For the US, but to which extent it applies elsewhere?
Showing posts with label Technology - neither good or bad but never neutral. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology - neither good or bad but never neutral. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Wi-fi issues: access and use
When travelling, if one does not have a smartphone or blackberry, it becomes really annoying not to be able to use wi-fi knowing that lots of networks are available. the silliness of it all appeared when I was in Gare du Nord Paris, compared to St Pancras - London. You would have guessed I was a Eurostar traveller. At St Pancras, free wi-fi; in 45 minutes, I checked my e-mails, sent a couple of documents I could not have done so if I had a smartphone. At Gare du Nord, well, no free wi-fi if you do not have a Eurostar business status; the provider SFR was asking a minimum of 2 euros, I recall, for about 30 minutes. Well, I know it is not that expensive, but it is such a hassle (you have to register, type your card number...; a good 15 mins wasted to just access). Result: I did not pay. and I am sure I am not the only to have done so.
of course, one could argue that to call, one has to pay, whether in a phone box, from a landline or a mobile. Why not for wi-fi? well Finland contemplates opening the network to all, getting rid of its offence to use open wi-fi. Of course, open wi-fi means less security. But then, why not charged for higher security? I would actually have paid for added security if I had to send sensitive data or connect to sensitive data website. but for ordinary websites, such as what is the weather back home or train time data, frankly I felt put off.
Finland Plans To Decriminalize Using Open WiFi (TechDirt, 11 June 2010)
In contrast, Google's collection of private data is inadmissible. yet, whether it was intended to or an accident, an involuntary consequence not foreseen, is something else. I can't imagine the firm having done it on purpose, at least after until they were (made) aware of it if they continued despite knowledge.
Group Claims Google Had 'Criminal Intent' In WiFi Data Collection (TechDirt, 10 June 2010)
What i am surprised is that the data collected was not destroyed immediately. Governments have no right to look at the data.
As Google Hands Over Collected WiFi Data In Germany, France And Spain, Ireland Tells Google To Destroy It (Tech Dirt, 04 June 2010)
Google WiFi Data Caught In Legal Limbo (TechDirt, 27 May 2010)
Wider European Scrutiny of Google on Privacy from NYTimes as reported in Business and HR Watch, 21 May 2010 http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000957
Obviously, the argument is based on the assumption that privacy is important. Some argue it is not; but I fully disagree. Our ancestors fought, sometimes to death, for a bit of privacy and not just privacy from government's spying. Privacy is essential and it is not because people don't go into mass protest about it that the issue/the right does not matter
How Much Do Most People Really Care About Privacy? (TechDirt, 02 June 2010) -
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Piracy: looking at IP in other ways
three articles in a week to remind us that we have to rethink IP because of the new technologies, the same way printing forced us to rethink IP. Interestingly enough, Sage publishers are conducting a survey online about open access journals: whether people are in favour of it and on which terms (free of charge or pay to publish type of model)
"EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Admits That 'Piracy' Has Created The Market That Legislators Did Not", TechDirt, 11 May 2010
Swedish Police Say Anti-Piracy Law Has Harmed Ability To Catch Criminals (TechDirt, 18 May 2010)
"Does Intellectual Property Go Against Traditional Views Of Knowledge In India?", TechDirt, 14 May 2010
"EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Admits That 'Piracy' Has Created The Market That Legislators Did Not", TechDirt, 11 May 2010
Swedish Police Say Anti-Piracy Law Has Harmed Ability To Catch Criminals (TechDirt, 18 May 2010)
"Does Intellectual Property Go Against Traditional Views Of Knowledge In India?", TechDirt, 14 May 2010
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Critical Legal Studies Conference 2010
With a vested interest as I am chairing stream 9 of the Critical Legal Conference 2010 @ Utrecht in September 2010 : The WWW: great expectations or great disenchantments?
To see all the streams of the Conference on Modernities, click here
To see all the streams of the Conference on Modernities, click here
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Beware The Seductive Power Of Surveillance
TechDirt - 5 April
Refers to an article by Jesse Hirsh http://jessehirsh.ca/the-seductive-power-of-surveillance
same as previous post: common sense means that surveillance will exist and that we need to assess the risks and stop treating the internet as something different than the telephone, for HR purposes
See the previous interview of Thomas Berners-Lee: "Web under threat from 'snooping' authorities" (TechDirt, 04 December 2010)
Refers to an article by Jesse Hirsh http://jessehirsh.ca/the-seductive-power-of-surveillance
same as previous post: common sense means that surveillance will exist and that we need to assess the risks and stop treating the internet as something different than the telephone, for HR purposes
See the previous interview of Thomas Berners-Lee: "Web under threat from 'snooping' authorities" (TechDirt, 04 December 2010)
Once Again, A Court Overturns Internet Ban For Convicted Criminal
TechDirt, 5 April 2010 -
technology seems to make people lose their common sense. Would we agree to a ban on using the telephone because the offender committed the offence with it?
technology seems to make people lose their common sense. Would we agree to a ban on using the telephone because the offender committed the offence with it?
Monday, 15 March 2010
Google, China and Co: where do we draw the line between the acceptable and the not-so-acceptable?
A long silence, partly because I was busy scrolling down the shelves at Cambridge (UK) library for books before my fellowship at CRASSH ended. I still have a few books to read, but today I am trying to go through the amassed cuts of newspapers' articles.
So let us review the story about Google rethinking its policy in China. Much ink has been spilled over the issue.
First, Google made its annoucement on 13 January 2010, a date that feels a bit like a new year/new resolution statement. The annoucement was not to censor anymore its search results on Google China, whether or not requested by Chinese authorities. The consequences, i.e. the possible end of any business presence in China, were recognised as a possibility. What seems to have triggered the decision was a series of cyberattacks against Chinese human rights activists. (Guardian, 13 January 2010, front page and page 3).
"Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks" (Tania Branigan, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
"Google counts cost of censorship and draws red line under China" (Bobbie Johnson, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
On the details of the attacks, see Guardian 14 January 2010 and 15 January 2010.
"Google acted on censorship amid China dissident fears" (TheGuardian, printed version 14 January 2010, front page)
"Google's move on Chinese censorship welcomed by human rights activists"
(TheGuardian, 14 January 2010, page 14)
"Accounts invaded, computers infected – human rights activists tell of cyber attacks", The Guardian, printed version 15 January 2010
The attacks bring into light how internet communications are central to governmental response to politics, including war. "Cyber-warfare 'is growing threat'" The Guardian, 4 February 2010, page 7; similarly, six months ago, "MyDoom virus hits key networks in US and South Korea" The Guardian, 9 July 2009, page 16 (the title in the printed version is slightly different: "Cyber attacks paralyse government computers in US and South Korea"). But for a different vision on a 'supposed' cyberwar: "White House Cyber Security Guy: There Is No Cyberwar", TechDirt, 9 March 2010
However, the cynics add that Google never made the money it expected to make; it has only one third of the search engines market in China which is dominated by Baidu= Governmental Chinese version of search engine. So its decision may not rest so much on willingness to defend democratic values through guaranteeing freedom of expression, than on profit-making interests.
In addition, Google's decision in 2006 to censor results hurt the company's reputation, so much that one of its founder, Sergey Brin, called it a "net negative" (see Guardian's article, 13 January 2010, page 3; and page 14, 14 January 2010).
Nevertheless, cynicism may not be so much on the agenda. Let us face it: Google is not the new knight defending freedom of expression without awaiting something in return. On the other hand, personal history certainly plays a role here. Sergey Brin emigrated to the US in 1979, aged six, with his parents who were victims of anti-semitism, even under the then-USSR. (Guardian's, Tania Branigan, 14 January 2010, front page).
China's reaction was at the beginning cautious... and heavily censored as few headlines made it on the newspapers/online versions in China itself. Some commentators, pro-governmental line, did not see Google's decision as 1) affecting China much (there are other search engines), 2) as a desinterested decision (aka, Google does not make enough profit to stay).
What seems to emerge on the side, with other companies finding it difficult to enter the Chinese market, is a picture of full protection of Chinese interests (economic or not) against foreign companies and Governments. It fits with a presentation I attended in September 2009 at the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) in Keele, where the speaker demonstrated that Chinese law favoured chinese contract law in all dispute resolutions, a concept that systematically discards foreign law; in other words, private international law in China is resolved by the quasi-systemic application of local law to the exclusion of foreign law. An article on the International Herald Tribune of 14 January 2010 page 15 is quite revealing on those behaviours. The article even ends up by saying, in more polite form, that foreign companies sell their soul to China, accepting to give for free, for fear of loosing a market share, what they would never have tolerated in other countries. I know the story is not exagerated. In his second volume on Globalisation, which focuses on Water, Eric Orsenna (French Academician and writer) explains that the French company Alstom more or less gave the plans of its water turbines for the three Dams on the yellow river, in exchange for obtaining the market... Except that the turbine plan is now copied and Alstrom not needed...
"China stifles news of Google’s defiance", The International Herald Tribune, 14 January 2010 (p. 1)
"Google Is Not Alone in Discontent, But Its Threat Stands Out", The New York TImes, 14 January 2010 (by the way, this habit of the NYT and IHT not to use the same title in the printed and online version is frankly annoying).
Eric Orsenna, L'avenir de l'eau : Petit précis de mondialisation II (Broché), Fayard 2008 (The future of water: little manual on globalisation II - NB: the first volume was on coton and is as interesting as the second, if anybody can read French - by the way, it is not a complicated French although it is beautifully written).
If we take into account China's policy in conducting business, then it appears very clearly that accepting to censor the results could only amount to failure in terms of believing that the economy will allow for freedom of expression to grow. The economy is in itself a close circuit; nothing from the outside will penetrate it, especially NOT freedom of expression. After 30 years of economic "liberalisation", the West should start looking at the full picture, rather than avoiding the issue: China will not become a democracy by free market. See James Kynge, "Full circle", Financial Times 16/17 January 2010.
"China and the west: Full circle", Financial TImes, 15 January 2010 (printed version, 16/17 january 2010 (like for the Guardian, can't they just give one date???)
Viewed under that light, Bill Gates' comment is not as irresponsible as it may first appear. It is a realist comment: that anyone doing business in China has to accept the fact that democracy is out of question. Then the question is: does one have the guts, to take a familiar expression, not to do business? The West's answer so far is certainly not living to its Enlightenment's ideals.
"Playing the wall game in China" The Guardian, 18 January 2010
Additionally see:
"Google may lose business, but gains good will", Miguel Helft, International Herald Tribune, printed version January 16/17, 2010 (can't find the link online)
"Why fearful china stamps out dissent", Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 17 January 2010, p. 22 (can't find the link online either)
Will Google stand up to France and Italy, too? The Guardian, 14 January 2010
"China Issues Another Warning to Google on Enforced Censorship of the Internet" link to NY Times by Business and HR website, 12 March 2010
So let us review the story about Google rethinking its policy in China. Much ink has been spilled over the issue.
First, Google made its annoucement on 13 January 2010, a date that feels a bit like a new year/new resolution statement. The annoucement was not to censor anymore its search results on Google China, whether or not requested by Chinese authorities. The consequences, i.e. the possible end of any business presence in China, were recognised as a possibility. What seems to have triggered the decision was a series of cyberattacks against Chinese human rights activists. (Guardian, 13 January 2010, front page and page 3).
"Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks" (Tania Branigan, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
"Google counts cost of censorship and draws red line under China" (Bobbie Johnson, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
On the details of the attacks, see Guardian 14 January 2010 and 15 January 2010.
"Google acted on censorship amid China dissident fears" (TheGuardian, printed version 14 January 2010, front page)
"Google's move on Chinese censorship welcomed by human rights activists"
(TheGuardian, 14 January 2010, page 14)
"Accounts invaded, computers infected – human rights activists tell of cyber attacks", The Guardian, printed version 15 January 2010
The attacks bring into light how internet communications are central to governmental response to politics, including war. "Cyber-warfare 'is growing threat'" The Guardian, 4 February 2010, page 7; similarly, six months ago, "MyDoom virus hits key networks in US and South Korea" The Guardian, 9 July 2009, page 16 (the title in the printed version is slightly different: "Cyber attacks paralyse government computers in US and South Korea"). But for a different vision on a 'supposed' cyberwar: "White House Cyber Security Guy: There Is No Cyberwar", TechDirt, 9 March 2010
However, the cynics add that Google never made the money it expected to make; it has only one third of the search engines market in China which is dominated by Baidu= Governmental Chinese version of search engine. So its decision may not rest so much on willingness to defend democratic values through guaranteeing freedom of expression, than on profit-making interests.
In addition, Google's decision in 2006 to censor results hurt the company's reputation, so much that one of its founder, Sergey Brin, called it a "net negative" (see Guardian's article, 13 January 2010, page 3; and page 14, 14 January 2010).
Nevertheless, cynicism may not be so much on the agenda. Let us face it: Google is not the new knight defending freedom of expression without awaiting something in return. On the other hand, personal history certainly plays a role here. Sergey Brin emigrated to the US in 1979, aged six, with his parents who were victims of anti-semitism, even under the then-USSR. (Guardian's, Tania Branigan, 14 January 2010, front page).
China's reaction was at the beginning cautious... and heavily censored as few headlines made it on the newspapers/online versions in China itself. Some commentators, pro-governmental line, did not see Google's decision as 1) affecting China much (there are other search engines), 2) as a desinterested decision (aka, Google does not make enough profit to stay).
What seems to emerge on the side, with other companies finding it difficult to enter the Chinese market, is a picture of full protection of Chinese interests (economic or not) against foreign companies and Governments. It fits with a presentation I attended in September 2009 at the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) in Keele, where the speaker demonstrated that Chinese law favoured chinese contract law in all dispute resolutions, a concept that systematically discards foreign law; in other words, private international law in China is resolved by the quasi-systemic application of local law to the exclusion of foreign law. An article on the International Herald Tribune of 14 January 2010 page 15 is quite revealing on those behaviours. The article even ends up by saying, in more polite form, that foreign companies sell their soul to China, accepting to give for free, for fear of loosing a market share, what they would never have tolerated in other countries. I know the story is not exagerated. In his second volume on Globalisation, which focuses on Water, Eric Orsenna (French Academician and writer) explains that the French company Alstom more or less gave the plans of its water turbines for the three Dams on the yellow river, in exchange for obtaining the market... Except that the turbine plan is now copied and Alstrom not needed...
"China stifles news of Google’s defiance", The International Herald Tribune, 14 January 2010 (p. 1)
"Google Is Not Alone in Discontent, But Its Threat Stands Out", The New York TImes, 14 January 2010 (by the way, this habit of the NYT and IHT not to use the same title in the printed and online version is frankly annoying).
Eric Orsenna, L'avenir de l'eau : Petit précis de mondialisation II (Broché), Fayard 2008 (The future of water: little manual on globalisation II - NB: the first volume was on coton and is as interesting as the second, if anybody can read French - by the way, it is not a complicated French although it is beautifully written).
If we take into account China's policy in conducting business, then it appears very clearly that accepting to censor the results could only amount to failure in terms of believing that the economy will allow for freedom of expression to grow. The economy is in itself a close circuit; nothing from the outside will penetrate it, especially NOT freedom of expression. After 30 years of economic "liberalisation", the West should start looking at the full picture, rather than avoiding the issue: China will not become a democracy by free market. See James Kynge, "Full circle", Financial Times 16/17 January 2010.
"China and the west: Full circle", Financial TImes, 15 January 2010 (printed version, 16/17 january 2010 (like for the Guardian, can't they just give one date???)
Viewed under that light, Bill Gates' comment is not as irresponsible as it may first appear. It is a realist comment: that anyone doing business in China has to accept the fact that democracy is out of question. Then the question is: does one have the guts, to take a familiar expression, not to do business? The West's answer so far is certainly not living to its Enlightenment's ideals.
"Playing the wall game in China" The Guardian, 18 January 2010
Additionally see:
"Google may lose business, but gains good will", Miguel Helft, International Herald Tribune, printed version January 16/17, 2010 (can't find the link online)
"Why fearful china stamps out dissent", Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 17 January 2010, p. 22 (can't find the link online either)
Will Google stand up to France and Italy, too? The Guardian, 14 January 2010
"China Issues Another Warning to Google on Enforced Censorship of the Internet" link to NY Times by Business and HR website, 12 March 2010
Friday, 22 January 2010
Censorship: Google/China and others
Obviously, the headlines for the past 10 days are aboug Google's declaration and movement of withdrawal from China, but as pointed out, well, if Google withdraws from China, why not other countries like India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Russia...?
"Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)
"Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?" (TechDirt, 14 January 2010)
and I would say of Italy?
The technical details of privacy/surveillance are worth understanding as it seems that China hacked the security features/apps used by Google. "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
For a reaction to Google's announcement: "Clinton urges Internet freedom, condemns cyber attacks " (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 21 January 2010) with a series of links to the media
and for an analysis in French: "Pékin-Google : le bras de fer s'engage" (Business and HR Resource Centre, 22 January 2010)
"Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)
"Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?" (TechDirt, 14 January 2010)
and I would say of Italy?
"Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010) and for the French version, "Italie : un décret pour contrôler les vidéos du Web" (Net Eco, 19 January 2010)
The technical details of privacy/surveillance are worth understanding as it seems that China hacked the security features/apps used by Google. "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
For a reaction to Google's announcement: "Clinton urges Internet freedom, condemns cyber attacks " (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 21 January 2010) with a series of links to the media
and for an analysis in French: "Pékin-Google : le bras de fer s'engage" (Business and HR Resource Centre, 22 January 2010)
New report in France to reflect on digital economy
Well, I have just scrolled through the report and the least we can say is that the committee did not really engage with the issues at a deep level. The report is disappointing:
- for a summary in English, "France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels" (TechDirt, 7 january 2010)
-for an equally sanguine account, in French, "Mission Zelnik : les principales propositions du rapport" (Numerama, 7 January 2010)
- for the report itself (in French), in La Documentation Francaise
- for a summary in English, "France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels" (TechDirt, 7 january 2010)
-for an equally sanguine account, in French, "Mission Zelnik : les principales propositions du rapport" (Numerama, 7 January 2010)
- for the report itself (in French), in La Documentation Francaise
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
telegraph and newspapers
The telegraph was feared, like today the internet is. But the threat only comes from refusing to embrace the new technology.
"How The Telegraph Was Supposed To Kill The Newspaper Business" (TechDirt, 22 December 2009)
"How The Telegraph Was Supposed To Kill The Newspaper Business" (TechDirt, 22 December 2009)
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Identity, prosecution and Facebook
A strange story, the type that always makes me think of the novel The Count of Monte-Christo.
Emprisonment for a theft he has not committed, a man managed to be freed and charges dropped after his lawyer tracked down a message he sent at the precise time when the robbery happened.
Obviously, the alibi has been corroborated by witnesses; hopefully also, when one thinks of the ease it is on facebook to fake identities.
Sauvé de la prison grâce à Facebook (o1net., 13 november 2009)
Facebook As Your Alibi (TechDirt, 12 November 2009)
L'usurpation d'identité, côté juridique (Les Echos, 7 October 2009)
Emprisonment for a theft he has not committed, a man managed to be freed and charges dropped after his lawyer tracked down a message he sent at the precise time when the robbery happened.
Obviously, the alibi has been corroborated by witnesses; hopefully also, when one thinks of the ease it is on facebook to fake identities.
Sauvé de la prison grâce à Facebook (o1net., 13 november 2009)
Facebook As Your Alibi (TechDirt, 12 November 2009)
L'usurpation d'identité, côté juridique (Les Echos, 7 October 2009)
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Thieves 'using Google Earth to steal koi carp' - Telegraph
Thieves 'using Google Earth to steal koi carp' - Telegraph (28 June 2009)
It is not an accusation against Google, just an acknowledgment of the powerful tool that is Google Earth. In other words, thieves of rare fishes are smart enough to look at gardens from the sky to detect ponds and unusual features indicating potential rare catches.
It is not an accusation against Google, just an acknowledgment of the powerful tool that is Google Earth. In other words, thieves of rare fishes are smart enough to look at gardens from the sky to detect ponds and unusual features indicating potential rare catches.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Fraud and insider access to confidential data
The security/sofware company Cyber ARk released a report or survey on administrators' behaviours in firms. 35% of them use data they come accross because of their job or research that data in illegal ways. This is quite scary and shows how vulnerable companies can be.
http://www.cyber-ark.com/news-events/pr_20090610.asp
and a French summary of the report on JDN 17 June 2009
http://www.cyber-ark.com/news-events/pr_20090610.asp
and a French summary of the report on JDN 17 June 2009
Un tiers des administrateurs informatiques tentés par le vol de données
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Gaming, robots and criminal law
Jacques-André Dupuy (Operantis)"Nous faisons du serious game pour les pilotes d'avion" (JDN 25 June 2009)
Use of 3D games to train pilot - positive use of technology, but one cannot be left but to wonder whether the reality of those games could have adverse effects in certain conditions and be responsible for more violence?
And what if the robots copy 'bad' behaviours and commit crimes? fiction? not so much if one believes this article about a child robot which memory increases by copying real human behaviour. "CB2 : parfait pour un prochain film d'horreur" http://www.journaldunet.com/hightech/salon-multimedia/dossier/ils-sont-la-et-nous-ressemblent-les-robots/cb2-parfait-pour-un-prochain-film-d-horreur.shtml
this made me think about the work of Michelle Hildebrand from Rotterdam/Brussels...
Use of 3D games to train pilot - positive use of technology, but one cannot be left but to wonder whether the reality of those games could have adverse effects in certain conditions and be responsible for more violence?
And what if the robots copy 'bad' behaviours and commit crimes? fiction? not so much if one believes this article about a child robot which memory increases by copying real human behaviour. "CB2 : parfait pour un prochain film d'horreur" http://www.journaldunet.com/hightech/salon-multimedia/dossier/ils-sont-la-et-nous-ressemblent-les-robots/cb2-parfait-pour-un-prochain-film-d-horreur.shtml
this made me think about the work of Michelle Hildebrand from Rotterdam/Brussels...
Surveillance: EU Commission & responses to the Stockholm programme
In its Communication 262/4, on 10 June 2009, to the EU Parliament and the COuncil, the EU Commission seems to favour "wider freedom in a safer environment" so that there can be "An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen" (p. 2, 16).
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-prog.pdf
The problem is as usual: safety is done through sharing of information. But how this information is collected and used remained very much undefined... So not surprisingly, there are oppositions to the Stockholm programme
See the Statewatch's summary: http://www.statewatch.org/future-group.htm (
and also the seminar organised on 31 may 2009 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/surveillance-states-seminar.pdf
with references to the European Civil Liberties Network's own analysis http://www.ecln.org/ECLN-statement-on-Stockholm-Programme-April-2009-eng.pdf
One can only agree when one looks at the EU Council's report of the "Check the Web" project launched in 2007 and presented by Europol to the COuncil on 15 May 2009 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-europol-use-of-personal-data-in-the-check-the-web-project-9604-09.pdf
and the analysis provided by Cryptohippie on Statewatch's website, which describes well what is a police state and how blissfully unaware we can be until it is too late http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/electronic-police-state-2008.pdf
See also, Watching the computers. Function creep allows EU states to use intrusive remote computer searches to target any crime, however minor (TheGuardian, 9 June 2009)
the fact that the surveillance attitude is widespread does not help Canadian Politicians Want To Pass Internet Snooping Legislation (TechDirt, 19 June 2009)
And contrary to the wide-spread feeling, security is not a justification per se for surveillance even if obviously increased CCTV and the like can help detecting crime As Google Agrees To Delete Unblurred Street View Images In Germany, One Is Used To Solve A Crime
Finally, see EU Parliament on the subject
with its "REPORT with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on strengthening security and fundamental freedoms on the Internet
(2008/2160(INI))" (25 February 2009)
and the HL view on procedural rights in EU criminal proceedings http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/eu-hol-ec-procedural-rights.pdf
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-prog.pdf
The problem is as usual: safety is done through sharing of information. But how this information is collected and used remained very much undefined... So not surprisingly, there are oppositions to the Stockholm programme
See the Statewatch's summary: http://www.statewatch.org/future-group.htm (
and also the seminar organised on 31 may 2009 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/surveillance-states-seminar.pdf
with references to the European Civil Liberties Network's own analysis http://www.ecln.org/ECLN-statement-on-Stockholm-Programme-April-2009-eng.pdf
One can only agree when one looks at the EU Council's report of the "Check the Web" project launched in 2007 and presented by Europol to the COuncil on 15 May 2009 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-europol-use-of-personal-data-in-the-check-the-web-project-9604-09.pdf
and the analysis provided by Cryptohippie on Statewatch's website, which describes well what is a police state and how blissfully unaware we can be until it is too late http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/electronic-police-state-2008.pdf
See also, Watching the computers. Function creep allows EU states to use intrusive remote computer searches to target any crime, however minor (TheGuardian, 9 June 2009)
the fact that the surveillance attitude is widespread does not help Canadian Politicians Want To Pass Internet Snooping Legislation (TechDirt, 19 June 2009)
And contrary to the wide-spread feeling, security is not a justification per se for surveillance even if obviously increased CCTV and the like can help detecting crime As Google Agrees To Delete Unblurred Street View Images In Germany, One Is Used To Solve A Crime
Finally, see EU Parliament on the subject
with its "REPORT with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on strengthening security and fundamental freedoms on the Internet
(2008/2160(INI))" (25 February 2009)
and the HL view on procedural rights in EU criminal proceedings http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/eu-hol-ec-procedural-rights.pdf
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
DDOS practice by security firms
In order to shut down those sending spam and scams (particularly phishing), security firms can identify the original server and then send e-mails to shut down the site
Sébastien Darnault (MarkMonitor)"Nous bombardons les serveurs de mails frauduleux jusqu'à les faire tomber" (JDN 2 June 2009)
Sébastien Darnault (MarkMonitor)"Nous bombardons les serveurs de mails frauduleux jusqu'à les faire tomber" (JDN 2 June 2009)
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
A computer to be controlled by thoughts
The French agencies of Inserm (medical research) and Inria (technology research) presented a software which enables control of a computer by thoughts. The project called openvibe started in 2005 and requires a specific helmet to capture electrical activity of the brain. The software is free of charge!
"Contrôler un ordinateur par la pensée, est-ce possible ?" (JDN, 15 May 2009)
with more info on http://www.journaldunet.com/hightech/magazine/actualite/la-recherche-met-au-point-l-ordinateur-commande-par-la-pensee/la-recherche-met-au-point-l-ordinateur-commande-par-la-pensee.shtml?f_id_newsletter=1040
"Contrôler un ordinateur par la pensée, est-ce possible ?" (JDN, 15 May 2009)
with more info on http://www.journaldunet.com/hightech/magazine/actualite/la-recherche-met-au-point-l-ordinateur-commande-par-la-pensee/la-recherche-met-au-point-l-ordinateur-commande-par-la-pensee.shtml?f_id_newsletter=1040
Data collection and use by police
Quite a bit of irony here when thinking about the debate on whether ISPs should collect data and keep it available to police. The ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) considers that the sheer number of CCTV data makes it unusable to the police to track suspects! What a waste of money and time of all those concern who opposed the CCTV coverage in England. As politicians do not seem to agree (fear factor?), it may well be a long time before we see less CCTV
"ACPO: Police swamped by CCTV data" (ZDnet.co.uk, 15 May 2009)
and "UK Police Learn That More Surveillance Data Doesn't Mean Better Surveillance Data" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)
The above obviously should make us think about any type of data mass collection: "Bad Idea: UK Launches Database Of Info On Every Child" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)
Update: "British Cops Creating Nationwide License-Plate Surveillance System" (TechDirt 22 May 2009)
"ACPO: Police swamped by CCTV data" (ZDnet.co.uk, 15 May 2009)
and "UK Police Learn That More Surveillance Data Doesn't Mean Better Surveillance Data" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)
The above obviously should make us think about any type of data mass collection: "Bad Idea: UK Launches Database Of Info On Every Child" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)
Update: "British Cops Creating Nationwide License-Plate Surveillance System" (TechDirt 22 May 2009)
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
