It seems that the vote in the French parliament to legalise the private copying of music via P2P file sharing networks happened close to midnight when there were not many members of the House in attendance.
"The French vote needs to go through more steps to become law. It can be overturned if it is debated again and voted down in the lower house. It also needs a vote from the upper house, or the Senate.
The amendment, which is attached to a bill on intellectual property rights, states that ``authors cannot forbid the reproduction of works that are made on any format from an online communications service when they are intended to be used privately'' and not for commercial use."
So it's unlikely to become law.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Have France just legalised P2P music downloading?
An AP report is suggesting that France has legalised music downloading during their efforts to implement the EU copuyright directive. I expect we'll be hearing more about this.
Diebold withdraws from NC bidding process
Following their loss in court, evote machine vendor, Diebold, threatened to withdraw from the bidding process for electronic voting machines in North Carolina. Then the North Carolina Board of Elections agreed to certify Diebold as an approved supplier anyway, despite the companies insistence that it would not hand over the details of how their machines worked. Now Diebold have withdrawn from the bidding process.
"At various stages of this fight, both Diebold and the Board of Elections forcefully and repeatedly argued that voters have no direct interest in election integrity. Instead, the voting equipment certification process – one that merely selects the equipment on which voters will be forced to cast their vote – should be left to the “real” interested parties.
Such myopic sensibilities are not only absurd but dangerous. Too many (though certainly not all) election officials across the country treat the certification process as if the vendors were their clients, deserving of favors and rule bending. Voters – the only constituency that matters in this process – are too often treated like ill-mannered party-crashers when they try to ensure that their interests are being protected."
"At various stages of this fight, both Diebold and the Board of Elections forcefully and repeatedly argued that voters have no direct interest in election integrity. Instead, the voting equipment certification process – one that merely selects the equipment on which voters will be forced to cast their vote – should be left to the “real” interested parties.
Such myopic sensibilities are not only absurd but dangerous. Too many (though certainly not all) election officials across the country treat the certification process as if the vendors were their clients, deserving of favors and rule bending. Voters – the only constituency that matters in this process – are too often treated like ill-mannered party-crashers when they try to ensure that their interests are being protected."
Mobile phone tacking
Mark Rasch has been astounded by the arguments of government lawyers in their recent unsuccessful attempts to get a court to allow law enforcement tracking of suspects through their cell phones:
"the government claimed (with a straight face, no less) that as soon as the cell towers in question determined your location and recorded this fact, these were now "historical" records subject to the lower standard. Thus, according to the government, there is no such thing as "real time" data or even data "in transmission."
As a technical matter, this is likely true. Indeed, I have argued that there is no such thing as interception of packets "in transmission." The packets have to be stopped, copied, and reassembled to be read. Nevertheless, the law makes a distinction between historical data and real time data. That the government would seek to extinguish this distinction in this case does not bode well for the government's position in other cases. The government could then argue that it could listen in on your VOIP calls with nothing more than a subpoena (for which no probable cause is required) because all it is doing is looking at "historical" packets - albeit merely hundredths of a second in the past. This is clearly the opposite of the delicate balance Congress sought to strike. Thus, it appears that the government is seeking to convert all interceptions into seizures of "historical" data, and adopt the lower standards for such data."
"the government claimed (with a straight face, no less) that as soon as the cell towers in question determined your location and recorded this fact, these were now "historical" records subject to the lower standard. Thus, according to the government, there is no such thing as "real time" data or even data "in transmission."
As a technical matter, this is likely true. Indeed, I have argued that there is no such thing as interception of packets "in transmission." The packets have to be stopped, copied, and reassembled to be read. Nevertheless, the law makes a distinction between historical data and real time data. That the government would seek to extinguish this distinction in this case does not bode well for the government's position in other cases. The government could then argue that it could listen in on your VOIP calls with nothing more than a subpoena (for which no probable cause is required) because all it is doing is looking at "historical" packets - albeit merely hundredths of a second in the past. This is clearly the opposite of the delicate balance Congress sought to strike. Thus, it appears that the government is seeking to convert all interceptions into seizures of "historical" data, and adopt the lower standards for such data."
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Ukraine make open access a national priority
The Ukrainian parliament have made open access a national priority, according to Peter Suber. Good for them.
Reagan lawyer critical of Bush
From Ian Brown, Ronald Reagan's associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein has been critical of George Bush on the domestic spying front.
"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."
That's strong language from someone who should be a natural Bush supporter.
"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms."
That's strong language from someone who should be a natural Bush supporter.
Posner on surveillance of US citizens
Judge Richard Posner has weighed into the debate about the surveillance of US citizens with an opinion piece in the Washington Post.
"The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.
The data that make the cut are those that contain clues to possible threats to national security. The only valid ground for forbidding human inspection of such data is fear that they might be used to blackmail or otherwise intimidate the administration's political enemies."
Judge Posner is a man of outstanding intellect and someone I have the highest regard for but he is making a very big assumption here i.e. that the system is so good that the data that get filtered through for human inspection are those that contain clues to possible threats to national security. We know that software filters are terrible.
To the degree that he goes on to argue that the US might need a domestic spy agency like MI5, he may well have a point but it is disappointing to see the judge subscribing to the myth of the magic computer system.
That's the thing about what I'm calling "digital decision making" in my book - when making decisions about regulation and deployment of technology, even smart people make huge, unsustainable jumps in faith in the ability of that technology [which they don't understand] to deliver the solution to complex and often vaguely specified problems (which are more appropriately described as messes), like terrorism. Of course it's more common to say that it can "form part of the solution" but neither stance is defensible. Computers only do what they are programmed to do. If you program garbage in, you'll get garbage out. Justifying the collection of vasts amounts of personal data on everyone, on the basis that a computer system will magically sift that data and spit out clues that will lead to the bad guys, doesn't wash, at least with the technology at its current stage of development.
I'm not sure the kind of clue generating system that Judge Posner seems to assume is currently in operation will ever come about but if it does, that's when you can start getting into a substantive debate regarding the specific point in the data processing that personal privacy might be breached. As always with complex technology, though, the devil will be in the details.
"The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.
The data that make the cut are those that contain clues to possible threats to national security. The only valid ground for forbidding human inspection of such data is fear that they might be used to blackmail or otherwise intimidate the administration's political enemies."
Judge Posner is a man of outstanding intellect and someone I have the highest regard for but he is making a very big assumption here i.e. that the system is so good that the data that get filtered through for human inspection are those that contain clues to possible threats to national security. We know that software filters are terrible.
To the degree that he goes on to argue that the US might need a domestic spy agency like MI5, he may well have a point but it is disappointing to see the judge subscribing to the myth of the magic computer system.
That's the thing about what I'm calling "digital decision making" in my book - when making decisions about regulation and deployment of technology, even smart people make huge, unsustainable jumps in faith in the ability of that technology [which they don't understand] to deliver the solution to complex and often vaguely specified problems (which are more appropriately described as messes), like terrorism. Of course it's more common to say that it can "form part of the solution" but neither stance is defensible. Computers only do what they are programmed to do. If you program garbage in, you'll get garbage out. Justifying the collection of vasts amounts of personal data on everyone, on the basis that a computer system will magically sift that data and spit out clues that will lead to the bad guys, doesn't wash, at least with the technology at its current stage of development.
I'm not sure the kind of clue generating system that Judge Posner seems to assume is currently in operation will ever come about but if it does, that's when you can start getting into a substantive debate regarding the specific point in the data processing that personal privacy might be breached. As always with complex technology, though, the devil will be in the details.
ANPR network to cover UK
Two stories of interest in the Independent this morning. The headline on the front page, accompanied by a large picture of a fuzzy iris is:
You Are Being Watched
And on page two,
Surveillance UK: why this revolution is only the start
They cover the government's plans to turn the national network of CCTV cameras into a national automated number plate recognition network, which will record the whereabouts of every single car on the roads 24/7. No doubt the data will be stored for a number of years (the precise number as yet undetermined) and can be fished for patterns at will. I'm not going to even start on the consequences of false positives and false negatives.
Surprisingly only one sentence in the latter story really irritated me:
"Although the problems of facial recognition by computer are far more formidable than for car number plates, experts believe it is only a matter of time before machines can reliably pull a face out of a crowd of moving people."
Face recognition systems are nowhere near reliably pulling "a face out of a crowd of moving people" and don't be surprised if those so-called "experts" just happen to be the people selling face recognition systems.
As to the £24 million the government are going to spend on ANPR equipment next year, could it be used more effectively on other police resources? Probably. Will it be enough to get the system working nationwide. Almost certainly not.
You Are Being Watched
And on page two,
Surveillance UK: why this revolution is only the start
They cover the government's plans to turn the national network of CCTV cameras into a national automated number plate recognition network, which will record the whereabouts of every single car on the roads 24/7. No doubt the data will be stored for a number of years (the precise number as yet undetermined) and can be fished for patterns at will. I'm not going to even start on the consequences of false positives and false negatives.
Surprisingly only one sentence in the latter story really irritated me:
"Although the problems of facial recognition by computer are far more formidable than for car number plates, experts believe it is only a matter of time before machines can reliably pull a face out of a crowd of moving people."
Face recognition systems are nowhere near reliably pulling "a face out of a crowd of moving people" and don't be surprised if those so-called "experts" just happen to be the people selling face recognition systems.
As to the £24 million the government are going to spend on ANPR equipment next year, could it be used more effectively on other police resources? Probably. Will it be enough to get the system working nationwide. Almost certainly not.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Schneier on unchecked presidential power
Bruce Schneier is seriously critical of president Bush in an opinion piece at the Star Tribune.
"This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law.
This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter."
"This is, fundamentally, why this issue crossed political lines in Congress. If the president can ignore laws regulating surveillance and wiretapping, why is Congress bothering to debate reauthorizing certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Any debate over laws is predicated on the belief that the executive branch will follow the law.
This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter."
Sony and Us computer fraud regulations
Ed Felten continues his insights on the Sony drm story with a consideration of whether the company may have breached US criminal law, in particular, the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is the primary Federal law banning computer intrusions and malware."
Recommended.
Recommended.
The view from inside New Labour Whitehall
William Heath is concerned at the New Labour meme, "We're from the government and we're going to help you" or, put more bluntly:
"The proponents are very articulate...
This is one half of the discussion that isn't taking place anywhere I can see...
I find class-based arguments strikingly unattractive...
I think the notion that human dignity & rights are the exclusive fixation of some middle-class wafflers is one to which history wil be unkind.
Unintrusive state services matter to everyone...
Should we be surprised if the people far-sighted enough to be concerned about the long-term implications of the complicated cross-fertilisation of technology and the work of bureaucracy turn out to be educated people professionally active in IT and trying to apply values to what they do? No. The minicab driver is too busy just now. But he'll care about it when it hits him...
We should examine longer-term the idea that bureaucratic intrusion is offensive only to an introspective group of wafflers and IT suppliers and is of no concern to "real people"."
New Labour was elected on a manifesto that promised personalised services. We're damn well going to deliver personalised services. We're not going to listen to a bunch of unrepresentative whiners. Sorry, but the human dignity implications of e-government were a complete non-issue last election. We can see a bunch of middle-class wafflers who share an irrelevant obsesion with privacy with a few IT suppliers. It's self-referential and introverted, so we're quite entitled to be robustly dismissive. They only ever talk to themselves so they're just not used to trenchant arguments based on reality. Why the hell should we pay any attention to the likes of Kim Cameron, Stefan Brands or closer to home EPG or these cranky NGOs who are only going to say things we dont want to hear? They should stop reading the Guardian, get out more and see what life is like on the local housing estate. Because our progress is not to be impeded; the rules have changed and we have to move forward into a diffrent world.His response is
"The proponents are very articulate...
This is one half of the discussion that isn't taking place anywhere I can see...
I find class-based arguments strikingly unattractive...
I think the notion that human dignity & rights are the exclusive fixation of some middle-class wafflers is one to which history wil be unkind.
Unintrusive state services matter to everyone...
Should we be surprised if the people far-sighted enough to be concerned about the long-term implications of the complicated cross-fertilisation of technology and the work of bureaucracy turn out to be educated people professionally active in IT and trying to apply values to what they do? No. The minicab driver is too busy just now. But he'll care about it when it hits him...
We should examine longer-term the idea that bureaucratic intrusion is offensive only to an introspective group of wafflers and IT suppliers and is of no concern to "real people"."
It's just a piece of paper
I missed this. A couple of weeks ago, President Bush allegedly lost his temper in the Oval Office and said, in response to the suggestion that there was a valid case to be made that some of the provisions in the Patriot act undermine the US Constitution,
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper."
I can certainly imagine presidents getting frustrated with constitutional constraints but I can't imagine many of his predecessors expressing a similar sentiment. The president does, after all, at his/her inauguration, swear faithfully to uphold the constitution.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper."
I can certainly imagine presidents getting frustrated with constitutional constraints but I can't imagine many of his predecessors expressing a similar sentiment. The president does, after all, at his/her inauguration, swear faithfully to uphold the constitution.
The ends justify the lies?
Ian Brown has selected a telling quote from Federal judge John Jones' ruling against the teaching of "intelligent design" as part of the science curriculum in a Pennsylvania school district:
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."
Good night and good luck
Wendy Seltzer says "If you care about politics or media, you owe yourself a viewing of Good Night, And Good Luck, the new film on Edward R. Murrow and his fight to expose Joseph McCarthy. The film, shot in black and white with McCarthy playing himself via old news footage, powerfully captures the horror of McCarthy's witch hunt. Equally important, it reminds us of journalism's power -- and its obligation -- to educate and lead."
Several of Murrow's speeches and broadcasts are apparently included in the film and retain a powerful resonance today.
Several of Murrow's speeches and broadcasts are apparently included in the film and retain a powerful resonance today.
Banned by Google
A small search engine company has accused Google of banning them from using Google. Thanks to John Battelle for the link.
Bush under fire
The Democrats are keeping the pressure on president Bush over the justification for the war in Iraq with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciay Committee Democratic Staff.
The executive summary is damning, as you might expect.
"In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.
There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-president and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws including, (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.
While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct... more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment."
It goes on to say that Bush and Cheney should be censured and that the Justice Department should investigate the legality of their behaviour. So a big part of the Democrats' efforts to regain the White House in 2008 looks likely to be a racking up of the pressure to get Mr Bush impeached. After all, President Clinton was impeached for lying about having extra-marital sex in the Oval Office and the charges they are laying against the president are a fair bit more serious than that. Mr Bush and his allies will be even more focussed, therefore, on retaining control of Congress after the mid term elections because if the Democrats do get a majority, there will almost certainly be an impeachment.
The whole report runs to over 200 pages but the executive summary is well worth a read.
The executive summary is damning, as you might expect.
"In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.
There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-president and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws including, (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.
While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct... more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment."
It goes on to say that Bush and Cheney should be censured and that the Justice Department should investigate the legality of their behaviour. So a big part of the Democrats' efforts to regain the White House in 2008 looks likely to be a racking up of the pressure to get Mr Bush impeached. After all, President Clinton was impeached for lying about having extra-marital sex in the Oval Office and the charges they are laying against the president are a fair bit more serious than that. Mr Bush and his allies will be even more focussed, therefore, on retaining control of Congress after the mid term elections because if the Democrats do get a majority, there will almost certainly be an impeachment.
The whole report runs to over 200 pages but the executive summary is well worth a read.
Football Fanzine fight to print fixtures
An online football fanzine has received cease and desist letters from Data Co "a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright."
French to introduce copyright directive
After lots of posturing and legal action by the EU commission against member states who had not yet implemented the 2001 copyright directive, the French parliament are using an emergency procedure to fast-track their version of the law through.
Apparently it will still allow private copying and be targeted at those who benefit financially from piracy. Assertions along those lines from responsible ministers don't necessarily hold any weight unless we can see the actual details of the bill of course.
Apparently it will still allow private copying and be targeted at those who benefit financially from piracy. Assertions along those lines from responsible ministers don't necessarily hold any weight unless we can see the actual details of the bill of course.
Pokemon scientist threatened with IP suit
From The Trademark Blog,
Nintendo, owner of the Pokemon property, has protested the use of the name POKEMON by scientist Pier Paolo Pandolfi... to refer to the POK erythroid myeloid ontogenic gene in his Nature article "Role of the proto-oncogene Pokemon in cellular transformation and ARF repression."
Pandolfi has now changed the name of the cancer-causing gene from "Pokemon" to Zbtb7.
Nintendo, owner of the Pokemon property, has protested the use of the name POKEMON by scientist Pier Paolo Pandolfi... to refer to the POK erythroid myeloid ontogenic gene in his Nature article "Role of the proto-oncogene Pokemon in cellular transformation and ARF repression."
Pandolfi has now changed the name of the cancer-causing gene from "Pokemon" to Zbtb7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)