Human rights advocates have uncovered a huge surveillance system in China that monitors and archives text messages sent with the Tom-Skype chat client when they contain politically charged words.…
(Via The Register – Comms.)
The UKCCIS is go, with the aim of making the internet safe for kids. But is this the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it, or just a Minister reaching for the inevitable soundbite to round off a PR triumph?…
(Via The Register – Public Sector.)
Palmtop computer stolen from open window in M15 hideout: “A handheld computer containing secret intelligence documents about terrorism
has been stolen through the open window of an MI5 hideout, in what appeared
a fresh British data disaster.”
Phil Qiu: The Chinese authorities have blacklisted certain words on the internet. But you can’t suppress communication: “Phil Qiu: The Chinese authorities have blacklisted certain words on the internet. But you can’t, ultimately, suppress communication”
(Via Spy Blog – SpyBlog.org.uk.)
The controversial amendments to the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which were brought onto the statute book by the Police and Justice Act 2006, are finally coming into force this Wednesday 1st October 2008.
The penalties for Section 1 unauthorised computer access offence (‘hacking’) is increased from 6 months to 2 years, making it eligible for Extradition from foreign countries.
The statutory limitation on this Section 1 is abolished (formerly a charge had to be brought no later than 6 months from an arrest, and nothing older than 3 years ago could be considered).
The incitement offences seem to have been taken out of Computer Misuse Act and shoved into the inchoate section of the Serious Crime Act 2007, the relevant amendments and appeals sections of which also come into force on 1st October.
Germany Says Rapidshare Must Proactively Monitor Content For Infringement: “Another day, another awful legal ruling about file sharing. This time, coming out of Germany. A German court has told file hosting company Rapid Share that it needs to proactively screen and monitor all content hosted on its site and remove any infringing files. The company already uses a hash method to screen out infringing files its been alerted to and employs six people who monitor for infringement, but the court has said that’s not enough. Specifically, it notes (correctly) that an uploader need only change a file slightly to avoid the hash filter — but then somehow makes the leap to suggesting that this becomes Rapid Share’s liability. It’s yet another case where judges seem to not understand where liability should lie. It should be common sense that liability lies with the user who’s doing the actual infringing, rather than the platform provider — but it seems to get mixed up way too often. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this will have almost no impact as people will simply migrate to other sites instead.