Iran’s terrifying campaign against the internet and netizens is about to go full-throttle with the country’s own intranet
Archive for 2012/02/16
Facebook’s real name policy is about to get a few tweaks: you will soon be able to use pseudonyms on the world’s largest social network, assuming you’re famous enough to have onePosted: 2012/02/16 in Education / Awareness, New Business Models
Apple PR maintains a blacklist of journalists that it refuses to talk to. This includes any media outlet that posts anything even remotely negative or heaven help you, a rumorPosted: 2012/02/16 in Education / Awareness
It appears that the Dutch National Cyber Security Center (NCSC) can no longer access records about security incidents that predate 2009 (its GOVCERT era). The NCSC is arguing that technically, they can access the data but it would cost about 10,000 EUR to accommodate relevant FOIA requests.
Several academics now state that it’s highly likely that the government institution has illegally destroyed pre-2009 records. That is in breach of relevant laws and a crime.
Parliament members of the Dutch Freedom Party will take this up with the relevant Ministers.
Dutch language news article:
Expert says that Anonymous will not be able to take down the internet’s 13 root servers, but then adds that he can do it himself within 6 monthsPosted: 2012/02/16 in Cybercrime, Education / Awareness
Operation Global Blackout doomed to fail? Robert Graham of Errata security believes that to be the case. Then again, he would be able to find a way in about 6 months time.
And what if Anonymous has built it in the first place?
Dutch language news article:
Rejoice, Europeans. Social networks cannot be forced into installing filtering systems to prevent the “unlawful use” of copyrighted works. Your privacy is safe for another day. Will same apply to filtering activities of social networks and providers themselves?Posted: 2012/02/16 in Education / Awareness, Filtering, Jurisprudence
Creating ebooks on your own computer seems to be an upcoming hit. The past days, several companies have launched new ebook softwarePosted: 2012/02/16 in Education / Awareness, Tech Evolution
The 70,000 daily visitors to popular music site RnBXclusive.com were met with a purposely terrifying message on Tuesday and part of Wednesday. The UK’s Serious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA) took the site down, arrested its operator, and threw up a splash page that warned downloaders of “up to 10 years imprisonment.” Thought statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement in the US were ludicrous? SOCA warns that downloaders from the site could face an “unlimited fine under UK law.”
SOCA also showed users their own IP address and warned that “the above information can be used to identify you and your location,” adding that “SOCA has the capability to monitor and investigate you, and can inform your Internet service provider of these infringements.”
Didn’t get the message? The warning goes on to say, “You may be liable for prosecution and that fact that you have received this message does not preclude you from prosecution.”
The recording industry considers filing a lawsuit against Google for allegedly abusing its dominant market position to distort the market for online music. Industry groups including IFPI and the RIAA want Google to degrade links to “pirate” websites in its search results. IFPI has obtained a “highly confidential and preliminary legal opinion” to see if they can force Google to step up its anti-piracy efforts though a lawsuit.
UPDATE (Thank you!) – RapidShare Responds To Megaupload Comparisons: Only 5% Of Our Files Are Pirated & Provider Should Participate In Fight Against Piracy
MediaFire CEO Derek Labian: ‘We don’t have a business built on copyright infringement’ (MegaUpload)
Highlights of ECJ Decision: Respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information, on the otherPosted: 2012/02/16 in Copyright, Education / Awareness, Filtering, Jurisprudence
1. It must be held that the injunction imposed on the hosting service provider requiring it to install the contested filtering system would oblige it to actively monitor almost all the data relating to all of its service users in order to prevent any future infringement of intellectual-property rights. It follows that that injunction would require the hosting service provider to carry out general monitoring, something which is prohibited by Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31 (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 40).
2. In the main proceedings, the injunction requiring the installation of the contested filtering system involves monitoring all or most of the information stored by the hosting service provider concerned, in the interests of those rightholders. Moreover, that monitoring has no limitation in time, is directed at all future infringements and is intended to protect not only existing works, but also works that have not yet been created at the time when the system is introduced. Accordingly, such an injunction would result in a serious infringement of the freedom of the hosting service provider to conduct its business since it would require that hosting service provider to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense, which would also be contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/48, which requires that measures to ensure the respect of intellectual-property rights should not be unnecessarily complicated or costly (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 48). In those circumstances, it must be held that the injunction to install the contested filtering system is to be regarded as not respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between, on the one hand, the protection of the intellectual-property right enjoyed by copyright holders, and, on the other hand, that of the freedom to conduct business enjoyed by operators such as hosting service providers (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 49).
3. Moreover, the effects of that injunction would not be limited to the hosting service provider, as the contested filtering system may also infringe the fundamental rights of that hosting service provider’s service users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, which are rights safeguarded by Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter respectively. Indeed, the injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system would involve the identification, systematic analysis and processing of information connected with the profiles created on the social network by its users. The information connected with those profiles is protected personal data because, in principle, it allows those users to be identified (see, by analogy, Scarlet Extended, paragraph 51).
European Court of Justice Puts An End To (Proactive) Filtering Of Pirated Files. Pirates And Their Investors Everywhere Rejoiced At The News And Thank The ECJPosted: 2012/02/16 in Copyright, Education / Awareness, Enforcement, File Sharing, Filtering, Illegal File Sharing, Jurisprudence
The Court ruled that hosting sites can’t filter copyrighted content as that would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information.
The unprecedented decision has major implications for all services in Europe that host user uploaded content, not least among cyberlockers such as RapidShare. Also, the verdict would prevent copyright holders ordering BitTorrent sites to filter uploaded files, something that isoHunt already does based on a US injunction.
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party in Sweden, is happy that the EU Court of Justice has placed the rights of people above those of corporations.
“I think it is quite remarkable, and very promising, that Europe’s highest court says outright that the copyright monopoly and people’s right to privacy of correspondence cannot be protected at the same time – and most importantly, that the latter has unequivocal precedence,” Rick Falkvinge told TorrentFreak.
“This is what we have been saying since 2006, that there is a strong conflict between the copyright monopoly and fundamental rights. It is quite a relief to see that not only confirmed in black and white, but also a verdict that the fundamental rights override the copyright monopoly.”
The entertainment industry on the other hand, will be greatly disappointed, as they are pushing hard for online services to take greater responsibility when it comes to copyright infringement.
Today’s ruling follows a similar European Court of Justice ruling last November which concluded that Belgian Internet provider Scarlet could not be forced to monitor subscriber traffic to detect piracy because that would violate the fundamental rights of both the ISP and its subscribers.