Social networking: parallels with ISPs' liability

Facebook apparently deletes what is reported as fake accounts. Apart from the doubtful justification to do so (does it harm anybody? what about this fake cat and bird account nobody could be a fool about?), the method employed does not promote fairness and accountability.
Anybody can denounce the site as fake and to take denounciations at face value is really dangerous. The article at TechDirt rightly points out the absurdity of the policy. But for me, it echoes the behaviours of ISPs when receiving postings about controversial websites: is taking down a website the only solution, especially without notice?
"What Happens If Facebook Thinks You're Not Real?" 20 December 2007
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071220/160220.shtml

Crime the old fashioned way: where hacking looses all interest!

According to ZDNet: "Criminals posing as policemen conned their way into a data centre near London's King's Cross station, tying up staff and stealing computing equipment, the Metropolitan Police said on Friday." 10 December 2007
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39291411,00.htm

ISPs liabitiliy: the take-down notice procedure

A suit arising from claimed take-down notices sent to e-bay http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071209/205715.shtml (13 December 2007) probably US based but interesting nonetheless...

Cyberterrorism

The usual debate about cyberterrorism's theat: a hype or a truthfully worrying fact? ZDNet (10 December 2007)http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/features/0,1000002000,39291413,00.htm

Hacking and other tools: which is most efficient?

See TechDirt's article: any legal consequence? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071217/014457.shtml (17th December 2007)

Trojan and new victims: ISPs

Usually trojans victimise the lot of us, private users who are not careful about what we download or where we go; but this time, ironically, the victim is Google itself who is loosing money, exactly what it should not!

Google 'powerless' to stop AdSense theft (20 December 2007) http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39291643,00.htm

Unintended DDOS!

How efforts to fight corruption in China ended it up with the equivalent of a DDOS attack, although quite unvoluntarily (well, let's hope)
'Too many hits' crash Chinese anti-corruption website (19 December 2007)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39291622,00.htm

Enforcement:

probable cause or plausible reasons to ask for warrant.
In the US, but could obviously interest the UK, a practice about mobile phone data, easily transferable to cybercrime given that the mobile phone technology is now computerised to the extreme some would say http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/101924.shtml (26 November 2007)
the last comment on the article could be related to the notion of private/public divide that is being eroded with the internet, and needs a rethink http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/095531.shtml (3rd December 2007)

investigators as preventive hackers
see the SOCA work about Microsoft OS to reveal its frailty...http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39290736,00.htm (13 November 2007)

And an interesting question: "Can A Computer Store Tech Look At Your Files?" without warrant, (17th December 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071214/182720.shtml

Spyware

Earlier on, I wrote a post about the downsides of spywares use for identity theft purposes

but here is a "positive" sides although regulation issues may make it scary : spyware and investigation forces http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/174251.shtml (27th november 2007)

Cybersquatting

Something not often looked at in cybercrime courses, but worth having a thought: cybersquatting...

see "Dell suing cybersquatters" (29 November 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/015252.shtml

and the opposite approach http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,39291329,00.htm?r=2 (6 December 2007)

I find this article interesting for several reasons:
- first the notion of public and private: yes, the internet blurred the distinction; Facebook is an excellent example where private matters become public without people realising the implications in legal terms
- second, the role of ISPs as contents providers rather than providing a telecommunication service
all that has indirect consequences for cybercrime http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/095531.shtml (3rd December 2007)
and http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071130/005506.shtml (30th November 2007)

versus ISPs just facilitators: " Citizen Journalism Site Sued Over Content Posted By User" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/224002.shtml (29 November 2007)

Virtual worlds, social networkin, and crime: is it crime?

In virtual worlds like Second Life, can there be fraud or theft with associated real criminal liability? A real question for a virtual world which should be excluded from our physical laws, but is it that simple? Are we going to see criminal law reinvented online?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071202/174819.shtml (3rd December 2007)

The following article seems to confirm we may have to think ahead "Bad Ideas: Trying To Build A Marketplace Of Virtual Goods" TechDirt (18 December 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071217/120715.shtml

Another issue will arise with the development of e-currencies: "Virtual worlds driving move to e-payments" http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39291065,00.htm (26 November 2007)


Bearing more connexion to reality, what about damaging statements in social networking websites that in the physical world do not constitute crime? Should criminal law be involved or should it be regulated by other means? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071203/180607.shtml (3rd December 2007)