Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Lauren Weinstein's Blog: How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged Greetings. A story is making the rounds right now regarding FBI use of cell phones as remote bugs. I originally wrote about this concept in my PRIVACY Forum in 1999 ("Cell Phones Become Instant Bugs!") so the issue is real, but we still need to bring the current saga back down to earth. This discussion doesn't only relate to "legal" bugs but also to the use of such techniques by illegal clandestine operations, and applies to physically unmodified cell phone hardware (not phones that might have had separate, specialized bugs physically installed within them by third parties). There is no magic in cell phones. From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off. It is true that many phones have an alarm feature that permits them to "wake up" from a seemingly "off" state. However, this is not a universal functionality, even in advanced phones such as PDA cell phones, which now often have a "totally off" mode available as well. It is also true that some phones can be remotely programmed by the carrier to mask or otherwise change their display and other behaviors in ways that could be used to fool the unwary user. However, this level of remote programmability is another feature that is not universal, though most modern cell phones can be easily programmed with the correct tools if you have physical access to the phones, even briefly. But remember -- no magic! When cell phones are transmitting -- even as bugs -- certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice. 10:43:04 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged How To Tell If Your Cell Phone Is Bugged.   Lauren Weinstein writes to point us to his essay on the realities of using an idle cell phone as a bug, as a recent story indicated the FBI may have done in a Mafia case. --- From the essay:  "There is no magic in cell phones. From a transmitting standpoint, they are either on or off... It is also true that some phones can be remotely programmed by the carrier to mask or otherwise change their display and other behaviors in ways that could be used to fool the unwary user. However, this level of remote programmability is another feature that is not universal... But remember -- no magic! When cell phones are transmitting -- even as bugs -- certain things are going to happen every time that the alert phone user can often notice." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 10:18:13 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January. RIAA v. Barker Showdown Slated for January.  NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Kenneth M. Karas has set Friday, January 26, 2007, at 2:15 P.M., as the oral argument date for Tenise Barker's motion to dismiss complaint, in Elektra v. Barker, in federal court in Manhattan. The argument will take place at the newer federal court house, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in courtroom 21D on the 21st Floor. Proceedings are open to the public. This is the case in which amicus briefs were filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the U.S. Internet Industry Association (USIIA) and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and a Statement of Interest was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ). Defendant Tenise Barker moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that neither downloading nor uploading had been alleged sufficiently to give her notice of what she was being accused of, and on the further ground that merely "making available for distribution" was not a copyright infringement at all. The RIAA and MPAA argued that merely "making available" was indeed a copyright infringement. Defendant, CCIA, and USIIA argued that it was not. EFF argued that intangible computer network transmissions cannot be "distributions" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. USDJ argued that they can be. Defendant refrained from taking a position on that issue here and here. The DOJ refrained from taking a position on the "making available" argument, indicating that it had never prosecuted anyone for "making available". See page 5, footnote 3." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 10:06:57 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Backdown on draconian laws - smh.com.au Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's copyright reforms are almost certain to become law by January, after significant changes were made to ensure innocent consumers are not criminalised. The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 passed through the Senate on Friday after a number of modifications were made. It will now go back to the House of Representatives for re-approval. Before the amendments to the bill, experts warned that simply owning an iPod, camera phone or a DVD recorder might be enough to land one in jail or lumbered with a large fine. On-the-spot fines of $1320 were also proposed, which would be issued like speeding tickets, even to those who had no idea they were dealing with copyright infringing material. Professor Brian Fitzgerald, head of the Queensland University of Technology's school of law, went as far as saying: "These new provisions have the potential to make everyday Australians in homes and businesses across the country into criminals on a scale that we have not witnessed before." But following an outcry by industry bodies and the public, Mr Ruddock amended the bill. 10:00:25 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Australia Backs Down on Draconian Copyright Laws. Australia Backs Down on Draconian Copyright Laws. AcidAUS writes "The widely-publicized reforms to Australian copyright [~] which would turn iPod, camera phone and DVD recorder owners into criminals [~] have been significantly amended. The amendment bill was passed this past Friday, after the changes were put into place. The Labor and Green parties still have problems with the bill as it exists, but the Labor party (at least) wants to let it go based on the fact that it is 'a million times' better than the original proposed legislation." From the article: "Following an outcry by industry bodies and the public, [Attorney-General Philip] Ruddock amended the bill. 'The Government has listened to the Senate Committee and stakeholders and has improved the effectiveness of the reforms,' Mr Ruddock said in a statement. 'The amended reforms make it clear consumers can transfer the music they own onto devices such as iPods and enable the next wave of technology by allowing people to record a TV or radio program on mobile devices to watch it at a more convenient time.' The amendments also removed on-the-spot fines for some copyright offenses, to ensure they didn't 'unintentionally capture harmless activities of ordinary Australians'." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 9:24:17 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

FT.com - Universal, MySpace set for landmark battle "The content people will say, 'Come on, the search term the person entered was 'David Lettermans Show'. Of course they knew it was copyÂ-righted'," said Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University. Mr Zittrain said that the DMCA probably favoured the user-generated sites but that their case was hardly airtight. "If I had to place a bet, I think they would probably pull it off. But there is plenty of room for a judge to rule on the equities," he said. Content companies could also be bolstered by the Supreme Court's ruling last year against Grokster, an online file-sharing service. In that case, the court found that software and technology companies could be held liable for copyright infringement when customers use their technology to download films and songs. A key part of their ruling was that Grokster and other companies named in the suit had encouraged copyright violations as part of their business strategy to attract users and then sell advertising based on that traffic. Whether a court would conclude that copyright infringement is part of MySpace and other sites' business model or a mere consequence is an open question. In the meantime, there is a good chance that the sides will settle. After threatening to sue earlier this year, Universal ultimately struck a distribution deal with YouTube, the leading internet video site, in which it receives a share of advertising revenue and a licensing fee for its content. It also received equity in the company worth tens of millions of dollars. But in the longer term, it seems likely that both content companies and the software and technology industries will lobby for revisions to the DMCA as they attempt to strengthen their positions. "I think there's a tension between the law as written, and the law as intended," Mr Liebenson said. "The DMCA was enacted in a very different era." 9:19:59 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Universal and MySpace Square Off Over DMCA. Universal and MySpace Square Off Over DMCA. moore.dustin writes "Universal and MySpace look to be on a collision course that could shape the future of media companies and the internet. The article discusses the DMCA's impact on their case, and talks ways in which the law lags behind the realities of technology." From the article: "Yet, as lawyers prepare for battle, they do so on uncertain legal ground. The legislation at the heart of the debate, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was written years before social networking sites such as MySpace even existed. That fact has injected considerable uncertainty into the matter, according to copyright experts, and helps explain why lawyers from both sides are proclaiming that the DMCA, as it is known, is on their side."[Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 9:10:21 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Reuters/Second Life Interview: Warner Music boss Edgar Bronfman SECOND LIFE, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Warner Music Chief Executive Edgar Bronfman sat down in Second Life on Friday for a broad-ranging interview about CopyBot, the balancing act between the content industry's copyrights and the creativity of its customers, and the time he caught his own kids illegally downloading songs. 8:45:24 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Warner Music CEO Admits His Kids "Stole" Music, Didn't Get Sued - Wired Listen Post On the last day of the recent Reuters Media and Marketing Summit in New York, Warner Music Group CEO admitted that he was "fairly certain" that one or more of his seven children had downloaded music without the permission of the copyright owner, which Reuters referred to as stealing. Despite the alleged infringers' proximity to the major label head and his direct awareness of it without the use of ISP subpoenas, somehow no lawsuits were deemed necessary, although Bronfman said that his kids had "suffered the consequences": "I explained to them what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that." So, the children of major label CEOs get a verbal explanation for infringing Warner's sacred copyrights, while everyone else has to worry about getting sued. I totally get it. It's like how if you're a Bush niece who has a rock of crack cocaine fall out of her shoe while in court-ordered rehab for faking a prescription for anxiety medication, you only have to spend a few days in jail. On Reuters 8:40:14 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music. Warner CEO Admits His Kids Stole Music.   IAmTheDave writes  "Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman admitted that he was fairly certain that one or more of his children had downloaded music illegally, but despite this direct admission of guilt, no lawsuits are pending. Surprised? Bronfman insists that, after a stern talking-to, his children have suffered the full consequences of their actions. 'I explained to them what I believe is right, that the principle is that stealing music is stealing music. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a parent is talking to a child. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. I can assure you they no longer do that.' I wonder if all of the people currently being sued/extorted can now just claim that they 'no longer do that.'" [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 8:33:26 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []

Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards? Would You Trust RFID-Enabled ATM Cards? race_k2 asks:  "As a regular Slashdot reader I've followed the development and implementation of RFID devices in many ubiquitous areas such as clothing, passports and even people. Given that our environment is becoming increasingly tagged, often without our knowledge or consent, and can be monitored or hacked by anyone with the proper hardware, skills and motivation, I viewed the recent arrival of two new ATM cards containing RFID chips with skepticism. While this feature may bring the increased convenience of speedy checkouts, it is not something I am completely comfortable using and decided that the safety of my personal data was more important than the ability to buy things quickly. The vulnerable nature of RFID security coupled with recent, though unrelated, reports of a Possible Security Flaw In ATMs make me seriously question whether the marriage of wireless data transfer with personal finance is a wise application of technology."  ---  So race's question basically boils down to: How safe and secure are the RFID chips that are being embedded in debit and credit cards? To add another issue on to the fire: Would you trust RFID technology on your cards? [Slashdot: Your Rights Online] 8:22:16 AM  PermaLink   / trackback []