News

Google Cookie & the law

You may have known, or if not you should know, that Google tracks and records all your searches. All the pages you came from, what you searched for and where you went. This is done by useing a persistant cookie (Cookies and Privacy faq). (UPDATE: LINK REMOVED)

The information is stored by Google but there are only speculations as to how the information is used. No matter how Google intended to use the information it is doubtful that they expected that courts might subpoena their information.

In one amazing case Google “refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.” (Mercury News 18/1/2006).

OK – Google is attempting to refuse to hand over this information. However this does not mean that they will be able to refuse. In addition to this there is one question which seems particularly relevant. Why are they refusing to hand over this information? If they believe that any and all informtion should not be passed out then they are concerned with users privacy – this is however doubtful since they are themselves responsible for collecting the data in the first place.

If they disagree to this specific request but are in principle not against helping – this is a terribly civic minded approach however it raises grave concerns to many users. What happens when China asks for similar informaiton about computer users? What happens if your boss were to obtain all your searches – wha would such a picture say about you, and would it earn you a bonus?

The instance of organisations to collect data will always backfire. No matter the intended purpose of the data the process of function creep is inevitable. Technology and regulation is not the solution for this problem. The solution is to stop collecting the data. Or, in a perfect world, never to start collecting any data which is not absolutely necessary.

Posted on by mklang

Virtual Taxation

A problem that will only get bigger is the response of government offices, especially the tax office, to online incomes. Julian Dibbell has written an amusing account of his attempts to declare his earnings from a month of playing Ultima Online and selling his treasures on ebay. Dragon Slayers or Tax Evaders in Legal Affairs.

He ventured to say that it was doubtful the IRS would treat virtual items as cash equivalents anytime soon. Until the Britannian gold piece trades on international money markets, or until the value of a virtual amulet is as widely recognized as that of a beer, he suggested, “I don’t think we’re recognizing Dungeon and Dragon [sic] currency as legal tender.”

The Swedish tax authorities have begun (as many others) to struggle with the concepts of people making money by click thrus such as Googles Ad-sense. But I doubt whether they have handled online earnings to a greater degree – yet.

Ars Technica discusses the Dibbell article. Also read Internet Gambling Regulation Present and Future by Mark Methenitis.

Posted on by mklang

Censoring for China

Most technology companies that want to be active in China have to sign the â??Public Pledge of Self-Regulation & Professional Ethics for China Internet Industryâ?? which requires ISPâ??s to inspect and monitor national and international sites and block access to harmful content. In the case of China many companies are eager to take part in what promises to be a large and potentially profitable market. Therefore many companies are prepared to sign the Pledge to gain access to the Chinese market among the more notable signatories is the company Yahoo!.
A good example of this is Microsoft who has has shut the blog site of a well-known Chinese blogger who uses its MSN online service in China. The reason for shutting down the blog is that the blogger discussed a high-profile newspaper strike that broke out in China one week ago. Read more at New York Times “Microsoft Shuts Blog’s Site After Complaints by Beijing“

Posted on by mklang

BBC Open Archives

Under the Banner “Download History” the BBC has opened up parts of its archives. In addition to this it also allows users to be creative with the material.

“For the first time in its history BBC News is opening its archives to the UK public for a trial period. You can download nearly 80 news reports covering iconic events of the past 50 years.”

The material is released under a Creative Archive License which basically states: Non-commercial use, Share -Alike, Attribution, No Endorsement and No derogatory use. The archives therefore allow you to take the footage of the Berlin Wall coming down and set it to your own music – very, very cool.

Is the Swedish National Radio & TV listening to this?

However, my enthusiasm for this was dampened considerably when I found that the BBC really meant within the UK. If you are outside the UK – you will have to pay (?) In addition to this the share-alike clause explains:

“You are welcome to download the clips, watch them, and use them to create something unique. This is a pilot and we want to understand your creative needs. We’d like to see your productions and showcase some of the most interesting ones we receive.”

Does this include the UK limitation? Then how? According to the BBC share alike clause it is ok for anyone within the UK to take a clip and share it with me (outside the UK). Very annoying in a world were borders are usually not important.

Posted on by mklang

Art of War

The UK National Archives has an exhibition on wartime propaganda called The Art of War.
The Ministry of Information (MOI) was formed on September 4th 1939, the day after Britain’s declaration of war. The MOI was the central government department responsible for publicity and propaganda in the Second World War. The initial functions of the MOI were threefold: news and press censorship; home publicity; and overseas publicity in Allied and neutral countries.


warprop
 
This one is called “Grotesque Italian, German and Japanese characters” Artist unknown, dated at possibly September 1940.

Grotesque Italian, German and Japanese characters, shouting into a microphone. Mussolini definitely represents the Italians, for the Nazis â?? possibly Goering, and for the Japanese, possibly Yosuke Matsuoka, who signed the Tripartite Pact which established the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis on September 26 1940.

Posted on by mklang

Minister of (in)Justice – part 2

Sweden has never had a Minister of Justice who has managed to push through so much legislation hostile to civil liberties in such a short space of time as the minister we have today: Thomas Bodström. Here are some of the highlights
Dagens Nyheter 22 December 2005.

Phone tapping – Secret surveillance with hidden microphones will be permissable for a long list of crimes (not only the present day murder, manslaughter and armed robbery. This is despite the fact that investigators have been unable to show whether these devices are efficient police tools.

Data retention – Sweden has stood on the forefront demanding that the EU implement data retention. The EU have now approved rules (BBC report) that will force ISP’s and other telecommunication companies to retain data for at least six months. This data includes the time, date and locations of both mobile and landline calls (as well as whether or not they were answered) along with logs of internet activity and email.

Hemlig telefonavlyssning. En regeringsutredning vill ge Säkerhetspolisen utökade möjligheter till hemlig teleavlyssning. Den ska ske även i “preventivt syfte”, alltsÃ¥ innan ett brott har begÃ¥tts. Enligt förslaget ska ocksÃ¥ den öppna polisen ges utökade möjligheter att registrera svenskarnas telefonsamtal, vilket Advokatsamfundets generalsekreterare Anne Ramberg kallar för “ett paradigmskifte i svensk tvÃ¥ngsmedelshantering”.

Den påtänkta lagstiftningen ger staten kraftigt utökade möjligheter att övervaka medborgarna. Tillämpningsområdet är ytterst brett och möjligheterna till ett rättssäkert förfarande minimala. Både Säpo och polisen skulle ges laglig rätt att kontinuerligt avlyssna miljöer som de finner intressanta. Varken någon lag­överträdelse eller konkret misstanke krävs.

Försvarets underrättelseverksamhet. En departementspromemoria föreslår att den traditionella signalspaningen ska utvidgas till att omfatta all trådbunden trafik som passerar Sveriges gränser. Försvaret ska alltså inte som i dag bara kunna övervaka etern, utan också telefonsamtal, e-post, fax och dylikt som strömmar genom landet naturligtvis utan domstolsprövning. Förslaget innebär ett genombrott för övervakningsstaten, särskilt om det kombineras med tankarna på att försvaret även ska hantera vissa polisiära uppgifter.

Secret Data Surveillance – A proposal has been put forward that will allow the police (with a court order) can enter and insert software to eavesdrop on individuals computers.

These are just a few of the ideas which have been pushed through on the ministers initiative or suggestion. There are many more examples of tough stances against civil liberties – all done to fight crime or terrorism.

handcuffs

Sweden is no longer the country fighting for rights and liberties but it is using the ghost of terrorism to frighten and bully through oppressive legislation. Leadership by fear. In addition to this the approach has been to argue that oppressive legislation actually improves civil liberties. In a comment on the recent data retention decision a fellow party official stated that data retention protects civil liberties. Swedish quote here – “Jag är tacksam och glad att vi fÃ¥r en gemensam lagstiftning för hela Europa. Det här är ocksÃ¥ garantin för att integriteten och de mänskliga rättigheterna inte Ã¥sidosätts, säger Inger Segelström, s”.

This is straight out of Orwell! Remember: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”. Big Brother would have been proud.

Posted on by mklang

Intelligent Design?

BBC report that the American Supreme Court have banned the teaching of “intelligent design“. While intelligent design sounds like a valuable course at a technical university it actually refers to the newest form of anti-Darwinism. Basically the idea is that nature is too complex for natural selection.

Do you want proof that there must be an “intelligent” force guiding the choices nature makes then look at any complex animal or organism. This is of course bull. If anyone wants to believe – thats fine. But proof? No way. Also I would like to know if these people find “flawed” or even really bad design in nature as a proof that unintelligent design forces are at work?

platypus
Is the Platypus evidence of humorous design?*
To point at an anthill, beehive, weaver bird nest or the human eye and say “oh! thats complex” is fine. But to take complexity as a proof of a higher power is to regress “…back to cavorting druids, death by stoning and dung for dinner” (Blackadder). Historically, that which we did not understand was referred back to some higher being. But this gets scary today when we have both more knowledge and methods for understanding more of the truth than ever before and still some people prefer the mythology to the facts. Its time to face it (if you have not already done so) Darwinism may not be what you want to hear but it is a fundamentally better theory than anything else around.

However since Darwinism is not compatible with a litteral interpretation with the bible schools have attempted to ban the teaching of evolutionary theory. Therefore to comply with this certain schools of thought began developing intelligent design. Its not a well grounded theory – it does not have to be since it demands faith rather than proof.

Anyway the US Supreme Court have now found that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact in biology lessons. Good work!

—

*Robin Williams about the platypus:
“Do you think God gets stoned? Take a look at the platypus… I think you think he might.” (mimes toking on a joint) “Hey Darwin! Yo. Here ya go! I’m gonna take a beaver, and put a duck’s bill on it.” (cackles stonily) “Then, I’m gonna give it webbed feet, and it’s gonna live in water. Then (tokes again) it’s gonna be a mammal, but it’s gonna lay eggs! Muahahahaha! Hey, I’m God, what’re you gonna do, eh?”

Posted on by mklang

What is Google?

Google is many things. To some its a symbol of the success of the dotcom ideal. To others it has become an activity online (to google), and to others it is almost synonmous with our experience of the Web and maybe the Internet since most people no longer differentiate these two things.

The position of Google has taken such proportions that we no longer remember the time before Google. Not many years ago the main search engine was Altavista – its still there, but it no longer commands the position it once did. Google has been moving in all manner of interesting directions. Just to menation a few: Google desktop, Gmail, Google Scholar, Google Maps and Google Earth.

Google’s position has spawned some interesting spoofs: for example Googlism – which shows what google “thinks of you, your friends or anything”. Another example is the mirror version world of elgooG. A final example is Woogle which uses the picture search to tell stories in pictures.

Even prior to this diversification there were voices being raised about the position which Google was creating for itself in the everyday online lives of users. The question, stated basically, is what happens if we become dependant upon a private company for our information? Google is not a public office but is a private company whose primary goal is not truth but profit. In this vein we have seen that Google stores vast amounts of information about its users and has acquiesced to Chinese demands to censor information to users in China.

The role of search engines is becoming an important area of research, recently Matthew Rimmer at the Law Department of the ANU has organised a public forum on Google entitled “GOOGLE – Infinite Library, Copyright Pirate, or Monopolist?” (9 December).

The audio files from the Public Forum are online so for those of us who could not make it to Australia in time we can now listen to the presentations.

Posted on by mklang

Vietnam disagrees

Recently (17/11) the Reporters without Borders (RWB) published The 15 enemies of the Internet and other countries to watch. among the top (bottom?) 15 was Vietnam of which the article wrote:

The country closely follows the Chinese method of controlling the Internet, but though more ideologically rigid, the regime does not have the money and technology China has to do this. It has Internet police who filter out â??subversiveâ?? content and spy on cybercafés. Cyber-dissidents are thrown in prison and three have been in jail for more than three years for daring to speak out online in favour of democracy.

This article was not recieved happily by the countries on the list and now the Vietnamese news agency has written an article which argues against RWB putting Vietnamn on their list. The Vietnamese article is published by the VietNam News Agency (VNA) which is the official news service of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The “VNA is directed by the Government and is authorized to make official statements reflecting the State’s points of view on important national and international issues” (more info about VNA). The article argues against the RWB list and claims that:

The RWB made groundless and ill-intended allegations against these nations for “violating the right to freedom of speech on Internet, censoring liberal sources of news, strictly controlling Internet services.” It accused these nations of “shutting the mouth of dissidents, making troubles, repressing and even imprisoning those who expressed on the Internet opinions running counter to the Government’s policies.”

the article then goes on to describe the development of Internet services in Vietnam. Which is naturally followed by the consequences of such development.

The country’s poor management capacity and infrastructure facilities have been blamed for the Government’s inability to control inflammatory, false and libelious information and pornographic images posted by several local Internet providers. The fact has caused concern among the people. Viet Nam has also failed to introduce effective measures to prevent hostile and reactionary forces and political opportunists at home and abroad from using the Internet and on-line forums to speak ill of achievements gained by the people.

The article then moves on to meeting the actual accusations which places them on the RWB list

Like other countries, Viet Nam discourages and restricts the dissemination of information calling for subversive attempts, and puts firewalls on websites that are not suitable to the morals and fine customs of oriental people in general, and the Vietnamese people in particular.

The main motivations for censorship are the twin threats of subjecting children to pornography and terrorism. Vietnams main defence, in his article, seems to be “everyone else is doing it”:

After the Sept. 11 incident, haunted by terror threats, many Western nations have tightened control over the Internet – a move considered by some citizens to violate individual privacy. The United Nations has been calling for the establishment of a UN Internet Surveillance Agency, which will map out and implement Internet administration policies, covering the most imperative areas of the global network, namely the distribution of domain names, Internet security and crimes, spam, and the protection of individual information on the net.

Naturally the fact that other countries are behaving badly is something which the RWB is aware of even countries that did not make the list (yet) are included in the study as countries which need to be watched. Among the more interesting statements in the article is a sentence at the end “Why did RWB try to politicise a technology that has brought vigorous changes to daily life worldwide?”…Nice try – but when was technology apolitical?

Posted on by mklang