Tuesday, October 31, 2006

China: We don't censor the Internet. Really | CNET News.com ATHENS, Greece--While many countries block off some Web sites, China has long drawn heightened scrutiny because of the breadth and sophistication of its Internet censorship Which is why it came as a surprise on Tuesday when a Chinese government official claimed at a United Nations summit here that no Net censorship existed at all. The only problem: Few cases of Net censorship are as carefully and publicly documented as the Great Firewall of China. A study by researchers at Harvard Law School found 19,032 Web sites that were inaccessible inside China. A report from a consortium of British, American and Canadian universities concluded: "China's Internet-filtering regime is the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world. Compared to similar efforts in other states, China's filtering regime is pervasive, sophisticated and effective." In fact, Google has cited China's intermittent blocking of Google.com as the primary factor in the company's creation of the Google.cn censored search site. 1:24:18 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

China - We Don't Censor the Internet. China - We Don't Censor the Internet.   kaufmanmoore writes "A Chinese government official at a United Nations summit in Athens on internet governance has claimed that no Net censorship exists at all in China. The article includes an exchange by a Chinese government official and a BBC reporter over the blocking of the BBC in China." ---  From the article: "I don't think we should be using different standards to judge China. In China, we don't have software blocking Internet sites. Sometimes we have trouble accessing them. But that's a different problem. I know that some colleagues listen to the BBC in their offices from the Webcast. And I've heard people say that the BBC is not available in China or that it's blocked. I'm sure I don't know why people say this kind of thing. We do not have restrictions at all." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 1:17:18 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Recording Industry vs The People - Court Refuses to Allow RIAA Access to Defendant's Hard Drive in SONY v. Arellanes; Only Neutral Expert May Examine In SONY v. Arellanes, the Court has refused to allow the RIAA untrammelled access to the defendant's hard drive, holding instead that only a mutually agreeable, neutral computer forensics expert may examine the hard drive, and that the parties must agree on mutually acceptable provisions for confidentiality: October 27, 2006, Order, Restricting Hard Drive Inspection to Inspection By Mutually Agreed Upon Neutral Computer Forensics Expert* Ms. Arellanes is represented by John G. Browning, of Browning & Fleischman, located in Dallas, Texas. * Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation EDITORIAL COMMENT: "This ruling is of great importance, and should be considered a model to be followed in all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations. The chicanery and gamesmanship that is going on behind the scenes with the hard drive report in the UMG v. Lindor case, which my office is handling, demonstrates that it is not safe to permit the RIAA to conduct its own, behind the scenes hard drive analysis by its own so called expert. The SONY v. Arellanes decision balances and protects the rights of both sides in a fair and evenhanded manner, which is usually anathema to the RIAA." -R.B. 1:10:08 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Judge Says RIAA Can't Have Hard Drive. Judge Says RIAA Can't Have Hard Drive.  NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A Texas judge has refused to allow the RIAA untrammelled access to the defendant's hard drive in SONY v. Arellanes. The court ruled that only a mutually agreeable, neutral computer forensics expert may examine the hard drive, at the RIAA's expense, and that the parties must agree on mutually acceptable provisions for confidentiality."  [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 12:58:19 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Surveillance system spots violent behaviour - tech - 26 October 2006 - New Scientist Tech He and Aggarwal developed software that analyses each frame of footage and identifies clusters of pixels matching a primitive model of the human body. It then examines the interplay of different clusters, in order to classify interactions between individuals. Two videos show the system classifying a hug, and then classifying a push (both .avi format). Many interactions can be visually ambiguous, however. A person offering someone a stick of gum or a cigarette can look similar to someone being threatened with a knife, for example. To cope with this, Park and Aggarwal chose to build up a profile for each type of behaviour. Park calls it a "semantic analysis" of the interaction. This means several different factors are considered. For example, when identifying two people shaking hands, their hands must not only be close, but must also move in synchrony. They meticulously coded a description of these key characteristics, which the software searches for when analysing a scene. This allows it to assign a probability that a particular activity is being observed. At the moment, the system has to capture the interaction from side-on to make its evaluation. 12:52:03 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy. Smart Cameras Detect Crime, Erode Privacy.   MattSparkes writes "Smart surveillance systems could identify crimes as they take place, if a computer vision system developed at the University of Texas goes into production. The system is capable of classifying behaviour as friendly or violent. In the past there have been attempts to spot unusual behaviour, but this required subsequent user classification. These new systems may keep us more secure, but is it worth sacrificing our privacy for? And will we see false positives, where police cars screech to a halt beside hugging couples?" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 12:47:44 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

BBC NEWS | UK | Banks facing fines over ID thefts Several leading banks may be facing unlimited fines over allegations that they dumped confidential customer account details in bin bags on streets. The information watchdog, Richard Thomas, told the Times that he had received "highly disturbing evidence". He is investigating alleged lapses by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax, HSBC, Natwest and Post Office, it said. The British Bankers Association said it was normal practice to dispose of confidential information securely. 12:44:13 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

UK Banks Dump Credentials in Bin Bags. UK Banks Dump Credentials in Bin Bags. Plutonite writes "BBC news is reporting that several UK banks face 'unlimited fines' for careless handling of sensitive client information. This apparently came after investigators found account details while rummaging through the trash outside the banks involved. In this age of online banking and related security problems, and in light of this scandal, where can we expect to find the greatest threat of ID theft?" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 12:37:06 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

American Civil Liberties Union : Citing Improvements to Law, ACLU Withdraws Section 215 Case But Vows to Fight Individual Orders DETROIT -- Citing improvements to the law, the American Civil Liberties Union today withdrew a three-year-old lawsuit over Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but said it is prepared to defend individuals who receive demands for information under the provision. Under the original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in October 2001 with virtually no debate, Section 215 radically expanded the FBI's power to demand records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States without any judicial oversight. After the ACLU filed its lawsuit and launched a nationwide campaign to reform the Patriot Act and restore checks and balances, Congress revised the law earlier this year to allow people who receive a demand for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demand in court. "While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis." The new Section 215 provision still presents serious constitutional problems. It gags recipients automatically and authorizes broad demands for information, which the ACLU said is a violation of individuals' free speech rights. Although recipients may now challenge the gag orders, such challenges would be difficult because judges must defer to the FBI's view that secrecy is necessary. The ACLU said it is prepared to offer legal assistance to businesses, organizations or individuals that receive Section 215 orders. 12:33:14 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

ACLU Drops Challenge Over Patriot Act. ACLU Drops Challenge Over Patriot Act. An anonymous reader writes, "The ACLU announced on Friday that they were dropping their case against the US Government over the highly contested section 215 of the Patriot Act. ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson stated: 'While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies. The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis.'"[Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 12:29:38 PM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Airline Passenger Profiling for Profit. Airline Passenger Profiling for Profit. Bruce Schneier discusses an article (subscription required) about a start-up company called Jetera, who plans to combine people[base ']s flight data with their financial & credit data in order to create in-flight personalization as well as pre- and post-flight mailings and other personalized services: Jetera would start with an airline[base ']s information on individual passengers on board a given flight, drawing the name, address, credit card number and loyalty club status from reservations data. Through a process, for which it seeks a patent, the company would match the passenger[base ']s identification data with the mountains of information about him or her available at one of the mammoth credit bureaus, which maintain separately managed marketing as well as credit information. Jetera would tap into the marketing side, showing consumer demographics, purchases, interests, attitudes and the like.Jetera[base ']s data manipulation would shape the entertainment made available to each passenger during a flight. The passenger who subscribes to a do-it-yourself magazine might be offered a video on woodworking. Catalog purchase records would boost some offerings and downplay others. Sports fans, known through their subscriptions, credit card ticket-buying or booster club memberships, would get [base "]The Natural[per thou] instead of [base "]Pretty Woman.[per thou] Privacy is (sort of) dealt with at the end of the article: Jetera sees two legal issues regarding privacy and resolves both in its favor. Nothing Jetera intends to do would violate federal law or airline privacy policies as expressed on their websites. In terms of customer perceptions, Jetera doesn[base ']t intend to abuse anyone[base ']s privacy and will have an [base "]opt-out[per thou] opportunity at the point where passengers make inflight entertainment choices.If an airline wants an opt-out feature at some other point in the process, Jetera will work to provide one, McChesney says. Privacy and customer service will be an issue for each airline, and Jetera will adapt specifically to each. Unbelievable. [michaelzimmer.org] 11:34:43 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Stats Expert: Paperless Voting Spells Disaster in Election 06. Stats Expert: Paperless Voting Spells Disaster in Election 06. Statisticians are trained experts in data collection, so it's worth paying special attention to the American Statistical Association President's timely letter [PDF] about accurately counting votes in the upcoming national election. President Sallie Keller-McNulty warns that, "[W]e can expect between five to twenty federal elections and dozens of local elections to be ... too close to call." "To resolve close elections" and make sure every vote is accurately counted, election officials must be ready to do "real recounts (cross-checking paper records against official tabulations), not just rereading machine totals" and perform "random audits in all localities." We couldn't have said it better ourselves. Tragically, millions of votes will be cast on e-voting machines that lack voter verified paper records, and of those that will be, even fewer will use those records during recounts or audits. As the letter points out, and as has long been made painfully obvious in previous elections, merely rereading machine totals is not a "real recount." The American Statistical Association has offered to provide more information on improving the process of elections. We hope that election officials across the country (as well as legislators) will take them up on the offer. Learn more about how EFF is fighting to protect your right to vote. [EFF: Deep Links] 11:24:52 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

DMCA Subpoenas Should Not Be Abused to Silence Speech. DMCA Subpoenas Should Not Be Abused to Silence Speech. The much maligned Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a copyright holders to unmask an Internet user's identity based on a mere allegation of infringement without filing an actual lawsuit or providing the user any due process. DMCA 512(h) is troubling enough when used in cases of actual infringement, but even more troubling when used to stifle critical speech -- and far worse when the content at issue is about the subpoena-seekers, not by them. Today, EFF announced that it is fighting back against Landmark Education's attempts to abuse DMCA subpoenas to Google Video, YouTube and the Internet Archive to identify people who posted a video documentary critical of the organization. The French documentary, entitled Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (Voyage to the Land of the New Gurus), is not copyrighted by Landmark, but it does contain hidden camera footage from inside the Landmark Forum. To the extent that Landmark has any copyright at all at issue, such limited and transformative use of a copyrighted work for purpose of criticism, commentary, and news reporting is self-evidently fair use. While Landmark may believe that the documentary is unfair (as asserted in its letters), the DMCA is not an appropriate way to identify critics. Landmark's efforts are being challenged on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf. EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena, and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to quash it. The video is also available on the French video site, Daily Motion. It is unclear whether Landmark has sought identity information from Daily Motion. You might recall that EFF helped Verizon successfully limit the scope of DMCA 512(h) when the RIAA attempted to attain the identities of P2P file sharing users. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the provision doesn't apply to content residing on individuals' own computers. But 512(h) still does apply to content on an>even more reasons why substantive reform of this provision is necessary. More information about the Landmark Forum misuse of the DMCA here [EFF: Deep Links] 11:17:57 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Is the DMCA Coming Down Under? New Copyright Bill on Fast-Track in Australia. Is the DMCA Coming Down Under? New Copyright Bill on Fast-Track in Australia. As a result of a Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the U.S. that came into force in 2005, Australia is required to rewrite its current, relatively flexible, technological protection measure law by 1 January 2007, to make it more like the DMCA. A serious policy debate on how to frame a DRM law that does the least damage to consumers, scientific research, technological innovation and competition has been underway in Australia for several years. In February, a landmark Australian parliamentary committee report with consumer and technology-friendly recommendations for Australia's rewrite process also pointed the way for other countries seeking a sensible response to the U.S. effort to export its unbalanced DMCA regime through recent free trade agreements. But many of the insights from that policy debate could be lost if the 219 page Copyright Amendment Bill, currently being fast-tracked through Australia's Parliament, is passed. Apart from rewriting Australia's current TPM law, the Bill would also make a number of sweeping changes to Australian copyright law, including introducing new criminal penalties. After the jump we explain what's in the Bill and what concerned Australians can do. [EFF: Deep Links] 11:15:00 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Fingerprint the expats! FCO plans phase two biometric passport. Fingerprint the expats! FCO plans phase two biometric passport. Cross-Channel loophole to close by 2010 Plans to add fingerprints to UK overseas passports are under way, despite the cost and complexity involved in gathering biometrics from UK citizens across the globe, a parliamentary answer revealed last week. Passports issued by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office are already "biometric", but only in the somewhat minimalist sense required by ICAO - the addition of fingerprints, however, would pull overseas UK residents into the National Identity Register net, closing off a prized but little-known escape route. [The Register - Internet and Law: Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs] 11:06:31 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Code highlights e-passport eavesdropping risk. Code highlights e-passport eavesdropping risk. What RFIDIOt chipped my passport? Researchers have released proof-of-concept code that creates a means to read personal details from next-generation passports outfitted with RFID chips. [The Register - Internet and Law: Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs] 11:03:50 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Florida ballot terminals favor Republicans. Florida ballot terminals favor Republicans. Even when voters don't Florida voters using electronic ballot machines are having persistent problems choosing Democrats in early elections, the Miami Herald reports. [The Register - Internet and Law: Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs] 11:01:54 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Self-Help Group Bullies Net Critics. Self-Help Group Bullies Net Critics. Landmark Forum Violates Constitution and Federal Law by Trying to Chill Speech San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is fighting a controversial self-help group's coordinated, illegal campaign to silence Internet critics. San Francisco-based Landmark Education, known for its Landmark Forum motivational workshops, is trying to suppress an investigative television news piece critical of its methods. Landmark contends that the documentary infringes its copyright in the Forum course, while citing to copyright registration of the Forum leader's manual. Using the alleged copyright violation as a pretext, Landmark subpoenaed three websites hosting the video -- the Internet Archive, Google Video, and YouTube -- seeking the identities of the anonymous uploaders. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a content owner to issue a subpoena for the identity of an alleged infringer without first filing an actual lawsuit. "This is a classic example of using a bogus copyright claim to squelch free speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "To the extent that the documentary uses any Landmark material, that use is clearly non-infringing. Landmark is simply trying to use the streamlined DMCA subpoena process to obtain the identities of its critics." Landmark's efforts are being challenged on multiple fronts. The Internet Archive is fighting its subpoena, and EFF filed official objections on its behalf Friday. Later this week, EFF will also file a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Google Video, on behalf of the anonymous speaker who uploaded the video. Google has advised Landmark that it will not produce the requested information pending a ruling on that motion. YouTube sent notification to the user about its subpoena and is giving the user a reasonable opportunity to move to legally nullify, or "quash," it. "Sharing videos on the web is the latest example of free speech flowering on the Internet," said Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Unfortunately, it is being met by a simultaneous rise in the use of baseless legal claims as an excuse to pierce anonymity and chill speech. This kind of intimidation has to stop." For EFF's objection to the Internet Archive subpoena: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/eff_letter.pdf For more on Landmark's subpoena campaign: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/ Contacts: Corynne McSherry Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation corynne@eff.org Kurt Opsahl Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation kurt@eff.org [EFF: Breaking News] 10:58:06 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Windows Firewall Can Be Disabled. Windows Firewall Can Be Disabled. Published attack code could be used to disable the firewall on some Windows XP-based systems. [PC World: Latest Technology News] 10:55:17 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Tricky New Malware Challenges Security Vendor. Tricky New Malware Challenges Security Vendor. Constantly changing worm has infected hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide. [PC World: Latest Technology News] 10:53:09 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []