| |
|
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
|
|
The Department of Homeland Security is testing a data-mining program
that would attempt to spot terrorists by combing vast amounts of
information about average Americans, such as flight and hotel
reservations. Similar to a Pentagon program killed by Congress in 2003
over concerns about civil liberties, the new program could take effect
as soon as next year. But researchers testing the system are
likely to already have violated privacy laws by reviewing real
information, instead of fake data, according to a source familiar with
a congressional investigation into the $42.5 million program. Bearing the unwieldy name Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization,
Insight and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE), the program is on the
cutting edge of analytical technology that applies mathematical
algorithms to uncover hidden relationships in data. The idea is to
troll a vast sea of information, including audio and visual, and
extract suspicious people, places and other elements based on their
links and behavioral patterns. The privacy violation, described
in a Government Accountability Office report that is due out soon, was
one of three by separate government data mining programs, according to
the GAO. "Undoubtedly there are likely to be more," GAO Comptroller
David M. Walker said in a recent congressional hearing. The
violations involved the government's use of citizens' private
information without proper notification to the public and using the
data for a purpose different than originally envisioned, said the
source, who declined to be identified because the report is not yet
public. The issue lies at the heart of the debate over whether
pattern-based data mining -- or searching for bad guys without a known
suspect -- can succeed without invading people's privacy and violating
their civil liberties.
6:36:54 PM 
|
|
The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing two controversial anti-terror measures that had been adopted after the 11 September attacks.
The measures allowed suspects to be detained without charge for three days and could compel witnesses to testify.
The minority Conservative government accused the opposition Liberals of being soft on terror.
The vote comes days after the Supreme Court revoked a law allowing foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely.
Neither measure has ever been used since they were brought in by the then ruling Liberals after the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.
To allay human rights concerns, the measures were given a five-year limit and expire on 1 March.
6:32:01 PM
|
|
Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws.
Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws
that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws
included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel
witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the
Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the
minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on
terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells
in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it
was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with
terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same
conclusion." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
6:28:09 PM
|
|
Clubs will also now be required to have security cameras at their
entrances and exits. Outside monitors could also be installed at clubs
in frequent trouble with the law.
The New York Civil Liberties Union have said some of the proposals
violate privacy, but the bill's sponsors have said they are just trying
to keep club patrons safe.
6:06:21 PM
|
|
Action Alert - Support the FAIR USE Act! Reps. Rick Boucher and John Doolittle's FAIR USE Act [PDF] would remove some of the entertainment industry's most draconian anti-innovation weapons and chip away at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) broad restrictions on fair use. Take action now and tell Congress to help restore balance in copyright now.
Technology companies play a game of Russian roulette whenever they create products with both infringing and non-infringing uses. Current "secondary liability" standards don't provide enough certainty, and if innovators guess wrong, they can be hit with statutory damages as high as $30,000 per work infringed. When it comes to mass-market products like the iPod or TiVo, damages could run into the trillions of dollars -- more than enough to bankrupt anyone from the smallest start-ups to the biggest companies. Unlike in other areas, the private assets of corporate officers, directors and investors are not shielded from liability in copyright cases.
The FAIR USE Act would eliminate statutory damages for secondary liability and allow innovators to make more reasonable business decisions about manageable levels of legal risk. Meanwhile, copyright owners could still get injunctions and actual damages for harm suffered, putting them in no worse a position than civil litigants in most other areas.
The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's "Betamax doctrine" as it pertains to hardware devices, making clear that manufacturers cannot be held liable based on the design of technologies with substantial non-infringing uses.
Finally, the bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses. The FAIR Use Act adds 12 exemptions, including the ability to circumvent for classic fair use purposes like news reporting, research, commentary, and criticism.
Broader DMCA and copyright reform remains absolutely necessary, but if passed this bill would be a big first step in the right direction. Tell your representatives to support it now.
For more information, read the bill here, and check out this EFF article from last year discussing statutory damages and proposing their elimination in secondary liability cases. [EFF: Deep Links]
6:02:50 PM
|
|
Verizon Wireless said Monday that it has won a permanent injunction
against a company it accused of sending text message spam, a
significant step in keeping the unsolicited messages off cell phones.
In the judgment, Specialized Programming and Marketing and its
owner, Charles Henderson, are prohibited from sending text message spam
to Verizon Wireless customers. They are also required to pay damages in
excess of $200,000. Verizon Wireless filed the suit after nearly
100,000 text messages were sent to Verizon Wireless customers offering
them a prize vacation for a cruise to the Bahamas.
Initially, Verizon Wireless filed the suit against Passport Holidays
in October 2005 in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J. The mobile
operator won a permanent injunction against Passport Holidays in
February 2006 to stop the company from sending further spam. Passport
also was required to pay $10,000 in damages to Verizon Wireless.
During litigation, Passport Holidays named Specialized Programming
and Marketing and Henderson as the company and individual that actually
sent the spam that formed the basis for the suit. In February 2006,
Verizon Wireless filed an amended complaint naming Specialized
Programming and Marketing and Henderson. This latest decision brings
the case to a conclusion, Verizon Wireless said.
5:43:47 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Paul Hardwick.
Last update: 3/4/07; 8:50:04 AM.
|
|
|
