| |
|
Sunday, February 11, 2007
|
|
China Creates Massive Online ID Database.
schwaang writes that while the US continues to hash out concerns over the Real ID Act, which aims to create a national ID by standardizing state driver's licenses, China has already implemented a massive online ID database, which they say will help prevent fraud. --- From the Xinhua English-language site: "Anyone
can now send a text message or visit the country's population
information center's website, to check if the name and the ID number of
a person's identity card match. If they do match the ID card-holder's
picture also appears, said the Ministry, adding that no other
information is available to ensure a citizen's privacy is protected.
Completed at the end of 2006, China's population information database,
the world's largest, contains personal information on 1.3 billion
citizens. Giving public accessing to the database is also designed to
correct mistakes if an individual discovers that their name, number and
picture don't match." [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
11:48:50 PM 
|
|
Two Ways Not To Handle Free Speech.
Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society.
Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by
KD : updated Nick
Gisburne link to new account. [Slashdot: Your Rights Online]
11:43:58 PM
|
|
OTTAWA- Canada's Private Copyright Collective is taking another stab
at introducing levies on digital music players and memory cards.
The charges could add as much as $75 to the price of a new Apple iPod.
The collective, which seeks to compensate artists for unauthorized
copying of their music, said Friday it's taking a new tack after a 2003
Federal Court of Appeals decision rejected the levies.
The court overturned the Copyright Board of Canada's approval of the
charges after protests by a coalition of industry groups that included
retailers Wal-Mart, Staples Business Depot and Future Shop.
The collective had argued the memory inside a digital audio device
such as an iPod is an audio recording medium primarily used to store
music, and therefore should be subject to the Canadian Copyright Act.
The act states an audio recording medium is "a medium regardless of its material form on which a recording can be reproduced."
The court, however, found the memory can't be defined as an audio recording medium.
Now, the group is going after the devices themselves. It says
devices such as the iPod can be classified as a "recording medium" and
should be subject to taxation.
"It is simply a matter of fairness that the creators of content, the
creators of culture actually, should receive some compensation for the
large volume of unauthorized and uncontrollable copying onto these
media," said collective chair Claudette Fortier. "Private copying is a
fact - Canadians do it."
The group is responsible for collecting a levy on blank recording
media and distributing the money to those entitled to royalties.
In other words, every time a Canadian buys a blank CD, or audio
cassette today a portion of the cost is sent to artists all over the
world such as Kid Rock, Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton.
In its new submission to the Copyright Board, the collective is
proposing levies of $5 on devices with up to one gigabyte (GB) of
memory, $25 for one to 10 GB, $50 for between 10 GB and 30 GB and $75
for over 30 GB. That would take the price of Apple's 30GB iPod to $365
from $290, a 26 per cent increase.
The group is also asking for levies of $2 to $10 for memory cards,
which are primarily used to store photographs in digital cameras.
It's also asking for eight-cent increases to the current 21-cent
levy on blank CD media and 77-cent charge for CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio
and MiniDiscs.
10:16:29 PM
|
|
House Introduces Privacy Bill Foursome ... With One Runt in the Litter. 27B Stroke 6 outlines four important pieces of privacy-protecting legislation that have either been recently introduced or received new life in the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives:
* The Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act, introduced by Dingell and Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX), and 24 original cosponsors, to prohibit pretexting of phone records and to enhance security requirements for customer proprietary network information.
* The Social Security Number Protection Act of 2007, introduced by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and Barton, and 22 original cosponsors, to strengthen the authority of the Federal Government to protect individuals from abusive acts and practices in the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers.
* The Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (or SPY ACT), introduced by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) and Mary Bono (R-CA), and 28 original cosponsors, to protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of the personally identifiable information through spyware programs.
*The Data Accountability and Trust Act (or DATA), introduced by Reps. Bobby Rush (D-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cliff Stearns (R-FL), and 22 original cosponsors, to protect consumers by requiring entities engaged in interstate commerce to have reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.
Crashing the party, however, is the Republican-supported Safety Act, which would compel all Internet service providers to track their customers[base '] online activities.
Four steps forward, one leap back[sigma]
[michaelzimmer.org]
10:02:24 PM
|
|
Unfairly Caught in Viacom's Dragnet? Let Us Know! As an RIAA spokesperson famously put it when asked about the spectacle of file-sharing lawsuits against innocent grandparents, "when you go fishing with a driftnet, sometimes you catch a dolphin."
Well, with its 100,000 DMCA takedown notices aimed at YouTube users, now it's Viacom that is netting its share of dolphins. Among the 100,000 videos targeted for takedowns was a home movie shot in a BBQ joint, a film trailer by a documentarian, and a music video (previously here) about karaoke in Singapore. None of these contained anything owned by Viacom. For its part, Viacom has admitted to "no more than" 60 mistakes, so far. Yet each mistake impacts free speech, both of the author of the video and of the viewing public.
If they are making these kinds of blatant mistakes, who can tell how many fair uses of Viacom content they also targeted in their 100,000 takedowns? Hundreds? Thousands? If Viacom made a clear mistake and your clip contains no content from Viacom-owned copyrighted works, sending a simple DMCA counter-notice to YouTube may be enough to do the job. But if you're attempting to make a fair use of Viacom's works, it may make more sense to go to court to assert your rights. More information about your options is available at the Fair Use Network.
Has your video been removed from YouTube based on a bogus Viacom takedown? If so, contact information@eff.org --we may be able to help you directly or help find another lawyer who can. In this situation, as in so many others, EFF will work to make sure that copyright claims don't squelch free speech.
We've put together a video version of this post on YouTube, which you can embed on your website or blog. Check it out, Digg it and spread the word -- the more it rises in YouTube's listings, the more likely it will be seen by users who have received takedowns:
[EFF: Deep Links]
9:58:53 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Paul Hardwick.
Last update: 3/4/07; 9:09:10 AM.
|
|
|
