the benefit of Europe and its citizens. This may sound like common sense but for many arguing for software patents there seems to be an assumption that EU institutions should be working in the interests of the large IT corporations (the minority companies in the IT industry – see below). Laws should only be passed if they serve the public interest. For this to happen, or at least have a chance of happening, there needs to be a democratic and accountable legislature deciding these laws.
The Commission and Council of Ministers are not democratic; they are not elected by the public or directly accountable. The course of the CII Directive through the EU institutions is marked with several unsavoury incidents where the Commission and the Council of Ministers failed to give heed to the overwhelmingly clear wishes of the European Parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. These failures, aside from the substantive debate, have left many question marks on the lack of democracy and transparency within the Commission and the Council of Ministers. As lawyers, why are we failing to comment on these shenanigans? Why was the Commission and Council of Ministers so keen to push through their draft –- referred to ironically as the 'Common Position” but which could never be described as having anything in “common” with the views of the EU Parliament -- at all costs?
Had it not been for the undemocratic insistence of the EU Commission and Council of Ministers being so well documented by the anti-software patent lobby, coupled with the now notoriously unethical lobbying tactics of the pro-software patent lobby (reported to the EU anti-fraud commissioner by European lobby watchdogs4 -- I have never seen more dirty noblemen and such clean peasants), I and many others would have been none the wiser as to how far short the actual text of the proposed CII Directive fell from the boldly stated aims."
Not a fan of software patents, the Commission or the Council of Ministers by the sound of it.
"When you wish to conduct an independent survey about whether it is good to be catholic, if you are only going to ask the pope and his cardinals, you cannot call the results objective.
We have asked the pope and cardinals of the patent system and accepted their version of events not only on what the CII Directive intended to achieve but, somewhat more subtly, whether software patents are desirable. We, as lawyers, should recognise the conflict of interest but let me instead use the words of a more enlightened cardinal:
“most patent lawyers -- most lawyers in general - …. unthinkingly spout pro-patent slogans. That is because most patent and IP and even other attorneys with an opinion on this issue mindlessly parrot the simpleminded economics with which they were propagandized in law school. Virtually every patent lawyer will reiterate the mantra that "we need patents to stimulate innovation," as if they have given deep and careful thought to this…..It does not take a genius to figure out why most patent lawyers are in favor of the patent system; and it is not because they have really studied the matter and dispassionately concluded that society is better off with a patent system -- it is because they don't want to see the system that pays the mortgage for them eroded or abolished.”2
This article is not meant to be a sermon, what I have tried to do is independently review the issues at stake and leave it the reader to make his/her own analysis. However, if I am to preach about objectivity, then that must start with me the author. Do I believe in intellectual property rights (“IPR”)? Yes I do and, as part of this, I see the benefits that patents can potentially bring in certain sectors. However, as one law professor recently commented, “good policy does not just consist of ‘more rights'; it consists of maintaining a balance between the realm of property and the realm of the public domain”.3
I do not work nor have any financial interest in an open source software company nor am I getting paid, whether directly or indirectly, for writing this article or for expressing a particular view point. In fact, rather than standing to gain financially by encouraging the reader to adopt the views that I am espousing, I am more likely to have put a damper on any prospect of having a lucrative in-house position overlooking the M4 motorway (perhaps a good thing).
The CII Directive: the fairy tale
Myth 1: the European Competiveness Council, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, as the white knights of European democracy and with our (European) best interests at heart, gallantly proposed a directive which, in its several drafts, sought to do nothing more than to codify and unify our existing laws on patents (commendable) in the area of computer related inventions whilst at the same time not extending the scope of patentability.
It is a wonderful fairy tale. Unfortunately for the knights, they were robbed by a bunch of European peasants, knocked to the ground once, got to their feet as if nothing had happened (and didn’t change their noble rhetoric) and proceeded to get knocked down for the second time, this time by more peasants and, if not a little belatedly, one or two noble men.
Those who are not interested in an objective debate about the benefit of software patents for the software industry want you to believe that the fairy tale is true and that MEPs for the last couple of years have been misled by a group of hairy open source hippies hell bent on preventing such unification of existing laws.
Upon what basis do they claim so valiantly that the CII Directive was not seeking to change the law (i.e., extend patentability) and that the hairy open source hippies, or peasants in my (or their) little fairy tale, got it wrong? Well, to put it bluntly, because these bastions of European democracy told us that this was the case. In other words, the pronouncements of these institutions is rightly to be treated as divine against the heretical statements of the open source community who should be burnt at the stake for having the audacity to question the knights’ intentions and disrupt the march of software patents across the world. The history of the passage of the CII Directive through the EU institutions exposes this myth.
If the actual words of the various drafts were so clear, why did the EU Parliament propose substantial amendments at the first reading, why did the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) vote overwhelmingly to restart the legislative process and, finally, why was a directive rejected for the first time in European history at its second reading? Was this purely the result of MEPs being misled by a misguided open source software community? To continue to make such a claim in the light of the history of the CII Directive is asking us to accept that MEPs are incapable of undertaking a simple analysis of the patent system or making independent judgements. It also discredits one of the greatest grass roots movements in recent European political history.
European laws should be made for the benefit of Europe and its citizens. This may sound like common sense but for many arguing for software patents there seems to be an assumption that EU institutions should be working in the interests of the large IT corporations (the minority companies in the IT industry – see below). Laws should only be passed if they serve the public interest. For this to happen, or at least have a chance of happening, there needs to be a democratic and accountable legislature deciding these laws.
The Commission and Council of Ministers are not democratic; they are not elected by the public or directly accountable. The course of the CII Directive through the EU institutions is marked with several unsavoury incidents where the Commission and the Council of Ministers failed to give heed to the overwhelmingly clear wishes of the European Parliament, the only democratically elected EU institution. These failures, aside from the substantive debate, have left many question marks on the lack of democracy and transparency within the Commission and the Council of Ministers. As lawyers, why are we failing to comment on these shenanigans? Why was the Commission and Council of Ministers so keen to push through their draft –- referred to ironically as the 'Common Position” but which could never be described as having anything in “common” with the views of the EU Parliament -- at all costs?
Had it not been for the undemocratic insistence of the EU Commission and Council of Ministers being so well documented by the anti-software patent lobby, coupled with the now notoriously unethical lobbying tactics of the pro-software patent lobby (reported to the EU anti-fraud commissioner by European lobby watchdogs4 -- I have never seen more dirty noblemen and such clean peasants), I and many others would have been none the wiser as to how far short the actual text of the proposed CII Directive fell from the boldly stated aims."
Not a fan of software patents, the Commission or the Council of Ministers by the sound of it.
Good day for NO2ID campaigners
It was a good day yesterday for those campaigning against ID cards as the scheme suffered in the House of Lords. The Upper House has attached an amendment demanding detailed government costings before it will be allowed to go forward. The Home Office has been adamant that they will not release detailed costings because it will interfere with their ability to get a good deal for taxpayers when putting the scheme out to tender.
Andrew Phillips of the Liberal democrats has a nice article in the Guardian and there are various other reports in the usual places.
Andrew Phillips of the Liberal democrats has a nice article in the Guardian and there are various other reports in the usual places.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Larry Lessig's Google book search presention
For those of you who, like me, are having problems getting BitTorrent working on your machines at the moment, here's a version of Larry Lessig's recent presentation on the Google book search project.
Excellent.
Excellent.
Martin Luther King tapes copyrighted
The Washinton Post yesterday had the annual story about the degree of control Martin Luther King's family have over his speeches and lament the fact that many schoolchildren will never get to experience the power of his speeches:
"It is the time of year when students are taught about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, so passionately delivered that his call for freedom changed U.S. history. Once heard, it is impossible to forget.
But many students won't get to hear it -- and most who do will hear only snippets, educators and historians said. And that, they said, is affecting the legacy of the preeminent civil rights leader, whose life will be honored tomorrow with an annual federal holiday...
All of King's speeches and papers are owned by his family, which has gone to court several times since the 1990s to protect its copyright; King obtained rights to his most famous speech a month after he gave it. Now, those who want to hear or use the speech in its entirety must buy a copy sanctioned by the King family, which receives the proceeds...
Joseph Beck, an attorney for the King family and an expert in intellectual property rights, said, "The King family has always supported providing access to the speech and to the video for educational purchases and encourages interested persons to contact the King Center in Atlanta." According to the family's Web site, videotapes and audiotapes of the speech can be purchased for $10, but one copy often is not enough for an entire school, and many schools don't know what materials are available.
Many schools use the text -- often taken in violation of the copyright from the Internet. The King family, however, wants teachers to use the speech and has not pursued legal action against educators"
"It is the time of year when students are taught about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, so passionately delivered that his call for freedom changed U.S. history. Once heard, it is impossible to forget.
But many students won't get to hear it -- and most who do will hear only snippets, educators and historians said. And that, they said, is affecting the legacy of the preeminent civil rights leader, whose life will be honored tomorrow with an annual federal holiday...
All of King's speeches and papers are owned by his family, which has gone to court several times since the 1990s to protect its copyright; King obtained rights to his most famous speech a month after he gave it. Now, those who want to hear or use the speech in its entirety must buy a copy sanctioned by the King family, which receives the proceeds...
Joseph Beck, an attorney for the King family and an expert in intellectual property rights, said, "The King family has always supported providing access to the speech and to the video for educational purchases and encourages interested persons to contact the King Center in Atlanta." According to the family's Web site, videotapes and audiotapes of the speech can be purchased for $10, but one copy often is not enough for an entire school, and many schools don't know what materials are available.
Many schools use the text -- often taken in violation of the copyright from the Internet. The King family, however, wants teachers to use the speech and has not pursued legal action against educators"
LSE Identity Project Report
The London School of Economics has published their latest Identity Project Status Report. It's 63 pages long and full of sensible analysis and questions.
Director of the LSE, Howard Davis, says in his introduction to the report that in spite of his surprise at the vitriolic attacks of the government over their first ID card report last year, the LSE stand by the integrity of their researchers engaged in a genuine attempt to produce an informed analysis of the scheme. He rounds off nicely
"We believe the government's proposals can only benefit from informed and independent scrutiny of the sort this work attempts to produce. I hope the government can receive this latest contribution in that spirit and eschew the emotive language with which they responded to the first effort. The authors are not politically biased, or "mad" - at least no more so than academic researchers normally are!"
The press release accompanying the latest report reads:
"To what extent does the legislation place a requirement on government departments to adopt the ID provisions...
To what extent is integration with the private sector a necessary requirement...
What criteria will be used to determine which levels of NIR verification (e.g. online, biometric) will be made available to an organisation? How will their use of NIR checks be verified and audited, and at what frequency...
To what extent and in what form will direct charging to customers apply for NIP checking by organisations...
Will direct charging by the private sector be capped...
How will organisations conducting NIR checks be verified and audited...
How will liability and non-liability be determined both for NIR checks and transactions where NIR checks are not conducted...
How will local verification against cards be used? In what circumstances and using what technology...
Will there be a requirement that biomentrics tehnology used for checking and verification will be of the same technical quality as the registration technology...
Will biomtrics be stored on the ID card, and if so what form wil this take (has, image etc.)...
What security standards will apply to verification checking, transmission of data, and data storage...
What advice has been obtained by government relating to the legality of the proposals...
What are the current integration cost and cost/benefit estimates from each government department relating to the scheme...
Precisely how will personal information be updated on the system, and what options are being considered to expedite this procedure...
To what extent will the system be reliant on chip and pin architecture...
what security measures are being considered in the event that the system will be based on chip and pin...
What limits, if any, are envisioned on use of the card by the private sector...
Precisely how can ID cards and the NIR be used for CRB checks, and how can the individual be integrated into the process at an administrative level...
What backup systems and processes will be instituted to ensure that denial of service does not occur in the event of technology or system failure...
Who owns and/or controls biometric data...
Will the identity number be visible...
Will local verification of ID cards be subject to oversight and audit, and if so, how...
How will organisations determine whether a person is required to be registered on the NIR...
How will government monitor the performance of IC checks within the private sector (failure of biometric technology, failure to match, failure of local card verification etc.)..."
These are all basic design, use, security and contingency questions of the kind that you need to make of any planned big information system. That there are so many of them at this stage of the process tells its own story. The concluding remarks are clinically damning:
"At the outset the LSE Identity Project supported the implementation of an identity scheme in principle" [given government attacks many people are surprised when they learn that] but expressed significant concerns regarding the Home Office proposal. In the light of the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts that have emerged, serious unanswered concerns that remain, poject dynamics that are dysfunctional and potential outcomes that may be harmful to the public interest we can no longer support even the principle of an identity scheme owned and operated by the Home Office.
Despite all this, however, the policy has changed hardly at all since it was first proposed three years ago. It still involves a highly centralised system. It still involves numbersou biometric technologies. Its primary purposed remain unsubstantiated. Its benefits remain unclear and its costs opaque. The scheme's own advisers are worried about time slippage and the underestimation of risks. Prospective users of the scheme are unwilling to state publicly the benefits they expect from use of the system.
Perhaps most alarming in all this is that the scheme is about to become central to the Government's strategy for IT...
the Governmentis saying it must rethink how IT is used across government, so long as it revolves around what the Home Office is offering...
Many of the perceived flaws in the scheme are a result of the Home Office's continued resistance to both listening and to adhering to traditional processes and procedures of policy deliberation. The proposed scheme is overly burdensome, dangerously centralised, and is designed only to meet the goals of the Home Office: a vast register of biometric data that will be used for policing purposes.
A more open and federated model is required for an identity scheme that will provide gains for e-government, promote access to government services, and generate trust...
We recommend that another department be made responsible for establishing an identity infrastructure for the UK...
The Treasury has extensive experience in complex IT systems...
We therefore com to the inescapable conclusion that the ID card scheme in the UK should be taken forward by the Treasury.
Identity management may well be "an idea whose time has come". But as with any such idea, there are a multiplicity of choices to be made, and directions to choose. After three years the Government remains on the wrong path."
Director of the LSE, Howard Davis, says in his introduction to the report that in spite of his surprise at the vitriolic attacks of the government over their first ID card report last year, the LSE stand by the integrity of their researchers engaged in a genuine attempt to produce an informed analysis of the scheme. He rounds off nicely
"We believe the government's proposals can only benefit from informed and independent scrutiny of the sort this work attempts to produce. I hope the government can receive this latest contribution in that spirit and eschew the emotive language with which they responded to the first effort. The authors are not politically biased, or "mad" - at least no more so than academic researchers normally are!"
The press release accompanying the latest report reads:
The London School of Economics (LSE) today publishes the second report of its controversial ‘Identity Project’. The first report from the project [pdf 5.5 MB] was published in June 2005.The "unanswered questions" alone, listed in Section III demonstrate a grasp that these researchers have of the scheme which contrasts sharply with the Observer piece I mentioned earlier.
Today's report levels criticism at the government over the secrecy of the ID planning process, conflicting statements made by the Home Office and a disregard for Parliament's right to consider important costs and facts related to the scheme.
The report recommends that planning for the ID card be removed from the Home Office and given to Treasury. The report's authors argue that the Home Office is not the appropriate department to deliver or operate the scheme. ‘In light of the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts that have emerged, serious unanswered concerns that remain, project dynamics that are dysfunctional and potential outcomes that may be harmful to the public interest we can now no longer support even the principle of an identity scheme owned and operated by the Home Office.’ the report says.
The report observes: ‘Dozens of questions about the scheme's architecture, goals, feasibility, stakeholder engagement and outcomes remain unanswered. These questions are outlined in this report. The security of the scheme remains unstable, as are the technical arrangements for the proposal. The performance of biometric technology is increasingly questionable. We continue to contest the legality of the scheme. The financial arrangements for the proposals are almost entirely secret, raising important questions of constitutional significance.’
For these reasons, the LSE team has declined to publish further costings for the scheme. In his introduction to the report LSE's Director, Sir Howard Davies observed: ‘As this second report shows, the Government have not been very forthcoming in providing details of their proposals. The LSE team stands by the cost estimates outlined in its first report, but changes to the policy made by the Home Office make it difficult now to produce a definitive assessment of the total cost. Other government departments, if they wish to adopt the ID scheme, may opt in at a later date. Any estimates made of the cost of the current proposals may therefore significantly underestimate the total cost of the scheme in the longer term.’
Professor Ian Angell, head of LSE's Department of Information Systems said: ‘We don't know what to believe any more. Contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the Home Office make a mockery of any pretence that this scheme is based on serious reasoning.’
Dr Edgar Whitley, reader in information systems at LSE said: ‘We have been surprised at how little consistent or reliable information exists about the government's proposals. Claims are routinely made for the scheme and then just as quickly are abandoned or contradicted.’
"To what extent does the legislation place a requirement on government departments to adopt the ID provisions...
To what extent is integration with the private sector a necessary requirement...
What criteria will be used to determine which levels of NIR verification (e.g. online, biometric) will be made available to an organisation? How will their use of NIR checks be verified and audited, and at what frequency...
To what extent and in what form will direct charging to customers apply for NIP checking by organisations...
Will direct charging by the private sector be capped...
How will organisations conducting NIR checks be verified and audited...
How will liability and non-liability be determined both for NIR checks and transactions where NIR checks are not conducted...
How will local verification against cards be used? In what circumstances and using what technology...
Will there be a requirement that biomentrics tehnology used for checking and verification will be of the same technical quality as the registration technology...
Will biomtrics be stored on the ID card, and if so what form wil this take (has, image etc.)...
What security standards will apply to verification checking, transmission of data, and data storage...
What advice has been obtained by government relating to the legality of the proposals...
What are the current integration cost and cost/benefit estimates from each government department relating to the scheme...
Precisely how will personal information be updated on the system, and what options are being considered to expedite this procedure...
To what extent will the system be reliant on chip and pin architecture...
what security measures are being considered in the event that the system will be based on chip and pin...
What limits, if any, are envisioned on use of the card by the private sector...
Precisely how can ID cards and the NIR be used for CRB checks, and how can the individual be integrated into the process at an administrative level...
What backup systems and processes will be instituted to ensure that denial of service does not occur in the event of technology or system failure...
Who owns and/or controls biometric data...
Will the identity number be visible...
Will local verification of ID cards be subject to oversight and audit, and if so, how...
How will organisations determine whether a person is required to be registered on the NIR...
How will government monitor the performance of IC checks within the private sector (failure of biometric technology, failure to match, failure of local card verification etc.)..."
These are all basic design, use, security and contingency questions of the kind that you need to make of any planned big information system. That there are so many of them at this stage of the process tells its own story. The concluding remarks are clinically damning:
"At the outset the LSE Identity Project supported the implementation of an identity scheme in principle" [given government attacks many people are surprised when they learn that] but expressed significant concerns regarding the Home Office proposal. In the light of the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts that have emerged, serious unanswered concerns that remain, poject dynamics that are dysfunctional and potential outcomes that may be harmful to the public interest we can no longer support even the principle of an identity scheme owned and operated by the Home Office.
Despite all this, however, the policy has changed hardly at all since it was first proposed three years ago. It still involves a highly centralised system. It still involves numbersou biometric technologies. Its primary purposed remain unsubstantiated. Its benefits remain unclear and its costs opaque. The scheme's own advisers are worried about time slippage and the underestimation of risks. Prospective users of the scheme are unwilling to state publicly the benefits they expect from use of the system.
Perhaps most alarming in all this is that the scheme is about to become central to the Government's strategy for IT...
the Governmentis saying it must rethink how IT is used across government, so long as it revolves around what the Home Office is offering...
Many of the perceived flaws in the scheme are a result of the Home Office's continued resistance to both listening and to adhering to traditional processes and procedures of policy deliberation. The proposed scheme is overly burdensome, dangerously centralised, and is designed only to meet the goals of the Home Office: a vast register of biometric data that will be used for policing purposes.
A more open and federated model is required for an identity scheme that will provide gains for e-government, promote access to government services, and generate trust...
We recommend that another department be made responsible for establishing an identity infrastructure for the UK...
The Treasury has extensive experience in complex IT systems...
We therefore com to the inescapable conclusion that the ID card scheme in the UK should be taken forward by the Treasury.
Identity management may well be "an idea whose time has come". But as with any such idea, there are a multiplicity of choices to be made, and directions to choose. After three years the Government remains on the wrong path."
Drop the costly ID Card
Yesterday's Observer had a slightly confused leader commentary on the UK ID card system.
It came down plainly against ID cards on cost grounds but included this:
"The government claims that imminent changes to the passport system, foisted on the UK by Europe, make the case for ID cards convincing. This is not so. Yes, there is a need to make the new generation of passports incorporate biometric technology such as fingerprints or iris scans. But this does not justify making it mandatory for everyone to possess a piece of plastic with so many other biometric components."
How is supporting biometrically embedded passports really that different to supporting biometrically embedded ID cards, except in the sense that only those who want to travel abroad need passports? Where do they get the notion that "there is a need" for passports to include fingerprints or iris scans? As for the piece of plastic, if we're using iris scans and fingerprints why do we need a card at all? After all we won't lose our eyes or fingers as quickly as we'll lose the cards.
The leader is just one more example of the amount of confusion about the specific detailed issues thrown up by the proposed ID card system
It came down plainly against ID cards on cost grounds but included this:
"The government claims that imminent changes to the passport system, foisted on the UK by Europe, make the case for ID cards convincing. This is not so. Yes, there is a need to make the new generation of passports incorporate biometric technology such as fingerprints or iris scans. But this does not justify making it mandatory for everyone to possess a piece of plastic with so many other biometric components."
How is supporting biometrically embedded passports really that different to supporting biometrically embedded ID cards, except in the sense that only those who want to travel abroad need passports? Where do they get the notion that "there is a need" for passports to include fingerprints or iris scans? As for the piece of plastic, if we're using iris scans and fingerprints why do we need a card at all? After all we won't lose our eyes or fingers as quickly as we'll lose the cards.
The leader is just one more example of the amount of confusion about the specific detailed issues thrown up by the proposed ID card system
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Appeal Court Judge not keen on software patents
From ZDNet UK "An Appeals Court judge has questioned whether software patents should be granted, and has criticised the US for allowing 'anything under the sun' to be patented.
Sir Robin Jacob, a judge at the Court of Appeal who specialises in intellectual-property (IP) law, has questioned whether patents should be granted for software.
"Do we need patents for computer programs? Where is the evidence for it?" said Lord Justice Jacob, speaking at a seminar for the Society for Computers and Law on Thursday evening in London."
Sir Robin Jacob, a judge at the Court of Appeal who specialises in intellectual-property (IP) law, has questioned whether patents should be granted for software.
"Do we need patents for computer programs? Where is the evidence for it?" said Lord Justice Jacob, speaking at a seminar for the Society for Computers and Law on Thursday evening in London."
New Cryptogram Out
The top two stories in Bruce Schneier's latest Crypto-gram offer two classic lessons in security.
1. When doing business, it is not whether you know someone's ID that counts, it's whether that person can be trusted. So it is accountability that matters.
"In an anonymous commerce system -- where the buyer does
not know who the seller is and vice versa -- it's easy for one to cheat
the other. This cheating, even if only a minority engaged in it, would
quickly erode confidence in the marketplace, and eBay would be out of
business. The auction site's solution was brilliant: a feedback system
that attached an ongoing "reputation" to those anonymous user names,
and made buyers and sellers accountable for their actions."
2. Unless the party who can actually do something about poor security pays the cost of that security getting breached, they have no incentive to do anything about that poor security. Says Schneier:
"According to "The Globe and
Mail":
"Susan Drummond was a customer of Rogers Wireless, a large Canadian
cell phone company. Her phone was cloned while she was on vacation,
and she got a $12,237.60 phone bill (her typical bill was $75). Rogers
maintains that there is nothing to be done, and that Drummond has to pay."
Like all cell phone companies, Rogers has automatic fraud detection
systems that detect this kind of abnormal cell phone usage. They don't
turn the cell phones off, though, because they don't want to annoy
their customers.
"Ms. Hopper [a manager in Roger's security department] said terrorist
groups had identified senior cell phone company officers as perfect
targets, since the company was loath to shut off their phones for
reasons that included inconvenience to busy executives and, of course,
the public-relations debacle that would take place if word got out."
As long as Rogers can get others to pay for the fraud, this makes
perfect sense. Shutting off a phone based on an automatic
fraud-detection system costs the phone company in two ways: people
inconvenienced by false alarms, and bad press. But the major cost of
not shutting off a phone remains an externality: the customer pays for it...
The solution here is obvious: Rogers should not be able to charge its
customers for telephone calls they did not make. Ms. Drummond's phone
was cloned; there is no possible way she could notify Rogers of this
before she saw calls she did not make on her bill. She is also
completely powerless to affect the anti-cloning security in the Rogers
phone system. To make her liable for the fraud is to ensure that the
problem never gets fixed."
It's worth repeating the key point "not shutting off a phone remains an externality: the customer pays for it." As long as someone else pays when security is breached, the phone company has no incentive to deal with the problem.
Mr Blair should be encouraged to meet Mr Schneier.
1. When doing business, it is not whether you know someone's ID that counts, it's whether that person can be trusted. So it is accountability that matters.
"In an anonymous commerce system -- where the buyer does
not know who the seller is and vice versa -- it's easy for one to cheat
the other. This cheating, even if only a minority engaged in it, would
quickly erode confidence in the marketplace, and eBay would be out of
business. The auction site's solution was brilliant: a feedback system
that attached an ongoing "reputation" to those anonymous user names,
and made buyers and sellers accountable for their actions."
2. Unless the party who can actually do something about poor security pays the cost of that security getting breached, they have no incentive to do anything about that poor security. Says Schneier:
"According to "The Globe and
Mail":
"Susan Drummond was a customer of Rogers Wireless, a large Canadian
cell phone company. Her phone was cloned while she was on vacation,
and she got a $12,237.60 phone bill (her typical bill was $75). Rogers
maintains that there is nothing to be done, and that Drummond has to pay."
Like all cell phone companies, Rogers has automatic fraud detection
systems that detect this kind of abnormal cell phone usage. They don't
turn the cell phones off, though, because they don't want to annoy
their customers.
"Ms. Hopper [a manager in Roger's security department] said terrorist
groups had identified senior cell phone company officers as perfect
targets, since the company was loath to shut off their phones for
reasons that included inconvenience to busy executives and, of course,
the public-relations debacle that would take place if word got out."
As long as Rogers can get others to pay for the fraud, this makes
perfect sense. Shutting off a phone based on an automatic
fraud-detection system costs the phone company in two ways: people
inconvenienced by false alarms, and bad press. But the major cost of
not shutting off a phone remains an externality: the customer pays for it...
The solution here is obvious: Rogers should not be able to charge its
customers for telephone calls they did not make. Ms. Drummond's phone
was cloned; there is no possible way she could notify Rogers of this
before she saw calls she did not make on her bill. She is also
completely powerless to affect the anti-cloning security in the Rogers
phone system. To make her liable for the fraud is to ensure that the
problem never gets fixed."
It's worth repeating the key point "not shutting off a phone remains an externality: the customer pays for it." As long as someone else pays when security is breached, the phone company has no incentive to deal with the problem.
Mr Blair should be encouraged to meet Mr Schneier.
Bugging MPs
According to the Independent on Sunday, "Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition"
Francis Eliot says
"Nobody is off limits in the Prime Minister's war on terror. Now he wants to dispose of the 'Wilson Doctrine' and bug his own MPs. But does the state need more power to spy on us?"
I imagine the political cartoonists will be smiling at the opportunities this story provides.
Francis Eliot says
"Nobody is off limits in the Prime Minister's war on terror. Now he wants to dispose of the 'Wilson Doctrine' and bug his own MPs. But does the state need more power to spy on us?"
I imagine the political cartoonists will be smiling at the opportunities this story provides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)