Looks like Derek Slater is off the hook with Harvard for posting the Diebold memos on the web. He's just grateful he had John Slater on his side. Slater himself says,

"I wholeheartedly support Derek in his
assertion of a fair use defense in this matter
for three reasons. First, I think it is
inappropriate to use the copyright law, and
particularly the DMCA's (17 USC Section
512), as a means to stifle political speech of
this sort. Second, I think that every
university has a responsibility to factor in its
academic role, as well as its role as an
Internet Service Provider under certain United
States laws such as the DMCA, when forced
to take up a matter of this sort and when
determining how to respond when its students
are accused in this regrettable manner.
Finally, I am convinced that Derek has a
strong fair use defense and that he ought to be
supported in his assertion of that defense."

Congratulations to Siva Vaidhayanathan, whose latest book, The Anarchist in the Library, is now hitting the printing presses and will be available in the Spring of 2004. I highly recommend his earlier book, Copyrights and Copywrongs, which provides a lovely accessible story of the history of development of copyright law in the US. It was the first time I really appreciated how influential Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) was in the process.

The Guardian actually include some mathematics in an article about ID cards here, to demonstrate reliability problems with biometric schemes. Nice overview and includes a discussion about the UK government's plans to share database information across government departments.

"Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, says that governments will find it hard to resist linking data, for example, to tackle obesity by monitoring attendance at leisure centres. "It gives government so many more ways of interfering in people's day-to-day lives," he says. "They say we're not building a big central database. But they don't need to." A series of linked databases will do the job just as well. "

Findlaw issue a reminder that the EU have decided to set up an Internet Security Agency.

Some Republicans are signing up to support the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003, which would make paper trails compulsory. They join about 70 Democrats currently support the bill. This, surely, has got to be a cross party issue? At least the Demoncrats and Republicans in Fairfax county seem to see it like that. The Republicans in that case were first off the starting blocks in initiating a complaint about irregularites in the electronic voting. Donna, as usual, has some really interesting material and links on the e-voting controversy and in particular the EFF and students case complaining about Diebold's use of the DMCA to quash online exposure of their embarrassing internal memos. Diebold are now claiming that even publishing parts of the memos constitutes copyright infringement. This is no-brainer territory for me as far as democracy is concerned but things are different in lawyerland.

A judge in Argentina has used the data protection laws as a basis for issuing what is believed to be the country's first injunction to stop a spammer sending unwanted emails.

Bruce Schneier includes an email from Ton van der Putte in his latest CRYPTO-GRAM, November 15, 2003. In September 2000 van der Putte and colleague Jeroen Keuning published a paper, Biometrical Fingerprint Recognition: Don't Get Your Fingers Burnt, on the drawbacks of biometric identification, specifically verification based on fingerprints.

Van der Putte and Keuning say is is now possible to make a dummy finger that will fool a fingerprint reader in 10 to 15 minutes, with materials available at most DIY stores. They also say:

"So it is our opinion, that as long as the manufacturers of fingerprint equipment do not solve the live detection problem (i.e. detect the difference between a live finger and a dummy), biometric fingerprint sensors should not be used in combination with identity cards, or in medium to high security applications. In fact, we even believe that identity cards with fingerprint biometrics are in fact weaker than cards without it. The following two examples may illustrate this statement.

1. Suppose, because of the fingerprint check, there is no longer visual identification by an official or a controller. When the fingerprint matches with the template in the card then access is granted if it is a valid card (not on the blacklist). In that case someone who's own card is on the blacklist, can buy a valid identity card with matching dummy fingerprint (only 15 minutes work) and still get access without anyone noticing this.

2. Another example: Suppose there still is visual identification and only in case of doubt--the look-alike problem with identity cards--the fingerprint will be checked. When the photo on the identity card and
the person do not really match and the official asks for fingerprint verification, most likely the positive result of the fingerprint scan will prevail. That is, the "OK" from the technical fingerprint system will remove any (legitimate) doubt.

It is our opinion that especially the combination of identity cards and biometric fingerprint sensors results in risks of which not many people are aware."

Can somebody please draw this to the attention of our own Home Secretary, who apparently threatened to resign if he didn't get his own way on the national identity card. Just keep repeating the soundbite - biometrics may be unique but they are not secret.

Andrew Cringely is worried about identity theft because his mail was stolen when he was away recently. He's right to be worried.

Preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva in December are not running too smoothly, according to a Reuters report in Forbes magazine.

"Developed and developing nations
were wide apart on Saturday on
managing the Internet and closing
the digital divide between rich and
poor at the end of what was meant
as a final meeting before a world
summit."

The latest version of the draft declaration of principles for the summit is available on the web.

From Dan Gilmore, "Via Greg Aharonian's Internet Patent News Service comes the news that AT&T has received this patent for -- I kid you not -- a way to defeat anti-spam measures:

"A system and method for circumventing schemes that use duplication detection to
detect and block unsolicited e-mail (spam.) An address on a list is assigned to one
of m sublists, where m is an integer that is greater than one. A set of m different
messages are created. A different message from the set of m different messages is
sent to the addresses on each sublist. In this way, spam countermeasures based
upon duplicate detection schemes are foiled."

Right. And the other thing being foiled is Internet users' desire to be free of the spam plague. AT&T
should be ashamed of itself."

Derek Slater is feeling a little cynical about the ART act I mentioned yesterday.

The copyright wars are progressing as proponents of expansion introduce a new bill to the Senate in the US.

The "Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act" proposes jailing p2p file sharers for three years for having a single copyright infringing file on their computer. Also someone would get jailed for five years for using a camcorder in a cinema.

"In addition to the prison term, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act would punish making such movies available on a public "computer network" as a federal felony with a fine of up to $250,000. It would not require that any copyright infringement actually take place...

Peter Jaszi, a professor at American University who teaches copyright law, said he is "deeply troubled" by the wording of the draft legislation, because it does not say any actual copyright infringement must take place--only that the file be available in a shared folder, Web site or FTP (File Transfer Protocol) site. "It says we don't care if anybody got any of these copies," Jaszi said. "We're going to conclude that at least 10 people did. It relieves the copyright owner of having to prove that any violation
of their rights actually happened.""

I predict a round of vigorous public debate between the usual protagonists in the US. I can't really see "ART" getting too far off the ground.

Altnet says P2P spies violate patent rights. P2P fighting back?

Some of the big media organisations are picking up the story on electronic voting problems in the US.

Patent office to re-examine Eolas patent. That could have an impact on the $520 million award against Microsoft.

On the other side of the government's IT fence, they have now launched a new UK Central Government Web Archive. Good for them.

Nick Cohen produced his usual diatribe against the government at the weekend. Just conveniently, this time it was on the subject of ID cards.

I heard the UK home secretary, David Blunkett, speaking about ID cards on BBC Radio 4 yesterday morning. He said biometric ID cards made identity theft "impossible." This is false.

Biometrics can be an authentication mechanism - something I have that demonstrates I am who I say am e.g. a fingerprint, iris scan or my dna. Biometrics won't be forgotten (which gives them an advantage over passwords) but they can be lost - that iris scan or fingerprint is no good if the eye or finger gets badly damaged in an accident.

Somebody should also tell Mr Blunkett, that although biometrics may be unique they are not secret. We leave fingerprints and bits of dead skin all over the place for example. What he also seems to forget is the database containing all the details of this biometric information need to be secure and accurate. If somebody steals your biometric e.g a fingerprint from a coffee mug or by copying or changing the database with the biometric details...

Just don't be kidded into thinking identity theft is "impossible" with biometric systems.

James Grimmelmann at Lawmeme tells us "McDonald's is upset about the appearance of "McJob" in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary."

Some of my students have just been marveling at the Mike Batt dispute with the late John Cage's estate over copyright on silence. Cage once composed a piece comprised entirely of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Batt included a minute's silence in a CD and Cage's estate sued for copyright infringement. I understand that Batt's mother asked him if he knew which part of the silence they were claiming he infringed.

One of the comments on the McDonalds complaint is supportive of the fast food retailer because the dictionary is diluting their trademark.

Looked at by ordinary people these disputes look completely daft. But experts live in a different world to the rest of us when dealing with their narrow professional specialist area. There is an internal logic to the developments within the particular field e.g. in this case intellectual property. But is does not create a good impression for those looking on from outside the expert priesthood.

Copyright and intellectual property more generally are an amazing construct, enabling authors and creators to benefit from their creative endeavors. But the intellectual property specialists do little service to the promotion of the general understanding of their field by engaging in spats like those mentioned above.

And given the likely impact of the rules on intellectual property on the future of the information society, that does no one any favours. The intellectual property priesthood need more translators explaining their subject area in ways ordinary people can understand. That will facilitate informed public debate on developments in an area that is going to affect all of us whether we understand it or not.

Declan McCullagh's piece on the FCC's introduction of the broadcast flag, "Are PCs next in Hollywood piracy battle?", has been published by the New York Times.

"What FCC officials did not stress, but their regulations do, is that the product definitions are broad enough to cover not just TV
tuners but also PCs. "This necessarily includes PC and (information technology) products that are used for off-air DTV (digital
television) reception," the FCC's order says...

Will Rodger, director of public policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), said the rule is
troubling because it means the FCC is encroaching on a technological sector that has flourished in the absence of regulation."

As Ernest Miller said earlier in the week,

"Prof. Ed Felten makes a good point on Freedom to Tinker about the FCC's justifications for the Broadcast Flag - they are incoherent (The Broadcast Flag, and Threat Model Confusion). The justifications for the broadcast flag and the effect of the broadcast flag are tangentially related at best. In the words of the FCC, "the broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass distribution over the Internet." Additionally, according to the FCC, "consumers’ ability to make digital copies will not be affected."

Whether or not you agree with the justifications is not the question. The issue is whether the means the FCC has chosen are suited to the justifications. As Felten points out, they are not. The action the FCC has taken will not significantly, if at all, "prevent mass distribution over the Internet." It will, however, impede the average consumer's ability to make copies for friends and family.

A New Zealand anti war activist has apparently been charged with mis-using the phone under the Telecommunications Act for sending an email to the US embassy protesting the war in Iraq.

"Mr Hubbard last night said he had been charged under the Telecommunications Act and had been told by police they would seize information from his computer under the Counter-Terrorism Act."

I doubt this story is as simple as this report makes it appear.

For T182 students familiar with the Diebold electronic voting machine controversy, Ernest Miller engages in a timely discussion of bias in online sources, just as we've started looking at the issue in the course.

Someone is criticising Mary Hodder at bIPlog at the University of Berkeley, California, for her short note about the EFF and Stanford suing Diebold.

Miller, JD Lasica of the Online Journalism Review and Mary Hodder herself mount a robust defense of the posting.

Which of the following tactics do you think the complainant engages in -

appealing to emotion and prejudice;

extrapolating opposition argument to the absurd and then refuting the absurd;

using sarcasm, innuendo, denigration and other forms of humour to belittle opponents;

grouping all opponents under one label, a category easy to dismiss;

using jargon to confuse;

non sequitur - drawing an illogical conclusion from sound data.

(There are, of course many more but let's stick with these for the moment).

He does make a couple of interesting points:

1. Although the case was fast-tracked the judge refused to issue an injunction preventing Diebold from continuing to send out their cease and desist letters until the hearing.

2. A question - do rules of "fairness and accuracy" apply in the "blogosphere" - are blogs more or less reliable sources than traditional media?

Hodder, Lasica and Miller all have comments on the latter.

It seems that some Penn State University students are about as impressed as Derek Slater when it comes to the deal with Napster.