Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone -----Original Message-----
From: Subscriptions from Posterous Spaces
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:21:58 To:
Subject: Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update
Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update November 2nd, 2011
Germany To Put Special Monitoring Software On School Computers To Search For... Posted about 22 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Germany To Put Special Monitoring Software On School Computers To Search For Infringement
via Techdirt by glyn moody on 11/1/11 Just under a month ago, the "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), which styles itself as "the largest European hacker club", had some disturbing news for Germans : The largest European hacker club, "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), has reverse engineered and analyzed a "lawful interception" malware program used by German police forces. It has been found in the wild and submitted to the CCC anonymously. The malware can not only siphon away intimate data but also offers a remote control or backdoor functionality for uploading and executing arbitrary other programs. Significant design and implementation flaws make all of the functionality available to anyone on the internet. Since then, a debate has raged about the extent to which these technologies are permitted by German law when tackling crime. But now it seems that such electronic spying is being institutionalized further thanks to a deal between the Culture Ministers of the German States and publishers of educational materials that allows school computers to be searched annually for unauthorised copies (post in German on Netzpolitik.org): There it has been contractually agreed that 1% of school computers [in Germany] shall be investigated with the help of a "school trojan" for "plagiarism", by which is meant copyright infringement. Nor is this some mere statistical exercise: there will be real consequences for school authorities and teachers accused of having unauthorized copies: "Upon notice of infractions against this contract's conditions for the reproduction of copyright-protected works, the German States undertake to institute disciplinary measures against the school management and teaching staff involved." Civil and criminal claims of rights-holders naturally remain intact. This then represents a further sanction if, with the help of this sniffer software, teachers are caught copying. Although the spyware has not yet been introduced, the contract was signed last December and came into force in January this year. It is yet another example of politicians and their advisers agreeing to what look like easy technical fixes to issues, but not thinking through the consequences.
As the Netzpolitik.org article asks: who will be responsible for ensuring that the spy software does its job without breaking the German data protection laws? Has anyone thought about the security issues of introducing this software into schools? Will the software work on all platforms - and if it doesn't, what happens to schools using Macs or GNU/Linux?
Even leaving aside such issues, you have to wonder what on earth the German States' Culture Ministers were thinking when they agreed to allow this gross invasion of privacy of teachers and students. Perhaps they hoped that the fuss would all blow over after a while; in the wake of the other revelations about the German government spying on its citizens through software on their computers, that seems unlikely now.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca , and on Google+
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized Posted about 21 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Here's a story that touches on a few different issues of importance around these parts. We'll get to the details of the legal ruling in a bit, but the background is really the key part. At the beginning of 2009, a company in Valencia, California, called L&M Optical Disc West, received an order from an authorized partner of the producers of the film Milk to manufacture the DVDs of the film. They began doing exactly that. On February 2nd, as part of a supposedly unrelated police raid, police saw those DVDs and found them "suspicious." They rang up the MPAA who sent over an "investigator," who falsely declared that the DVDs were unauthorized, leading the police to seize them (though, oddly, allowing the private investigation firm to hold them) and to declare to the press that they had found "pirated" DVDs of Milk. This happened despite multiple attempts by L&M staff to explain that they had a legitimate order, even offering to show the "investigator" the details of the order.
The following day, L&M provided the police with all of the evidence that they were authorized to make those DVDs, and the police sergeant told L&M's owner that the DVDs could not be released because they were "pirated." From there, a bunch of press stories followed, with the police repeatedly telling the press that L&M was being investigated for such "piracy," even after the MPAA and the police realized that the DVDs were, in fact, authorized. Months later, however, the press was still quoting the police as saying that L&M was "under investigation" for "piracy."
Because of all of this, L&M claims that customers canceled jobs with L&M and past customers chose to find new partners. It also meant that other vendors who used to send "overflow" work to L&M no longer did so. It effectively dried up much of L&M's business.
If this all seems pretty horrifying, think of how much worse this kind of situation may be about to get. First off, just a few weeks ago, we noted that Governor Jerry Brown in California passed a law that would let law enforcement do more of these kinds of raids but they no longer need a warrant to do so. Yes, despite this massive failure on such a raid, the government now has even more authority to do these kinds of raids, and the MPAA can continue to get away with providing bogus information and effectively killing businesses.
Take it one step further: this is the reason why so many of us are so worried about the new E-PARASITE bill. The MPAA and other copyright holders have a dreadful history and reputation for being inaccurate when it comes to accusing others of infringement. Yet, under E-PARASITE, they get to kill sites dead, without any recourse, before anyone even looks to see if the copyright holder's claim is legit. Doesn't that seem the least bit problematic?
Now, as for the actual case at hand, for which you can read the full decision (pdf and embedded below), it involved the court tossing out a lawsuit by L&M against the MPAA over all of this, using California's anti-SLAPP laws. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws, and while we find the MPAA's conduct in this situation reprehensible, the ruling actually makes sense. The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them.
L&M tries to place liability on the MPAA by claiming that the police and the MPAA had a "joint venture" going in these raids, but that isn't supported by the facts. This raid wasn't done at the request of the MPAA, and originally had nothing to do with copyright at all. So, we agree that blaming the MPAA for the comments in the press is improper, as it's misapplied third party liability. Of course, there does seem to be a bit of irony in the fact that the MPAA appears to be working overtime to increase third party liability by undermining the kinds of safe harbors that protect a party from being blamed for the speech of others. However, it's no surprise at all that the MPAA is -- yet again -- too clueless to recognize how its actions undermine its own legal protections elsewhere.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Overcome Your "Brand Loyalty" and Buy Better, Cheaper Stuff [Mind Hacks] Posted about 16 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Overcome Your "Brand Loyalty" and Buy Better, Cheaper Stuff [Mind Hacks]
via Lifehacker by Adam Dachis on 11/1/11
When we like a company that puts out a good product we become loyal to the brand, don't we? What we see as brand loyalty is actually more the effects of comfort and laziness than anything else. Furthermore, we'll defend that comfort to the death. This results in some bad buying decisions, which is especially bad come holiday shopping season. Here's how to overcome those problems, get better products, and save yourself some money in the process. More » White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA Posted about 16 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Last week, as part of our trip of startup entrepreneurs, innovators, artists and venture captialists, we were able to meet with senior White House staff about our concerns over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill that would fundamentally change the regulatory and policy framework of the internet, seriously hindering the ability to create new startups, new jobs and new platforms to help everyone. The White House has not officially taken a position on the bill, but one thing was made clear from the very start of the meeting: the legacy players in Hollywood and at the US Chamber of Commerce were putting a ton of pressure on the White House to support E-PARASITE, despite the fact that the State Department itself is quite worried about the bill, as it would almost entirely undermine all of its efforts to promote internet freedom around the globe.
I'm usually not one to believe in the power of various "online petitions," but since the White House has set up its own petition system, in which 25,000 signatures will guarantee a response, this actually seems like a case where just such a petition would work well. So it's great to see that someone has created just such a petition against E-PARASITE . Of course, technically it should be against SOPA, since the framers of the bill recognized just how silly E-PARASITE sounds, and removed that from the bill after everyone started making fun of them. Still, it's important to push this point home and let the White House know, in no uncertain terms, that the public is against this bill.
And it should be clear, by the way, that it's not just the public. Many people within the federal government are equally worried about this bill, which appears to serve no other purpose than to keep a few legacy players in Hollywood fat and happy, and keep them from having to actually innovate for a short while longer.
The real question, however, is whether or not the Obama White House wants to directly contradict Hillary Clinton and the State Department. Remember, Clinton has become a staunch defender of internet freedom against attempts to censor the internet worldwide. In her speech earlier this year, she noted: So this is a critical moment. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future.... For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. We recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground-rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But its benefits are worth it. And that's exactly the opposite of the approach being taken by Congress, which aims to put forth a top-down policy of censorship. A top down policy that nearly perfectly mimics the functional nature of the Great Firewall of China. Should the Obama administration go against its own State Department, it will serve to undermine Clinton's long term efforts in pushing internet freedom around the globe. That would be quite a legacy to leave: to contradict one's own Secretary of State who is pushing for greater internet freedom, and impose a system of censorship on the US. Please tell the White House not to take such a drastic measure.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Army of 'socialbots' steal gigabytes of Facebook user data Posted about 12 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Army of 'socialbots' steal gigabytes of Facebook user data
via The Register on 11/1/11 Social networks prone to large-scale infiltration A small array of scripts programmed to pass themselves off as real people stole 250 gigabytes worth of personal information from Facebook users in just eight weeks, researchers said in an academic report to be presented next month..
Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make S... Posted about 12 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Want to know just how desperate the folks at the MPAA are getting in their attempt to turn back the clock and outlaw all sorts of innovation? They're reaching the absolute bottom of the barrel, touting the fact that firefighers have come out in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE . What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics? If you said absolutely, positively, nothing at all, you'd be correct. So, why are firefighters suddenly in favor of the censorship of the internet in America? It's not hard to guess, given how DC lobbying works these days: "You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'" Yup. What are the chances that the International Association of Fire Fighters has received large checks from those associated with the movie business? But, more seriously, who does the MPAA actually think it's fooling? Is Congress so stupid that it can't figure out for itself that firefighters have no clue what this debate is about? Otherwise, why would they be supporting censorship in America? Read the letter below, and wager a guess how much was actually written by a firefighter, rather than a lobbyist for Hollywood?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Want your own? Change your email settings
From: Subscriptions from Posterous Spaces
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:21:58 To:
Subject: Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update
Your Daily Posterous Spaces Update November 2nd, 2011
Germany To Put Special Monitoring Software On School Computers To Search For... Posted about 22 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Germany To Put Special Monitoring Software On School Computers To Search For Infringement
via Techdirt by glyn moody on 11/1/11 Just under a month ago, the "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), which styles itself as "the largest European hacker club", had some disturbing news for Germans : The largest European hacker club, "Chaos Computer Club" (CCC), has reverse engineered and analyzed a "lawful interception" malware program used by German police forces. It has been found in the wild and submitted to the CCC anonymously. The malware can not only siphon away intimate data but also offers a remote control or backdoor functionality for uploading and executing arbitrary other programs. Significant design and implementation flaws make all of the functionality available to anyone on the internet. Since then, a debate has raged about the extent to which these technologies are permitted by German law when tackling crime. But now it seems that such electronic spying is being institutionalized further thanks to a deal between the Culture Ministers of the German States and publishers of educational materials that allows school computers to be searched annually for unauthorised copies (post in German on Netzpolitik.org): There it has been contractually agreed that 1% of school computers [in Germany] shall be investigated with the help of a "school trojan" for "plagiarism", by which is meant copyright infringement. Nor is this some mere statistical exercise: there will be real consequences for school authorities and teachers accused of having unauthorized copies: "Upon notice of infractions against this contract's conditions for the reproduction of copyright-protected works, the German States undertake to institute disciplinary measures against the school management and teaching staff involved." Civil and criminal claims of rights-holders naturally remain intact. This then represents a further sanction if, with the help of this sniffer software, teachers are caught copying. Although the spyware has not yet been introduced, the contract was signed last December and came into force in January this year. It is yet another example of politicians and their advisers agreeing to what look like easy technical fixes to issues, but not thinking through the consequences.
As the Netzpolitik.org article asks: who will be responsible for ensuring that the spy software does its job without breaking the German data protection laws? Has anyone thought about the security issues of introducing this software into schools? Will the software work on all platforms - and if it doesn't, what happens to schools using Macs or GNU/Linux?
Even leaving aside such issues, you have to wonder what on earth the German States' Culture Ministers were thinking when they agreed to allow this gross invasion of privacy of teachers and students. Perhaps they hoped that the fuss would all blow over after a while; in the wake of the other revelations about the German government spying on its citizens through software on their computers, that seems unlikely now.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca , and on Google+
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized Posted about 21 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Here's a story that touches on a few different issues of importance around these parts. We'll get to the details of the legal ruling in a bit, but the background is really the key part. At the beginning of 2009, a company in Valencia, California, called L&M Optical Disc West, received an order from an authorized partner of the producers of the film Milk to manufacture the DVDs of the film. They began doing exactly that. On February 2nd, as part of a supposedly unrelated police raid, police saw those DVDs and found them "suspicious." They rang up the MPAA who sent over an "investigator," who falsely declared that the DVDs were unauthorized, leading the police to seize them (though, oddly, allowing the private investigation firm to hold them) and to declare to the press that they had found "pirated" DVDs of Milk. This happened despite multiple attempts by L&M staff to explain that they had a legitimate order, even offering to show the "investigator" the details of the order.
The following day, L&M provided the police with all of the evidence that they were authorized to make those DVDs, and the police sergeant told L&M's owner that the DVDs could not be released because they were "pirated." From there, a bunch of press stories followed, with the police repeatedly telling the press that L&M was being investigated for such "piracy," even after the MPAA and the police realized that the DVDs were, in fact, authorized. Months later, however, the press was still quoting the police as saying that L&M was "under investigation" for "piracy."
Because of all of this, L&M claims that customers canceled jobs with L&M and past customers chose to find new partners. It also meant that other vendors who used to send "overflow" work to L&M no longer did so. It effectively dried up much of L&M's business.
If this all seems pretty horrifying, think of how much worse this kind of situation may be about to get. First off, just a few weeks ago, we noted that Governor Jerry Brown in California passed a law that would let law enforcement do more of these kinds of raids but they no longer need a warrant to do so. Yes, despite this massive failure on such a raid, the government now has even more authority to do these kinds of raids, and the MPAA can continue to get away with providing bogus information and effectively killing businesses.
Take it one step further: this is the reason why so many of us are so worried about the new E-PARASITE bill. The MPAA and other copyright holders have a dreadful history and reputation for being inaccurate when it comes to accusing others of infringement. Yet, under E-PARASITE, they get to kill sites dead, without any recourse, before anyone even looks to see if the copyright holder's claim is legit. Doesn't that seem the least bit problematic?
Now, as for the actual case at hand, for which you can read the full decision (pdf and embedded below), it involved the court tossing out a lawsuit by L&M against the MPAA over all of this, using California's anti-SLAPP laws. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws, and while we find the MPAA's conduct in this situation reprehensible, the ruling actually makes sense. The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them.
L&M tries to place liability on the MPAA by claiming that the police and the MPAA had a "joint venture" going in these raids, but that isn't supported by the facts. This raid wasn't done at the request of the MPAA, and originally had nothing to do with copyright at all. So, we agree that blaming the MPAA for the comments in the press is improper, as it's misapplied third party liability. Of course, there does seem to be a bit of irony in the fact that the MPAA appears to be working overtime to increase third party liability by undermining the kinds of safe harbors that protect a party from being blamed for the speech of others. However, it's no surprise at all that the MPAA is -- yet again -- too clueless to recognize how its actions undermine its own legal protections elsewhere.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Overcome Your "Brand Loyalty" and Buy Better, Cheaper Stuff [Mind Hacks] Posted about 16 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Overcome Your "Brand Loyalty" and Buy Better, Cheaper Stuff [Mind Hacks]
via Lifehacker by Adam Dachis on 11/1/11
When we like a company that puts out a good product we become loyal to the brand, don't we? What we see as brand loyalty is actually more the effects of comfort and laziness than anything else. Furthermore, we'll defend that comfort to the death. This results in some bad buying decisions, which is especially bad come holiday shopping season. Here's how to overcome those problems, get better products, and save yourself some money in the process. More » White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA Posted about 16 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Last week, as part of our trip of startup entrepreneurs, innovators, artists and venture captialists, we were able to meet with senior White House staff about our concerns over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill that would fundamentally change the regulatory and policy framework of the internet, seriously hindering the ability to create new startups, new jobs and new platforms to help everyone. The White House has not officially taken a position on the bill, but one thing was made clear from the very start of the meeting: the legacy players in Hollywood and at the US Chamber of Commerce were putting a ton of pressure on the White House to support E-PARASITE, despite the fact that the State Department itself is quite worried about the bill, as it would almost entirely undermine all of its efforts to promote internet freedom around the globe.
I'm usually not one to believe in the power of various "online petitions," but since the White House has set up its own petition system, in which 25,000 signatures will guarantee a response, this actually seems like a case where just such a petition would work well. So it's great to see that someone has created just such a petition against E-PARASITE . Of course, technically it should be against SOPA, since the framers of the bill recognized just how silly E-PARASITE sounds, and removed that from the bill after everyone started making fun of them. Still, it's important to push this point home and let the White House know, in no uncertain terms, that the public is against this bill.
And it should be clear, by the way, that it's not just the public. Many people within the federal government are equally worried about this bill, which appears to serve no other purpose than to keep a few legacy players in Hollywood fat and happy, and keep them from having to actually innovate for a short while longer.
The real question, however, is whether or not the Obama White House wants to directly contradict Hillary Clinton and the State Department. Remember, Clinton has become a staunch defender of internet freedom against attempts to censor the internet worldwide. In her speech earlier this year, she noted: So this is a critical moment. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future.... For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. We recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground-rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But its benefits are worth it. And that's exactly the opposite of the approach being taken by Congress, which aims to put forth a top-down policy of censorship. A top down policy that nearly perfectly mimics the functional nature of the Great Firewall of China. Should the Obama administration go against its own State Department, it will serve to undermine Clinton's long term efforts in pushing internet freedom around the globe. That would be quite a legacy to leave: to contradict one's own Secretary of State who is pushing for greater internet freedom, and impose a system of censorship on the US. Please tell the White House not to take such a drastic measure.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Army of 'socialbots' steal gigabytes of Facebook user data Posted about 12 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Army of 'socialbots' steal gigabytes of Facebook user data
via The Register on 11/1/11 Social networks prone to large-scale infiltration A small array of scripts programmed to pass themselves off as real people stole 250 gigabytes worth of personal information from Facebook users in just eight weeks, researchers said in an academic report to be presented next month..
Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make S... Posted about 12 hours ago by joelpomales to joelpomales's posterous Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
via Techdirt by Mike Masnick on 11/1/11
Want to know just how desperate the folks at the MPAA are getting in their attempt to turn back the clock and outlaw all sorts of innovation? They're reaching the absolute bottom of the barrel, touting the fact that firefighers have come out in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE . What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics? If you said absolutely, positively, nothing at all, you'd be correct. So, why are firefighters suddenly in favor of the censorship of the internet in America? It's not hard to guess, given how DC lobbying works these days: "You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'" Yup. What are the chances that the International Association of Fire Fighters has received large checks from those associated with the movie business? But, more seriously, who does the MPAA actually think it's fooling? Is Congress so stupid that it can't figure out for itself that firefighters have no clue what this debate is about? Otherwise, why would they be supporting censorship in America? Read the letter below, and wager a guess how much was actually written by a firefighter, rather than a lobbyist for Hollywood?
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story Want your own? Change your email settings
No comments:
Post a Comment