CyberLaw Blog

Archive for August 1st, 2008

China Eases Internet Restrictions for Journalists: “The Chinese authorities, bowing to criticism, lifted some of the restrictions, but other politically sensitive sites remained inaccessible.

(Via NYT > Technology.)

It’s official: The Home Office is listening: “

And will officially ignore anything you say

The last week has seen the appearance of two carefully-modulated Yes Minister-style statements, defending the government’s approach to data and surveillance and explaining why we have nothing to worry about.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

Chinese to censor Olympic press net access: “

Sensitive sites blocked, despite previous assurances

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has admitted cutting a deal with the Chinese to allow the blocking of press access to some sensitive websites during the forthcoming Beijing games - despite previous assurances there would be no such censorship.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

Only ‘unlawful threats’ would invalidate McKinnon extradition: “

Ordinary threats not enough

Analysis The Law Lords have published their reasons for rejecting the extradition appeal of accused Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

Gary McKinnon, British computer hacker, loses appeal over US extradition: “Gary McKinnon stands accused of becoming the most accomplished computer hacker
in history by crashing the United States army network, but claims only to
have been pursuing a fascination with aliens.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

‘Hacktivism’ threatens world of nations: “

DDoS gets political

Usenix Politically motivated computer attacks like the one last year that crippled network traffic in Estonia for weeks are likely to increase, and there’s not much victims can do to stop them, a security researcher says.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

MPs report back from internet’s dark side: “

Country going to hell on YouTube

MPs have called on the government to install a YouTube Czar to oversee user-generated content sites and better labels for video games.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

Film industry takes action on film link sites: “The film industry’s US trade body has sued two websites because they provide links to copyright-infringing copies of films. The body said that it believes that the sites infringe copyright despite not hosting material themselves.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

UK data watchdog gives Google spycar fleet the greenlight: “

Privacy campaigners mown down by Street View juggernaut

Following a quiet word down at the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Google has been given regulatory approval to publish photographs taken by the fleet of camera-carrying black Opels currently surveying Britain.…

“

(Via The Register - Public Sector.)

(Via Techdirt.)

UK Politicians Demand YouTube Vet Content To ‘Protect The Children’: “Various safe harbors for service providers that protect them from the actions of their users make a lot of common sense. It’s simply wrong to blame a service provider for the actions of its users. We don’t blame the telephone company when someone commits a crime using the phone. And we don’t blame the car company for providing the getaway car. Nor do we ask those companies to do anything to block those actions. That’s because we all realize how silly that is — to blame a tool provider for the actions of its users. Yet, for some reason, when we move online, that concept gets confused. While most of the focus has been on safe harbors concerning copyright or defamation, when you toss in a bit of ‘but think of the children!’ it gets even more ridiculous.

We’ve already seen this with US politicians bullying ISPs into blocking ‘objectionable’ content, even though they have no legal basis for this (and, in fact, such blocking will only make it more difficult to track down those actually responsible). And, now we see it in the UK. UK MPs are claiming that Google needs to vet all of the content uploaded to YouTube ‘to protect children from harmful content.’ Seriously.

I guess it’s only in the techie community that we recognize that the phrase ‘to protect the children’ is almost always followed by a plan that does the opposite.

The politicians seem concerned that occasionally, questionable content is found on YouTube, and it might take them (gasp!) 24 hours to take it down. Apparently it has not occurred to those behind this demand that perhaps they should be focused on using the content being uploaded to track down those actually responsible for the objectionable (illegal?) content, rather than demanding that Google proactively hide the evidence. Next up, we’ll be expecting the report where politicians demand that telephone companies ‘proactively’ review all telephone calls to make sure there is no objectionable content ‘to protect children.’