Domain name outlaw faces 20 years

From NetworkWorld: "A Las Vegas man faces about 20 years in prison today after he agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud for impersonating an intellectual property lawyer and threatening lawsuits against the owners of Internet domain names."

US travellor data to be kept for 15 years not 40

From the AP:

"Rejecting a wave of criticisms, the U.S. government has agreed to only modest changes in the computerized system that assesses whether each American who travels abroad poses a terrorist threat.

The Homeland Security Department decided to keep the risk assessments for 15 years instead of 40 years and no longer will share them with federal, state and local officials who are deciding whether a person gets a job, a security clearance, a license to do business or a government contract.

Nevertheless, travelers still will not be allowed to see their actual assessments or the reasons for them. Federal agents still will be looking at an array of information about international travelers - Americans and foreigners; this includes even meal choices, the names of traveling companions and the number of hotel beds requested."

OpenID

Simon Willison gave an interesting keynote presentation on OpenID at Pycon UK 2007 in recent days. His slides are available at SlideShare.

In addition Kim Cameron and Ben Laurie had a really interesting debate about open ID and CardSpace over the summer, which I must have another look at.

Entertaining physics

I highly recommend Professor Walter Lewin's lectures on physics available at MIT's opencourseware.

The work of a wonderful teacher available at the click of a mouse.

ECHR to look at keeping DNA of innocents

The Independent reports this morning that judges in the European Court of Human Rights are to consider the retention by police of the DNA of suspects who subsequently acquitted or not charged of a crime.

"Police could lose the power to keep DNA samples taken from suspects who have been cleared of any wrongdoing, in a landmark case which is to be decided by the highest court in Europe.

A ruling against the British Government could lead to the destruction of tens of thousands of DNA and fingerprint materials as well as deal a severe blow to any plans to create a universal genetic database.

The challenge at the European Court of Human Rights is being brought by a teenager, known as S, who was arrested and charged with attempted robbery aged 11 in 2001, and Michael Marper, from Sheffield, who was arrested on harassment charges, aged 38, in the same year. Both were cleared and have no criminal records...

European judges in Strasbourg believe the issue is so important that they have decided to fast-track the case to go before the grand chamber, where all the Strasbourg justices will sit to determine the matter.

The decision has been taken because the court decided that the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights or because its resolution might have a result inconsistent with a previous judgment of the court."

In the light of previous calls by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other members of the Nu Labour government and just last week a similar call from a respected law lord for the expansion of the DNA database, it is good to see the ECHR stepping in to assess the substantive issues. It's a case to be watched very closely, though whatever the outcome it will, sadly, be hyped up as a massive defeat or victory for the government.

More Apple digital locks

One of the reasons I've never been a big Apple fan is their heavy-handed proprietary approach to their technologies. I tell the story in my book about Apple's spat in 2004 with RealNetworks, when the Real folks made it possible for iPod owners to buy music from the Real music store in addition to the sole existing prior source, iTunes. Apple went nuts accusing Real of hacking into the iPod and threatening all kinds of lawsuits. Then they upgraded their software so that iPod owners couldn't buy songs from Real. Real upgraded theirs and so the tit for tat went on.

Fast forward three years and the same story is being played out on iPhone ringtones. Fred von Lohmann has a lovely succinct description of the latest idiocy.

"Apple's new product announcements this week may have laid the foundation for the next round of DMCA lawsuits. It sure looks like Apple is using the DMCA to block competition, rather than stop "piracy."

First suspect: ringtones on the iPhone. Just before the Apple announcement of its new ringtone offerings (that'll be 99 extra cents, please), Ambrosia had announced iToner, a new piece of software that allows iPhone owners to use any MP3 or AAC file as a ringtone. In other words, no more need to pay Apple for the privilege.

Apple's response? Well, apparently the latest "upgrade" to Apple's iTunes software (v. 7.4) auto-magically erases any unapproved ringtones that iToner installs...

Second suspect: locking the iPod video output. iLounge reports that the latest generation of iPods refuses to output video to cables, docks, and accessories that lack an Apple "authentication chip." If this is true, then it may represent an attempt by Apple to use the DMCA to limit competition and interoperability, in a manner reminiscent of Lexmark's printer toner cartridge lock-out chip or the infamous DMCA garage-door opener case...

Notice that neither of these Apple "lock-in" measures has any obvious relationship with preventing "piracy." As we've been saying for years, this appears to be the real legacy of the DMCA -- even as the music industry abandons DRM as an anti-piracy measure, Apple deploys it as an anti-competition measure."

Update: Derek Slater's thoughts on same are worth reading. As are those at the ipodminusitunes blog

Federal Judge in blistering critique of Congress over Patriot Act

From the AP via Findlaw: Federal judge strikes down part of Patriot Act in blistering criticism of Congress

"A federal judge struck down a key part of America's top anti-terror laws in a ruling that defended judicial oversight and bashed Congress for passing a law that makes possible "far-reaching invasions of liberty."...

He said Congress, in the original USA Patriot Act and less so in a 2005 revision, had essentially tried to legislate how the judiciary must review challenges to the law. If done to other bills, they ultimately could all "be styled to make the validation of the law foolproof."...

Regarding the national security letters, he said, Congress crossed its boundaries so dramatically that to let the law stand might turn an innocent legislative step into "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

He said the ruling does not mean the FBI must obtain the approval of a court prior to ordering records be turned over, but rather must justify to a court the need for secrecy if the orders will last longer than a reasonable and brief period of time."

Update: Jack Balkan's thoughts on the decision as ever are well worth perusing.

Little Britain, Catherine Tate, the lawyers and the evangelicals

Apparently an evangelical church publishing group has been using catchphrases from popular BBC shows on it's recruitment posters and m'learned friends are not amused. The church group has withdrawn the posters. Naturally the Sun headlines the story: Little Brit catchphrases stolen The Star goes with How Very Dare You. And the rest of the pack don't seem to have picked up on it.

ISO panel reject proposed Microsoft standard

Here's the NYT report on the ISO panel rejecting Microsoft's efforts to have its open document format adopted as an international standard.

BMA call to halt e-record roll out

From William Heath: BMA call to halt e-record roll out

"An open letter to government from the doctor's association wants a stop to the roll out of summary care records until a review has taken place

The British Medical Association's (BMA) chair, Dr Hamish Meldrum, has called for a halt to further implementation of the NHS summary care record, beyond six early adopter sites, until an independent review has been completed.

In a letter to Ben Bradshaw, the minister responsible for the National Programme for IT (NPfIT), Dr Meldrum says that at a recent BMA meeting, doctors from primary and secondary care expressed their frustration with the programme and want a public enquiry to address problems."

Good for them.

Law Lord wants everyone on the DNA database

One of the Law Lords, Lord Justice Sedley, has called for everyone's DNA to be put on the national DNA database because the current collection of data is discriminatory.

"The present database in England and Wales holds details of 4m people who are guilty or cleared of a crime.

Lord Justice Sedley said this was indefensible and biased against ethnic minorities, and it would be fairer to include everyone, guilty or innocent."

This is the standard 'treat everyone the equally by treating them all badly' argument and it is disappointing to hear it from someone who should know better. The usual Schneier needles in data haystacks warnings naturally apply.

The Biometric Dilemma

From Kim Cameron:

"Vision researcher Terrence E. Boult has identified what he calls the “Biometric dilemma” - the more we use biometrics the more likely they will be compromised and hence become useless for security.

This is a hugely important observation - the necessary starting point for all thinking about biometrics. I’d even call it a law.

Terrence was responding to a piece by Sean Convery that picked up on my post about reversing biometric templates. Terrence went on to call our attention to more recent work, including some that details the reversibility of fingerprint templates."

Legal or Not, IPhone Hacks Might Spur Revolution

Jennifer Granick writing in Wired has offered her perpective on the iPhone "hacking" controversy i.e. techies breaking through the proprietary digital locks to enable iPhone owners to use their expensive gadgets with providers other than AT&T.

"The iPhone's fantastic user interface is inspiring another consumer-electronics revolution: making people care about cell-phone unlocking. After my clients' long, successful battle before the U.S. Copyright Office to exempt phone unlocking from the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, have iPhone customers won the freedom to tinker with their cool new handsets? The answer, unfortunately, is that we still don't know.

In the past week, New Jersey teenager George Hotz published instructions for unlocking the iPhone. Meanwhile an anonymous group called iPhoneSimFree plans to sell its software-only solution, and a company called UniquePhones is set to sell a remote unlocking service. These offers generated buzz from iPhone owners, who are restricted -- by technological locks built into the GSM-based handset -- to using the AT&T wireless network. On Monday, some buzz circulated from AT&T lawyers trying to shut down the distribution of unlocking software. Does AT&T have a leg to stand on?...

We won an exemption in November of 2006 that allows you to circumvent digital locks (.pdf) in order to access "computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

Despite this success, the exemption does not offer blanket protection for phone unlocking, though the practice might be legal for other reasons. The problem is that the exemption protects unlockers, but it doesn't apply to those entities that distribute unlocking tools or provide unlocking services to others."

Ed Felten has some thoughts on the controversy too.

"Can AT&T cook up a legal theory justifying a ban on iPhone unlocking? I’ll leave that question to the lawyers. It seems to me, though, that regardless of what the law does say, it ought to say that iPhone unlocking is fine. For starters, the law should hesitate to micromanage what people do with the devices they own. If you want to run different software on your phone, or if you want to use one cell provider rather than another, why should the government interfere?

I’ll grant that AT&T would prefer that you buy their service. Exxon would prefer that you be required to buy gasoline from them, but the government (rightly) doesn’t try to stop you from filling up elsewhere. The question is not what benefits AT&T or Exxon, but what benefits society as a whole. And the strong presumption is that letting the free market operate — letting customers decide which product to buy — is the best and most efficient policy."

With Gonzales gone is it time to probe the war on terror policies

Edward Lazarus thinks that, now that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, it is time for the US to have a wide public debate about the Bush administration's policies relating to the 'war on terror'.

"It's been inevitable for quite a while, and now it has finally happened: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has abandoned his bedraggled rear-guard action and resigned his post. It is not hard to sum up Gonzales's legacy at the Department of Justice: He leaves behind a shattered agency - a corps of loyal career public servants who were forced to choose between opting out of their life's work, and watching helplessly as Gonzales (and other top officials) consistently chose loyalty to the President and partisan advantage over professionalism and even-handed enforcement of the law...

Now that Gonzales has joined the merry ranks of Bushies abruptly deciding to attend more closely to family concerns... There are three obvious items on the agenda: the pending investigations, the goal of re-invigorating DOJ, and the debate over the questionable legal theories underlying the Bush Administration's approach to the war on terror (policies that DOJ, under both Ashcroft and Gonzales, rationalized and implemented). All of these issues are important, but none, in my view, is as important at this particular moment than the last."

Polaris sues Amazon, Google and others

From the NYT:

"Maybe they haven’t sued the whole Internet, just a good chunk of it. Polaris IP, a patent firm, has filed a patent infringement suit against Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com, A9.com, Borders, AOL and IAC/InterActiveCorp, which owns Ask.com.

Polaris is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,411,947, for an “Automatic Message Interpretation and Routing System.” It is not entirely clear what the patent covers or how Google, Yahoo, et. al. infringed on it. "

Microsoft, Yahoo! deal with Chinese

Microsoft and Yahoo have signed a deal with the Chinese government to encourage "the big name web players to record the identities of bloggers and censor content. So says Reporters Without Borders, an organization that fights for journalistic rights across the globe."

Dan Rather on evoting

Dan Rather recently broadcast a programme on evoting. Worth watching - a nice accessible introduction to the problems with electronic voting. He opens with the Sarsota county debacle in Florida in 2006, the results of which are still being challenged by the losing candidate, Christine Jennings.

Convicted Bittorrent admin must use Windows

A linux user convicted and jailed for criminal copyright offences via BitTorrent is, following his release from jail, obliged to install Windows so that the probation department can monitor his computer use. The probation depatment's monitoring software is incompatible with linux. Thanks to Becky Hogge at ORG for the pointer.

SCO case finally at an end?

From Groklaw:

"Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Hot off the presses: Judge Dale Kimball has issued a 102-page ruling [PDF] on the numerous summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell. Here it is as text. Here is what matters most:

[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.

That's Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". That's the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses.

If anyone can please put this into text for us, that'd be simply great. [We have it done.] There is a filing in IBM also, and here's the docket entry:

08/10/2007 1077 - NOTICE OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8-10-07. (sih) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

Judge Kimball asks the parties, in view of the ruling in Novell, which "significantly impacts the claims and counterclaims asserted" in IBM, to prepare by August 31 "a statement of its view of the status of this case and, more specifically, the effect of the SCO v. Novell decision on each of the pending motions."

All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

But we must say thank you to Novell and especially to its legal team, Morrison & Foerster, for the incredible work they have done. I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through, but they won what matters most, and it's been a plum pleasin' pleasure watching you work. The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work and thanks go to Novell for being willing to see this through."

Freeman Dyson's Heretical Toughts on Global Warming

Freeman Dyson's Heretical Toughts on Global Warming

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

He's questioning the use and abuse and belief in models not global warming per se.

"In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed..."