Some Eastern European countries have been called ’cyber sanctuaries’ that refuse to cooperate with Western Europe and the United States and sponsor state hacking.
Speaking at the RSA Europe Conference in London, Richard Clarke, chairman of Good Harbor Consulting and a former cyber terrorism and cyber security advisor to four US presidents, claimed that some countries act as ‘cyber sanctuaries’ and there is a lack of international cooperation and ‘kick backs’ are given to hackers.
France’s strategy to combat illegal music downloads by contributing to the amount young people pay for them won European Union approval and praise for promoting cultural diversity.
Under the scheme, French residents who purchase a card to download music from subscription-based website platforms, will only pay half the cost of a 50-euro credit included in the card, with the French government paying the rest.
The scheme, which will benefit 12-to-25-year-olds, is expected to last two years, with consumers limited to one card a year. It will cost France 25 million euros ($34.65 million) annually based on its sales estimate of a million cards.
Why won’t the US or China (or even Russia) admit we’re engaged in cyberwar? I have a theory based on historical precedent, involving all three countries: the Korean War.
http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-neither-us-nor-china-admits.html
The ruling revealed that BT’s price controls, which Ofcom imposed during May 2009, had been set too high because they failed to factor in account efficiency and inflation.
The Chief Security Technology Officer (CSTO) for telecoms and broadband ISP giant BT UK, Bruce Schneier, has given an interesting keynote speech at the 11th annual RSA Conference Europe 2010 in London (Metropole Hotel), called ‘Security, Privacy and the Generation Gap‘. Schneier warned that the need for bigger profits and related abuses by internet based social networking services were leading to the “death of privacy“.
the legal system simply doesn’t understand internet technology and Rights Holders (RH) are continuing to abuse that ignorance
James Pond, a Google manager, wrote in a letter dated September 20, that Google would be happy to help–for a price, according to a source who had seen letter.
A music industry source estimated that such charges could add up to several million dollars a year.
the system can prevent a user from attempting to print, scan, copy or fax a document containing a prohibited keyword, such as a client name or project codename
I know. I sound like a broken record on US advertising behemoth Google.
But the way it’s being not only allowed, but enthusiastically encouraged, to penetrate everything, everywhere, is to me truly frightening.
The European Commission is renewing its effort to get every European hooked up to the net – whether they want to or not.
The Commission’s latest study into Europeans’ digital world showed that 43 per cent of EU households “still do not have internet access”. This, the Commission believes, is simply not good enough.
it’s just not saying when
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/10/13/lovefilm_confirms_ps3_streaming/
Marissa Mayer – Google’s first female engineer and one of its most familiar public faces – is moving on from her role as vice president of search to run the company’s geolocation and local services.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/13/marissa_mayer_promotion/
Source (Dutch language article): http://www.depers.nl/economie/516007/En-nou-is-het-afgelopen.html
My translation:
Don’t meddle with the right to steal! Downloading – Six nonsensical arguments
By: Jan-Hein Strop
Published: 12th Oct 06:12 CET
Update: 12th Oct 11:15 CET
Prohibit free downloading and web surfing Holland will go and start a people’s revolution. With no valid reason, because what is the difference with theft?
Free downloading is not regarded as theft but as a ‘right’. And one should not meddle with that right, the digital civil rights movement states. They do not have any moral doubts, but feel copyrights are of lesser importance than what they call ‘internet freedom’.
Meanwhile, a stricter regime seems inevitable. The European Parliament recently approved of a report which contains strong recommendations to stop copyright infringement. On top of that a ban on downloading is being readied in The Netherlands, jumpstarted by the caretaker cabinet. The new cabinet will probably make another attempt to introduce the ban.
It’s easy to predict the response of the pro-piracy camp. They’re using various arguments to justify theft:
1. A Golden Oldie: movies and music are too expensive and not legally available.
Taking into account that movies and music are expensive goods in the eye’s of internet users, so what? If a Swiss watch is ‘too expensive’, then that doesn’t give anyone the right to break in at a jeweler, even if he isn’t able to properly secure his store. In the early days, when we wanted to watch Rambo, we rented or bought a video cassette and nobody complained. But because downloading from the internet is ‘free’, our perception of ‘price’ apparently has changed, for it to justify theft. Anybody who feels that something is too expensive, simply should refrain from purchasing it.
Then there are people who are arguing that up- and downloading of copyrighted material is a good development, because the record company and Hollywood executives will have less money to fill their pockets with. They promote the notion of a consumer which rebels against all that wealth. Using a tone of voice that hardly hides the Marxism, these folks seem to be supporting expropriation – internet communism of the 21st century. Just because we can.
The argument that there aren’t any solid legal alternatives available does not make any sense anymore due to online music store iTunes, streaming music service Spotify and other parties. Although Video On Demand has been able to kick off thanks to digital television, the digital distribution of movies and TV shows is not yet on par. But why would that be a reason not to pay for the latest episode of 24? If a manufacturer is selling his products in only three stores (he has the right to do so) then that is no justification for breaking and entering the relevant storage facilities.
2. Limitations to downloading are threatening freedom of speech
That particular freedom is limited by the rights of others. You know, the makers of movies and music. Just have a look at the European Human Rights Act, article 10, section 2. Within Europe, Holland is the exception to the rule as a country where downloading illegal material is legal.
3. A ban on downloading could make criminals out of millions of people
If a ban on downloading is being introduced, it is not certain just how it will be enforced. If it concerns civil or administrative enforcement measures, no one will be labeled a criminal, because no crime has been committed. Furthermore, the Commission Gerkens, which advised the Dutch cabinet last year to introduce a ban on downloading, has called on the government to spare individual internet users. The cabinet agreed to that and stated that it would limit the ban to downloading from an ‘evidently’ illegal source.
4. A ban will not encourage creativity because it will not force the entertainment industry to come up with new business models which spur creativity
This suggests that large scale copyright infringement is encouraging creativity – as far as one can actually measure creativity. Nobody is making clear just why piracy is encouraging creativity. Every artist or musician who wants to reach an audience has all the freedom to offer his work via the internet, even if a ban (on downloading from an illegal source) is in place. It’s the fact that it is impossible to make any money, the result of large scale piracy, which is discouraging artists. Why start a band if one isn’t able to make a proper living?
Still the digital civil rights movement is of the opinion that modern day copyright is not ‘paying attention’ to the interests of internet users. If a ban is introduced, any support for copyright would possibly disappear. Again: so what? Will we cease to buy books and stop going to music concerts or a cinema because we have a conceptual issue with copyright?
And even more so, it’s the world upside down: the support to pay has not been diminished because of a lack of new business models, but first and foremost because of illegal distribution. In this debate ‘support’ should not be the most important topic, but instead the rights of authors which are now being trampled.
5. Modern day copyright is hampering innovation because rights owners are able to stand in the way of new and disruptive technologies
This is misleading. The legal battle against Kazaa and Napster was aimed at the use of technology, not technology itself. The fight against The Pirate Bay and Mininova has not been inspired by the wish to finish off Bittorrent as a distribution system, but instead to combat platforms that make use of Bittorrent while being supportive of copyright infringement.
Whether court cases hamper innovation has not been proven at all. On the contrary, the opposite seems to be true: after the founders of Kazaa had sold their company due to legal pressure, they started the very successful Skype. And when Kazaa and Napster were going down, a genius came up with Bittorrent, which – because of its decentralized nature – is much more difficult to combat. Now that’s innovation.
But even if innovation would be hampered, is that the reason to open up everything? Peer to peer technology such as Kazaa has never been designed for legal distribution. Whether it is called eDonkey, Usenet or Bittorrent, research by TNO shows that more than 90 percent of all available works within those environments are illegal copies.
6. A ban cannot be enforced.
So? Shoplifting can’t be banned too, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce a ban. It is absolutely clear that the methods with which one enforces a ban have to be proportionate. There has to be a solid debate about that, because nobody wants internet police to be spying on everybody.
No need for hard core hacking and cracking: All a moderately-skilled iPad user has to do is connect the iPad to his laptop, search inside the iPad files with a common managing software (we used iPhone Explorer), copy the .plist file that manage the download information and correct a single field. This boils down to changing a single word: Where it says “purchasable” you write “viewable” instead, and copy back the file on the iPad. Now all you need to do is click on “delete” the magazine issue on the iPad app and a “download” button will appear instead of the “buy” button. It means you can download the magazine for free.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luca-sofri/everybody-can-get-new-yor_b_757661.html
Companies need to invest in the future of their infrastructure, or there won’t be a future for them.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/its-the-infrastructure-stupid/14165?tag=content;selector-blogs
Schneier said: “Less privacy makes a better market for social networks. Facebook is the worst offender – not because it’s evil but because its market is selling user data to its commercial partners.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/schneier_rsa_keynote_facebook/
“Three days after the police’s major crackdown on The Pirate Bay, they resumed operations,” he said.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/pirate_bay_appeal_prosecution_summation/
Developed by the Technology Strategy Board, IC tomorrow enables content owners and application developers – any business with a new service, new business model or new way of deploying hardware or software technology – to trial their ideas with participating UK consumers, giving them the opportunity to provide feedback and shape products before they go on sale.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/gov_digital_playground/
Prime-time television is shedding audience at an increasing clip, with the most recent decline due not to crap shows such as High Society or The Marriage Ref, but to Apple.
