CyberLaw Blog

Archive for April, 2009

UK scraps plans for Big Brother database: “Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has scrapped plans to build a giant database
to monitor the UK’s e-mails, phone calls and internet activity. Instead,
records of every electronic communication will be held by private companies
at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £2 billion over ten years.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

Government drops plans for single communications database over privacy concerns: “The Government has ruled out the creation of a controversial database which would have stored details of web use, emails and phone calls made by people in the UK. It said that it was the ‘most effective’ solution but has ruled it out on privacy grounds.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

IP minister rules out ‘three strikes’ disconnection law: “The Government minister responsible for intellectual property has ruled out a ‘three strikes’ law denying internet access to illegal file sharers. David Lammy said cutting off users was not ‘the right road’ for UK law makers.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

(Via TorrentFreak.)

Rapidshare Shares Uploader Info with Rights Holders

Like many new releases, Metallica’s latest album ‘Death Magnetic’ was uploaded to the popular file hosting service Rapidshare one day prior to its official release date last year. Since users don’t broadcast their IP-address or distribute files to the public directly though Rapidshare, it came as a surprise when the police raided the house of an uploader a few weeks ago.

At first it was unclear how the identity of the uploader was revealed, but today German news outlet Gulli said it had found out that this was likely to be accomplished by creative use of paragraph 101 of German copyright law. It turns out that several record labels are using this to take legal action against those who share music on Rapidshare.

Previously the paragraph was only used by rights holders to get the personal details of those who share copyrighted works on file-sharing networks. It basically enables the copyright holders to get ‘permission’ from a civil judge to ask ISPs to disclose the personal details of a user behind a certain IP. Now, however, this also seems to be the case for file-hosting services such as Rapidshare, which is based in Germany.

This of course opens up the possibility for rights holders to go after a wide range of file-hosting services and potentially even BitTorrent sites. Indeed, everyone who now uploads a torrent file to a site hosted in Germany is at risk of having his personal details revealed. Although it will be impossible to prove that the uploader actually seeded the file it might be seen as assisting in copyright infringement.

Pretty much all torrent sites keep track of the IP-addresses of their (.torrent) uploaders, and if the rights holders can get the IP-address of people who upload to file-hosting services such as Rapidshare, they can easily extend this to BitTorrent sites hosted in Germany. A dream come true for copyright holders, but a nightmare for the privacy of Internet users.

Too bad for Metallica’s Lars Ulrich who only just started sharing files himself.

Which? News: Google Street View doesn’t invade privacy says ICO

Information Commissioner greenlights Street View
23 April 2009

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has ruled that Google’s controversial Street View service does not invade individual’s privacy.

Google’s Street View service – available as part of its Google Maps product – shows street-level photographs of major UK cities. Privacy International filed a complaint about Street View on the basis that the service had caused ‘distress and embarrassment’ to some individuals identified in the Street Level views.

Google Street View ‘common sense’

However, the ICO has issued a statement saying that ‘common sense’ must prevail and ruled that the service does not breach the UK’s Data Protection Act

David Evans, senior data protection practice manager, said: ‘As a regulator we take a pragmatic and common sense approach. Any images of people’s faces or number plates should be blurred. We emphasised the importance of blurring these images to protect people’s privacy and limit privacy intrusion. Google must respond quickly to deletion requests and complaints as it is doing at the moment. We will be watching closely to make sure this continues to be achieved in practice.’

Self-regulation ‘doesn’t work’ claim

Critics, however, say that this type of self-regulatory approach doesn’t work. ‘I’m not happy about leaving this [Street View] to a system of self-regulation. For example, what happens if Google doesn’t remove an image they’re requested to?’ said Yaman Akdeniz, a spokesperson for Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties.

Google, however, says it is pleased with the ICO’s decision: ‘We took care to build privacy considerations into Street View from the outset and have engaged with the ICO throughout the development process. Already millions of British people have benefited from Street View, whether to get driving directions, find local businesses, or explore a tourist destination. We recognise that a small minority of people may not wish their house to be included in the service, which is why we have created easy to use removals tools,’ says a company statement.

Residents in Milton Keynes previously attempted to stop a Google Street car photographing their street.

Big boost for Aussie firewall: “

Another shrimp on anti-prawnography trial barbie

The controversial Great Aussie Firewall got a big boost yesterday when Australia’s second largest ISP Optus agreed to join the pilot.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Pirate Bay judge and pro-copyright lobbyist accused of bias: “

Defence lawyer demands retrial

The judge in The Pirate Bay trial has been accused of bias, after Sweden’s national radio station revealed that Thomas Norström was a member of the same pro-copyright groups as several of the main entertainment industry reps in the case.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

UK privacy watchdog rejects Street View complaints: “Google’s controversial Street View service was today cleared by the UK
Information Commissioner’s Office of any breach of the Data Protection Act.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)

The Independent: Campaigners call for tighter regulation of Facebook racists

Far-right groups are operating openly on the social networking website

By Jerome Taylor, The Independent, Thursday, 23 April 2009

Facebook has become a breeding ground for racists and far-right extremists, according to immigrant leaders and anti-racism campaigners, who believe the site’s owners are not doing enough to clamp down on cyberhate.

More than 200 million people around the world belong to the social networking site, which attracts thousands of new members every day. The site is used by its members to communicate, swap photographs and set up groups of like-minded people, many of which are overtly political.

But campaigners fear racists are increasingly setting up their own groups to promote a visceral hatred of foreigners and immigrants and say more needs to be done to police online racism.

The Federation of Poles in Great Britain has become so disturbed by some of the content online that it has written a letter to Facebook’s owner Mark Zuckerburg, calling on him to close down an anti-Polish group where one member said Polish people should be thrown ‘down the well’.

Jan Mokrzycki, a spokesman for the federation, which was created after the Second World War to support the Polish community in Britain, said: ‘Generally we try not to react against every inflammatory gesture against Polish people, but the language within the website was so rude and racist that we felt like we had no choice.’

He added: ‘I recognise that you can’t stop every racist website out there, but I would like to think that a supposedly respectable site like Facebook would have better checks and controls on what gets put on their site.’

Right-wing extremists have often used the relatively unregulated world of the internet to spread their message by creating their own websites which are often registered abroad. But their activity on social networking sites has given them a much more mainstream presence.

The sheer size of Facebook’s online community makes monitoring extremists difficult. But a number of groups calling on Britain to throw out, and even kill, foreign nationals have been operating freely for months.

A group called ‘People hate Pakis’ boasts more than 80 members and claims to have been set up by ‘rebels’ from Bradford, where inter-racial tension remains a major problem. A second group calling itself ‘Get all the Paki’s [sic] out of England’ has more than 140 members, many of whom use racist language which is illegal under laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred.

Dennis MacShane, the Labour MP for Rotherham whose father fled Poland before the Nazi invasion and fought for Britain during the Second World War, said social networking sites had allowed racists to talk openly without fear of reprisals.

‘The way you defeat extremism, intolerance, prejudice and racism is to atomise it and make people feel that even if they think racist thoughts they can’t say it openly,’ he said. ‘But websites like Facebook have unfortunately allowed people to come together in one space and say, ‘there are people out there like me’. That is something that worries me greatly. For all the good social networking sites do, they also allow people to express prejudice that in a civilised society should be kept under lock and key.’

Facebook declined to comment yesterday. But in the past its founder Mr Zuckerburg has been reluctant to overly police his invention, which instead relies on users to report racist and offensive behaviour. Under the website’s terms and conditions, posts which are ‘abusive, vulgar, hateful or racially and ethnically objectionable’ are banned but in reality very little content is moderated.

Searchlight, the anti-racism group which monitors far-right extremism on the web, said websites should do more to monitor overtly racist content.

‘It is vital that in those instances where there is clear evidence of hate mail being distributed, [that] internet service providers act firmly and swiftly to shut them down,’ said a spokesman. ‘We cannot allow cyberspace to become a hideout for the peddlers of hate.’

This morning Facebook confirmed that it had taken down the Bradford-based anti-Pakistani group and was investigating the others. A spokesperson said: ‘We want Facebook to be a place where people can discuss issues and current affairs, while respecting the rights and feelings of others. However, there is no place for content that is threatening, abusive, hateful, or racially or ethnically objectionable on the site and Facebook will remove any such content that violates our Terms of Use when it is reported.’

Common sense on Street View must prevail, says the ICO

Date: 23 April 2009

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published new advice on Google
Street View in response to a complaint from Privacy International.

David Evans, Senior Data Protection Practice Manager said: “As a regulator we take
a pragmatic and common sense approach. Any images of people’s faces or number
plates should be blurred. We emphasised the importance of blurring these images to
protect people’s privacy and limit privacy intrusion. Google must respond quickly to
deletion requests and complaints as it is doing at the moment. We will be watching
closely to make sure this continues to be achieved in practice.

“However, it is important to highlight that putting images of people on Google Street
View is very unlikely to formally breach the Data Protection Act. Watch the TV news
any day this week and you will see people walking past reporters in the street. Some
football fans’ faces will be captured on Match of the Day and local news programmes
this weekend – without their consent, but perfectly legally. In the same way there is
no law against anyone taking pictures of people in the street as long as the person
using the camera is not harassing people. Google Street View does not contravene
the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the
digital clock back. In a world where many people tweet, facebook and blog it is
important to take a common sense approach towards Street View and the relatively
limited privacy intrusion it may cause.”

In July 2008 the ICO met with Google to discuss how Street View would be
implemented. The ICO stressed the importance of including a facility for individuals
to report images they were unhappy with and was satisfied that Google was putting
in place adequate safeguards to avoid unwarranted intrusions on people’s privacy.

The ICO has received a number of complaints and enquiries about Google Street
View. These include those from people who are unhappy that their image is on
Street View, those who are unhappy at the prospect of their/anyone else’s image
potentially appearing, as well as those who are positive about the idea. The ICO
receives over 100,000 telephone calls a year, including 25,000 data protection
related complaints.

The ICO has confirmed to Privacy International that the removal of an entire service
of this type would be disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment.
The ICO will keep the operation of Street View under review and take steps to
address issues raised by individuals who feel that Google has not removed
problematic images.