Illegal downloads revisited

Today, I finally got around to listening to the podcast of Charon QC interviewing Geeklawyer regarding the proposed legislation to target internet users who download content illegally. The podcast raises a lot of interesting points. Geeklawyer, as ever, had some deeply seated views on the issue, many of which echo my own sentiments documented in my February 16th post. Most notably, as well as the technical and logistical difficulties in requiring ISPs to monitor their customers’ downloads, the prospect of banning a person from the internet – something that is fast becoming an increasingly vital utility - just because, say, his son inadvertently downloaded a couple of dodgy MP3s is grossly unfair. As I commented in my aforementioned post, someone who flouts a ban on hosepipes during a hot summer does not have his water supply cut off at the mains.

Geeklawyer particularly pointed to the fact that the ‘problem’ complained of is based on flimsy and nonsensical arguments. The content producers and those who own the associated intellectual property rights have wildly quantified the extent of the perceived copyright infringement problem via ‘illegal downloads’.

Charon referred to his previous podcast on the issue in which he interviewed Ed Vaizey MP, Shadow Minister for Culture. Ed was of the opinion that the proposed legislation had little or no chance of being passed but rather it was merely a heavy-handed way of getting the ISPs ‘to the table’ to discuss a unified strategy going forwards in dealing with copyright infringement problems. Interestingly, that was Android’s first reaction in response to my initial post on this ‘asinine’ (to use Geeklawyer’s word) proposal for legislation.

I certainly hope they’re both right.

BTW: I also listened to Charon QC’s new feature ‘Charon after Dark’. It’s certainly an interesting concept, in which Chazza effectively interviews himself, bringing his own, quirky take on the week’s less-serious news items interspersed with amusing – and sometimes rather rude – song choices.

Maybe the ‘After Dark’ feature is phase 3 of Charon's plan to position himself as the ultimate blawging-DJ, producing ‘musi-law’ podcasts in his own, inimitable way. The London Underground song he plays is well worth checking out, though not, perhaps, if you are of one of nervous disposition or are offended by extremely strong language.  Great stuff.

Wasting police time – US style

Have you ever forgotten where you parked you car? Chances are, you probably have at some point or another. It’s an easy thing to do at times – particularly when you have a lot on your mind and you’ve parked in a multi-storey car park, say. Less easy to do when you park in a street with definite landmarks around you but even so. Some people can manage it.

But have you ever been so convinced it’s not where you left it you’ve called not only the local authorities to see if it’s been towed and but put through an emergency call the police also? Then, when the police finally turn up and drive round the area with you trying to spot it, you’ve suffered the ignominy of having to admit that there is your car, untouched and undisturbed, right where you left it in the next street over from the one you were looking in?

No? Well, just such an incident happened this week to a certain person I know all too well. He was the host I mystically referred to during my Philadelphia trip in December 2006 as Mr Walter. Given some of his earlier exploits - such as Christmas and the new computer incident - perhaps it should come as no surprise.

Serial Spammer loses appeal

From Virus Bulletin 07/03/08:

US spammer Jeremy Jaynes, the first spammer convicted in a felony case, has had his last appeal against the conviction, brought on freedom of speech grounds, turned down by a Virginia supreme court.

After a 2003 spamming spree accounting for several million messages in a two-month period, Jaynes was convicted under Virginia state anti-spam laws, which specify a maximum of 10,000 emails in a day before the case reaches felony levels, and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The case preceded the introduction of federal CAN-SPAM regulations.

You’ve got to hand it to him for trying that line of defence, I suppose. But he and his legal team must have always known that it was going to be a long-shot. Let’s face it: the argument that a conviction against his spamming antics was an infringement to his right to free speech was never going to stick, regardless of what angle it was approached from. Not even in America.

Spam is widely regarded as one of the banes of the internet and naturally, a spammer is never going to garner much public support. Quite rightly, too; they are a menace to the internet and society as a whole. Spam clogs up inboxes, thwarts productivity and, perhaps most importantly, represents a major source of online crime in which a shockingly high number of people are taken in by the bogus messages and defrauded out of money. As well as educating the public and technological advances designed to combat spam, going after the source of such crime is absolutely the right way to fight it. The fact Jaynes’ latest, fanciful appeal was shot down in flames by the US court can be celebrated as (minor) victory in the fight against the scourge of internet junk mail.

Nintendo Wii helps burns victims

From Computer Active 26/02/08:

Burns victims and those with hand injuries are being offered time on a games console to help with their recovery.

The Nintendo Wii is being used in hospitals across the south east of England after doctors found it could help bring back flexibility to these patients.

This is because it makes users act out all the physical movements involved in sports such as tennis, golf and boxing.

I’ve never been a particular fan of the Wii, from a technological standpoint at least. It’s certainly inferior to the much better offerings out there such as the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Still, as a console it can be a lot of fun and, of course, is dramatically cheaper. And if it helps burns and other victims into the bargain, then great – I’m all for it.

Call into Starbucks for a .... kidney?

Take 1 Starbucks, add two women - one, a kind, benevolent character with a kidney to spare and the other, a sick, polycystic kidney disease sufferer, mix them together and you have a whole new kind of service being offered at everyone's favourite coffee shop.  Yes, Starbucks worker, Ms Andersen offered regular customer Ms. Ausnes her left kidney when it was discovered the former was a blood match. Certainly over and above the line of duty for a worker who, ironically, is said to have taken the job largely because of the corporate health benefits the company provided.

Ms. Andersen, 51, has worked at Starbucks for more than four years quipped: “My husband said, ‘Next time someone comes in and says they don’t feel good, don’t give away another body part.”

The duo are set to go under the knife on March 11th.  You can read the full story here.

Privacy Act?!? I’ve never heard of it.

The other day, my girlfriend forwarded an email on to me, one that she was surprisingly eager for me to read.

It turned out it was an email concerning data privacy and how it related to driving licences. When I discovered it originated from her somewhat notorious ‘Uncle John’ I should have probably smelt a rat. Thinking she was showing me because of my penchant for this type of thing, though, I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, the subject line read: New Drivers License and the Privacy Act. “Privacy Act - - I’ve never heard of it”, I snapped, worriedly. Was I really this ignorant? Had the existence or, even worse, the passing of such an Act in England and Wales occurred without my knowing? For someone who likes to feel that they have their finger at least partially on the IT and privacy law pulse, if this should have passed me by unawares, I was going to look like a prize turkey. And that's putting it mildly.

A quick search on Google for privacy act allayed my fears. “See, there’s no such Act”, I calmly stated. My faith in my knowledge and the general order of the world was at least partly restored. “What are all those, then?” my girlfriend questioned, pointing to a long list of hits. “Look, they’re all Canadian, Australian and American”, I retorted, almost angrily.

Still, somewhat intrigued, I read the through the body of the email:

Did you know that this was happening?

Check your driver's license information on-line.

Now you can see anyones driver's license on the Internet, including your own!

It asks for U.S. Info, but unfortunately it works for Canadian, English,

Australian and New Zealand licenses as well.

Just searched for mine....putting in England as the city and there it is, picture and all.

This is really scary. I removed mine. I suggest you all do the same.

Go to the website and check it out.

So that explained the American spelling of licence in the subject line, I thought to myself. It’s clearly an American site but they claim drivers’ details from several countries are available. Given the shocking state of the nation’s data security – many incidents of which have been documented on this blog - I couldn’t rule out completely that this wasn’t a bona fide situation being brought to the world’s attention.

It was, of course, a harmless spoof, albeit one that created a cheeky and somewhat ignominious copy of a US driver’s licence.

To my girlfriend, Sarah’s credit, she played the part well. I was surprised she was ostensibly taking it so seriously – particularly as it was from her ‘Uncle John’, and I really should have caught on sooner. It was unlike her to be so trusting of anything like this. After all, this is the girl who I’ve described on more than one occasion as being ‘suspicious of ‘everywhere, everything, and everyone’. Still a forensic science degree is wont to have that effect on a person.

So, children, the moral of the story can be summed up like this: bad as the data privacy situation is in the UK, it’s not quite at this stage yet. That being said, it might not be long until this type of thing is for real.

Urgent need for internet security review

From Computeractive 21/02/08:

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has announced a follow-up inquiry to its Personal Internet Security report.

It is taking the measure after its “disappointment” with the way the Government dismissed the vast majority of its recommendations last October.

The report, published in August 2007, called on the Government to take strong measures to protect against internet crime. It branded the web as a “playground for criminals” and made 23 recommendations it said would help instill public confidence in the internet.

They included a kite mark scheme for internet service providers and security software. It also wanted to make software manufacturers legally responsible for security flaws and establish a central e-crime police unit.

These recommendations were dismissed by the Government, which led to Committee member Lord Erroll accusing it of "putting its head in the sand".

The Committee plans to release its new report soon after Easter

Good though (some of) these recommendations are, I don’t see any of them coming to fruition anytime soon. It’s going to take a massive shake-up, change of culture and approach for some of them to ever be seriously considered, let alone implemented. Short of a massive internet security disaster, most won’t ever see the light of day. Still, we watch and wait in vague anticipation.