#! /blog
Social networking data retention - round 2
After a disappointing (for the "social" networks, anyway) and still unfinished round 1, it's time for round 2 - after all, everyone deserves a second chance!
Facebook data retention
MySpace data retention
The above links, of course, don't include all the other bits of your information these networks love to store (and sell).
22 March 2010
Cui bono? Bono!
Struggling "artist" Bono recently joined forces with his "music" industry paymasters and wrote a New York Times op-ed (mirror) supporting anti-filesharing measures. Of course, as with most of his opinions, he's dreadfully wrong.
As one of the few "artists" who actually benefit from the current so-called entertainment industry's system, Bono's personal stance could be forgiven. However, for a man who claims to be so caring about the underprivileged, oppressed and most of all poor masses, his opinion on these new laws and the protest against them is anything but altruistic.
Ever eager to protect the young, fledgling songwriters Bono's also concerned about, the US Congress has decided to spend US$30 million (mirror) on fighting "piracy". Because, apparently, everyone with an IQ over 80 knows that non-commercial copyright infringement is a stepping stone towards drug abuse, gang membership and rape. It's a good thing, then, that Congress isn't wasting money on silly things like healthcare, or real piracy - the kind with ships, guns and rocket launchers in which people actually get hurt.
Across the Atlantic, British ISPs fear the cost (mirror) the government's "copyright protection" plans (informally the "please our friends" law) will bring. A cost which will be passed on fully to the customers: they get to pay to be considered criminals who need to be watched 24/7.
To piss even more in their citizens' pints, this new legislation could give the UK government complete control over their subjects' internet use.
You're already paying to be spied on, you might as well pay to only see what your betters in government think is good for you to see. In the as good as dystopian society the United Kingdom has become, no one would expect less.
Always interested in anything important, especially if it means they can get more free dinners at their industry pals' expense, British politicians are also present at the ACTA talks.
However, democratically© elected Members of Parliament - the supposed representatives of the people and their interests - are kept in the dark about the details of the talks and agreements. Supposedly, there is an important need for secrecy - but, if you were a politician, you wouldn't want to be seen holding hands (again) with an industry executive either, right? And it's a great way to do some policy laundering. Nothing but profit.
Meanwhile, British consumer organisation Which? has received over 150 complaints of people who received letters from ACS:Law accusing them of copyright infringement (and, of course, demanding payment to get rid of the threat of charges being brought against them). In several cases, these letters were sent to people who don't even know how to turn on a computer.
The same "proof" ACS:Law uses now to accuse people will be used by the government to automatically consider people guilty of copyright terrorism. But hey, if a private law firm can bully people into paying hundreds of pounds for something they didn't do, why should the government miss out on such an easy quick-cash scheme? Especially if it's the name of goddamn justice itself.
Crossing the Atlantic again, there's still no good news: not a single book went into the public domain in the USA this year; thanks to the retroactive extension of copyright (the "Mickey Mouse" act), forced through by politicians in bed with the various industries' executives and lobbyists.
In most European Union countries it is, thankfully, a bit different - but they could still do a lot better. Seventy years is close to a full lifetime for most people.
Publishers should be forced to hand back the rights to the author after only a few years, and the publication should go into the public domain on the day after the author's death. After all, after expiring, the author - the only person who should profit from his work - has got no use for money anymore.
Copyright law needs to change soon, as right now it's simply too ridiculous. The industry needs to get to grips with the internet and digital distribution - without Digital "Rights" Management. If they don't, failure upon failure will stack up and law upon freedom-raping law will be imposed upon the stupid, unsuspecting public, simply in the name of nepotism and greed.
28 February 2010
You're worthless, but your data isn't
Personal information is valuable. To you, to companies that want to lawfully spam you with advertising, and to criminals who want to steal your identity (or, in non–fear–everything–speak, commit fraud through impersonation). When you give up your personal information to a company – a store you buy from, a bank you've got an account with, ... – you agree to their fifty–page long policy, which no one reads because it's too long and intentionally written in incomprehensible legalese.
Not to fear: logically, the vast amounts of personal information that float around in this modern age should be closely guarded. But, as profit always goes before common sense or the useless proletariat's rights, it isn't.
PrivacyRights carries a long yet lovely list of data breaches, a lot of which stem from companies that make a living (and, undoubtedly, a big profit) out of legally acquiring and selling personal information.
And that's just the USA. (The US government buys that information, too. With your tax dollars. It sure beats having to get a warrant on reasonable grounds of suspicion!)
But you don't care, right? This won't happen to you, right? You don't mind dealing with a $10,000 debt you never asked for, and have a shitty credit rating for the rest of your life, right?
The world's favourite search engine, Google, has a privacy policy more pathetic than Zimbabwe's economy: basically, none. It keeps just about everything. Forever.
Google has even introduced advertising based on your search history. Because you need that Margaritaville that dispenses salsa sauce from the bottom if you put it in at the top.
To be fair to them, in 2007 Google did cut the retention time for personally identifiable information. A great and noble idea – unfortunately, AOL had already shown that "anonymous" doesn't exist anymore in this modern, digital age.
Other search engines, like Yahoo and Microsoft's ridiculously named Bing, are of course hardly better and should be equally avoided.
Microsoft, holding a majority market share through dodgy deals with hardware manufacturers, has been monitoring its users for years. Windows Genuine 'Advantage' phones home more than you would expect, even after you've spent your hard–earned cash on a license for their proprietary system – all of this data needs to go somewhere, and it sure as hell isn't going into Microsoft's recycling bin. (On a positive note, with free software you wouldn't have this problem; nor have your computer controlled by a faceless, avarice–addicted corporate entity.)
Even your mobile phone company wants to sell off (sorry, "share") your personal information – as if you didn't pay them enough already.
One can suppose this behaviour is to be expected from private, profit–driven companies. But, as usual, our supposedly democratic governments aren't much better.
Any soon–to–be totalitarian government that gets elected (it's not like that hasn't happened before) is going to have a field day with all of this information. Our prisons may be full already, but there's still plenty of bullets to go around – Chinese style.
But hey, you've got nothing to hide, right? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear! So why do you keep your curtains closed after dark?
Try to protect your privacy. Use privacy–respecting search enging like Scroogle, Ixquick or Yauba – before all of us are completely scroogled.
19 January 2010
Artists don't profit, rights holders don't get it
Misunderstanding copyright law doesn't help anyone, especially if it's the supposed rights owners that don't get it. Instead, amidst all the so-called creative industry's lying propaganda and campaigns of disinformation, it only adds more confusion.
In October, Ralph Lauren hilariously tried to use DMCA takedown notices against websites ridiculing an immensely bad digital manipulation in one of their adverts.
Their only success came through a hosting company which responds to takedown notices with automatic compliance, out of fear - instilled by years of propaganda - of being taken to court. Ironically, because of Ralph Lauren's own actions, the supposedly offending picture will be around the internet forever.
The "Church" of Scientology, in their turn, have made it a habit of using copyright and trademark law against people using their name and even claim the fairly common name Hubbard as a trademark. They make a point out of threatening people who publish supposedly 'secret' material online, again claiming copyright infringement.
Still in the USA, some yoga teacher has managed to copyright a sequence of yoga routines. The US Copyright Office seems to have forgotten that these are not copyrightable under current US law.
Painfully less funny, though, is the confiscation of cheaper generic medication destined for Africa by Belgian Customs officials (mirror, Google translation). The NGO Oxfam says they think the seizures happened because of false claims of 'intellectual property' (a term to avoid) or patent violations, with Belgian Customs being pressured by the pharmaceutical industry (who, of course, only want the best for all of us).
But hey, we need these laws to protect the companies, authors and artists, right? Else we wouldn't have music, books or art, right?
No.
When best-selling author Lynn Viehl revealed her royalty statements, she showed the world that the publisher takes the profit - not the author. And unfortunately for authors the world over, the publisher will continue to take most of the profit for many years to come.
Three serving UK soldiers thought it'd be a good idea to release a CD of which the proceeds would go to charities supporting injured servicemen (because, apparently, the UK's Ministry Of Defence can't be bothered). Unfortunately for them and the charities, only a disgustingly small amount goes to charity (mirror) - the rest goes straight to industry executives whose pockets already bulge with $100 bills.
Obviously, the industry needs to take this much profit because of all the evil pirates, right? Well, no. Digital filesharing doesn't hurt the industry as much as it would like to claim, and as it turns out, alleged copyright terrorists actually buy more music (mirror).
The industry's insistence to keep to their old ways of business is suicide, and apparently it's clear to everyone but them. They desperately use any law they can find to scare people into their way of thinking, just so they can keep up their disgustingly high profits (of which, of course, the artist sees very little).
The industry needs to modernise and stop their ridiculous lies for their own good. That's the theory, anyway: lucky for them they're good friends with our politicians, and can get their own laws passed, as opposed to laws that would benefit both the people and the artist.
29 November 2009
You're guilty of something and we know it
In a society that becomes more and more like a dystopian novel every day, it should come as no surprise that our governments want to put our genetic make-up on a database, too. After all, matching DNA found at a crime scene to a suspect's retained DNA profile solves any crime within a day or so (at least according to your favourite CSI spin-off).
However, DNA isn't as infallible as Anthony E. Zuiker or the government want us to believe - and databases full of DNA profiles definitely aren't.
Recently, a high-flying lawyer lost her job because her DNA profile was in the database (mirror), having been swabbed after (false) allegations were made against her. She was later released without any charge, but her DNA profile was kept on the database "just in case". Apparently, a presence there warrants a sacking - the fact that she was innocent all along, and never even charged with an offence, never mattered.
In its haste to add every single person onto the database - because we're all criminals waiting to strike - the UK police has started arresting innocent people just to take their DNA. No need to panic, though: if you remain innocent for six years, your DNA profile will be removed from the database - until, of course, five years from now it is decided that the six-year term should be prolonged, preferably indefinitely. Just in case.
Equally worrying is the idea that you would be swabbed for your DNA, and your DNA profile retained for a very long time, if you commit the annoying but not exactly vicious offence of speeding (mirror). Or, God forbid, littering (oh, you terrorist!). The government's tactic is understandable: littering and speeding are well-known paths to cold-blooded serial rape and murder.
Solving crime is important. But as less than 1% of UK crimes are solved with the help of DNA, the idea of having a costly, invasive and unsecure database of every (innocent until proven guilty) resident's DNA profile quickly becomes ridiculous.
Apart from the cost, the invasion of privacy, the insecurity and henceforth the fact that this information will be abused, there is a whole host of other problems with DNA profiles.
And with the UK government's long track record of losing sensitive data, why wouldn't they lose your DNA profile too?
That way, someone can fabricate DNA evidence from it; if an unscrupulous, underpaid government employee doesn't beat them to it.
The New York Times proudly reports (mirror): "They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person."
Awesome. We'll all live happily ever after.
Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested. - Der Prozess
28 November 2009
Comply, citizen!
Secret talks between governments? Surely, there's another invasion on the books? Maybe one of them came up with a great plan to end all of the world's suffering? No, they're talking about changing and implementing international copyright law.
The discussions have a broad scope: our nations' Wisest Men will be chatting away about anything from counterfeiting physical goods to unlawful digital distribution.
Maybe they should've decreased the scope, as these two problems facing the so-called creative industries (and their politician friends) are completely different and shouldn't be discussed together.
The fact that the industry's lying propaganda has placed any perceived 'infringement' upon any perceived 'intellectual rights' (to avoid the term "intellectual property", as everyone should), under one all-encompassing banner of "piracy", that it has become acceptable for our governments to dismiss their own laws and use the industry's illogical disinformation strategy against their own people.
The counterfeiting of physical goods is the work of criminals (and is often a side-project of organised crime) and prey upon both producer and customer.
Internet distribution (the Evil Filesharing™) does not belong in the same category. Non-commercial copyright infringement, as would happen when some kid uploads a copyrighted file, falls in no way under the same definition - or any human definition - of crime.
Transparent and open democratic governments? Not in this society, apparently; where policy laundering and dodgy advisers with their own business interests at heart are the norm.
However, not all news on invasive laws is bad news. For once eager to follow the French example, the UK government has been pushing its Digital Economy Bill. Invasive? Yes. Scary? Not according to culture minister Sion Simon, who said last Monday that "people who have done nothing wrong should not be in any danger of having their internet interfered with at all." And to spoil his countrymen even more, he even threw in a right of appeal!
A right of appeal where you prove that you are innocent. Like France's HADOPI law, this UK law will consider you guilty until proven innocent; and you will carry the burden of proof yourself. Good luck proving you didn't do something!
Will the snoops bother to check the contents of the available torrents? Framing your enemies is getting easier every day, why not get them booted off the internet whilst you're at it?
If the government's cronies connecting to random popular torrents and issuing notices to the ISPs of all IPs connected to those torrents (a very flawed method to say the least), will they assume that everyone connected to the torrent is both downloading and uploading, during which the real 'infringement' happens?
And, again, there are several problems with accusing private individuals of copyright infringement when there is such a wide array of (voluntarily and accidently) unsecured wireless networks out there, open FON networks, and so on.
It needs repeating: there are already laws in place to protect copyright holders. However, the current legislation requires rights holders to sue the alleged copyright terrorist at their own expense, and provide sufficient proof against the alleged copyright dissident themselves.
The new legislation will consider the accused guilty based purely upon the fact they were accused, and put the borden of proof (of innocence) on the alleged baby-killing dissident.
Like the French law, this legislation will cause private, tax-paying individuals to be spied on 24/7 without proper reason or suspicion. It will make everyone who uses the internet into a potential criminal who simply must be watched.
The massive propaganda making non-commercial copyright infringement the biggest crime of this millennium would turn any dictator extremely jealous. This small offence against copyright law is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion purely because the interested parties are friendly with the lawmakers - people whose luxurious lifestyles we pay for through our taxes, and who in (utopian?) theory should cater to our needs, not their friends' desires.
11 November 2009
Forced vaccinations, part II
The United Kingdom, like some other Western countries, has been widely distributing a vaccine against cervical cancer. Cervical cancer, which can be detected early by simple tests and then fully treated, kills about 1,000 British women per year.
One thousand. Five times less than the country's suicide rate for 2007; eight times less than the alcohol-related deaths for the same year; a disturbing 106 times less than the supposed "smoking-related" deaths each year; and an astonishing 193 times less than the 2008 road casualties.
Why would a benevolent government force a vaccination (either through sheer force or disinformation) on its people if the disease is so easily detectable and treatable?
One has to wonder, especially when the vaccine tends to cause a myriad of distressing side-effects. 'Patients' have experienced anything from fairly mild though very inconveniencing side-effects (mirror) to paralysis from the waist down (mirror). But, paralysed or not, at least you (probably) won't get cervical cancer. All you have to worry about after this jab is the hundreds of other types of cancers!
At least one 'patient' has died following the vaccine, though the government's health service was quick to blame it on a magically never-before-detected-nor-suspected tumor.
In related news: the cervical cancer vaccine might cause "mild" side-effects (bar paralysis and death), but the still-popular (with the government, anyway) swine flu vaccine has shown itself to be a cause (mirror) of the infamous Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Aside from cervical cancer, the aforementioned swine flu vaccine carries the same warning: if you take the slightest bit of care for your own body and health, you will cope and live through it unharmed. Thousands of people who have been subjected to either vaccine have reported very bad side-effects (with both the worst-case scenario is possibly painful death), and more people have been harmed by the vaccines than by the disease they're supposed to protect us against.
As an extra punch in the face, these vaccines aren't free: the tax-payer is, once again, the one suffering the costs. This time, the UK taxpayer is shelling out for a way too expensive, possibly disability-causing or even lethal vaccine against a disease that could be easily prevented and treated.
Our governments certainly didn't learn anything from the United States' 1976 swine flu vaccination failure.
Is there anything they won't do for their friends who have certain business interests?
13 October 2009
HADOPI's nearly law, but a flawed one
On 15 September, the French Assembly approved the three-strikes anti-"piracy" legislation. When it gets through the second stage and a final draft, it will become law.
The almost-law states that people accused of copyright infringement (or "piracy") will first receive a warning e-mail, then an official letter, then they will lose their internet connection for a year (whilst still paying their internet connection bill).
Throughout this three-step process, the accused has no opportunity to defend himself. He can only appeal once disconnected.
When the accused appeals, he will find himself before a judge and - hopefully - a due process of law. Unfortunately, once the accused appeals he can, aside from the disconnection, be punished with a €300,000 fine or a prison sentence.
Obviously, those punishments do not fit the supposed crime whatsoever. A prison sentence for non-commercial copyright infringement, where the alleged copyright terrorist did not profit at all from his supposed crime? A €300,000 fine? Someone selling "pirated" DVDs, and getting a big profit from it, would receive a lesser punishment in most Western countries!
Of course, this piece of wannabe-legislation that would be better off in the gutter, being vomited upon by a drunk teenager, has more flaws than just the above...
- The European Convention on Human Rights states that any person charged with a criminal offence shall be considered innocent until proven guilty. An accusation is never enough to punish someone - even if the punishment is as "light" as cutting off the person's internet access.
- More importantly, the Convention's Article 6, §3 says (in short) that everyone charged with a criminal offence has to be informed of this in detail and has to be able to defend himself. This law does not allow the accused to defend himself at all - unless he appeals after the (first) punishment is meted out.
Copyright infringement is, as for now, not considered a criminal but civil offence. Therefore, this clause could be ignored; however, the accused is prosecuted by the government from the start. This goes way beyond an interested party suing another party for compensation (as generally would happen with a civil crime): it's pushing alleged copyright terrorists into criminality, together with murderers, rapists and burglars. - The first warning e-mail: as the government is not expected to admit they know your 'real' e-mail address, will the warning be send to the standard e-mail address a customer receives with his internet connection (i.e. luser@orange.fr), and a lot of people don't use? And for those who do use their ISP-allocated e-mail address, how many check their Junk folder? Because of the amount of spam that is sent around the internet, junk filters are often rather strict - and with the amount of spam most people receive, who even dares to look at their Junk folder?
- An IP address is as much evidence as a drunk, blind schizophrenic's witness statement. Couple that with the inability to defend oneself and you've got yourself a judicial disaster - of which the only victim will be the accused.
- Once the accused can appeal (when he's already been punished by disconnection), he faces - if convicted - much harsher punishment which is possibly unfounded. The French government is simply trying to discourage people from appealing by threatening them with terrifying results: therefore, only a few people dare to appeal, and most people will automatically admit guilt by not appealing.
It's great for the government's statistics, but unfortunately not so great for the accused victims of this ridiculous law.
And, to top off all of the above: we don't need a new law. There are already laws in place protecting the rights of the copyright holders (as flawed as copyright law on itself may be). However, under current law, they have a long process to follow and, worst of all, they have to provide evidence to prove that the accused is guilty.
This new law will greatly accommodate the government's friends in the so-called creative industries. Surely, their sales will go up. Oh, wait, they won't - because "pirates" buy more music than anyone else (mirror). But they won't be buying it from prison, or when they're trying to pay off a €300,000 fine.
That is, of course, assuming that they're at all guilty. Which, as the geekier ones among us know, can never be proven beyond doubt with a simple IP address. Ever.
[edited to add - 22 September 2009:]
Today, the French Assembly approved the "HADOPI 2" law. Yesterday, 21 September 2009, the proposal had already been approved in the Senate by 13 votes pro, 6 votes against, and one undecided - yes, that's twenty votes. Twenty senators (out of 343) turned up for their job that day: the Democratic Machine© in action!
17 September 2009
Statistics are like women ...
... mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases, as Theodor Billroth said. The latter definitely applies to the vomit spewed forth by the music industry claiming they lose ever so much well-deserved cash because of all those evil, Satan-worshipping "pirates".
In May 2009, "illegal downloads" were blamed for billions in losses and thousands of jobs lost; at the same time 'government advisers' claimed that Britain's population consisted of seven million copyright terrorists™ who are obviously personally responsible for the detriment of many, now unemployed, music industry workers and their families.
The dubious statistics reached the government through Ciber, which got them from Forrester Research, which got them from one of their subsidiaries' research - and was commissioned by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI).
The BBC radio show More Or Less uncovered the above facts and found that the statistics were based on some rather questionable assumptions (mirror).
As it turns out, the music industry's and (scarily enough) the government's "facts" were based on the survey confessions of 136 people - surely they are a good representation of a population of 61 million (when is 0.000223% not good enough?).
Of course, 0.000223% becomes extremely representative when the lawmakers are in bed with the so-called "creative" industry and are willing to break their own laws and conventions to please their friends.
Meanwhile, another - and slightly more reliable - study (mirror) tells us that music "pirates" are actually the ones who are silly enough to spend their hard-earned money on buying music. Seeing as there are rarely any decent try-before-you-buy (or listen-before-you-buy) options available at the big digital music retailers, it's hardly surprising that people turn to "piracy" to make sure they spend their hard-earned money on something they actually want.
The industry needs to realise they simply have to change their business model, rescind the term "intellectual property" and lobby for the change of copyright law in favour of the people: ultimately, that change will benefit the industry too. If you sell songs with Digital 'Rights' Management embedded in them, few people are going to buy them. If you allow people to have ownership of what they spend their money on, they will be much more inclined to pay up: it's the way buying things works - I buy something, I get to do with it pretty much whatever I want. I can't kill someone unpunished with a hammer I just bought, but I can listen to the song I just bought on my iPod, my Zune, my NoBrand portable music player, and I can convert it to .ogg to satisfy my dislike of proprietary file formats.
The industry needs to realise that when you try to take people's freedom, they will not like you - but, when you give them some trust, they will give you the money you're so desperately after and they will like you for it.
10 September 2009
The issues with anti-"piracy" laws
The great Occidental lawmakers, in their hurry to appease their friends in the entertainment industry, don't seem to realise the (legal) problems surrounding their law proposals.
Firstly, there is no real need for a new law. In all Western nations, sharing copyrighted material (provided the copyright license doesn't allow sharing, as the copyleft licenses do) is already against the law, and can be acted upon - it doesn't matter if it happened online or offline.
Ordinarily, when the copyright holder notices his copyright is being infringed upon, he will start a civil case against the suspected copyright terrorist. Copyright infringement, unlike murder or the possession and distribution of child pornography, is not a crime the government itself would prosecute - the owner of the rights needs to file a complaint against the other party. The government stays out of the process, except for the justice system; bar of course in this brave new world where politicians and media moguls are BFFs (mirror).
The entertainment industry claims that filesharing and so-called online "piracy" is costing them billions per year in lost sales. The proof to back up these ridiculous statements is, for some dubious reason, not used to file complaints against the "pirates" - instead, they use these made-up figures to sway the media into publishing sob stories on how the Popular Artist Of The Day cannot afford a third villa because people are spitting in the face of the law by downloading their releases.
The sad fact is that many people who download music or movies wouldn't even think about spending a cent to buy the items. They serve as mindless entertainment for just over an hour; which could be spent equally productive by reading a book, taking a walk, or staring at the wall.
The short and simple point is this: if online "piracy" suddenly comes to a complete halt, the entertainment industry's sales will go up marginally... at most.
Specifically regarding the British (mirror) and French law proposals, they carry the major legal issue of innocent until proven guilty being done away with. These proposals mete out punishment based on nothing but accusations.
The Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, §2 states that it is a fundamental right to be always regarded as innocent until proven guilty. To be punished on the basis of allegations is against our governments' own laws.
Adding to the fact that people will be considered guilty by weak allegations (see below), another important subject lacks in these proposals: the ability to defend oneself. The right to a fair, public trial where you can make your case is a basic human right and generally only ignored in countries ruled by despots and tyrants, not the democratic™ nations we live in.
Furthermore, the EU Parliament ruled on 6 May 2009 that internet access within the Union is a fundamental right, which cannot be taken away unless sanctioned by a judicial authority. Soon afterwards, the French government adapted its proposal to include such a judicial authority, but another issue reared its ugly head: a judge willing to convict and punish people based on allegations isn't worthy of the title, let alone the responsibility and power. Any judge that punishes anyone if/when these proposals become law should be imprisoned himself.
But, of course, these fundamental flaws aren't the only problems with these proposed anti-"piracy" laws:
- How are you to know that the file you are downloading is protected by copyright? For example, a torrent can carry the filename "Public Domain - 1942 - The Corpse Vanishes" but really contain the latest Hollywood hit. Will you be automatically guilty for being deceived by a 14-year-old's "funny" upload to a filesharing website?
It's an unlikely scenario, but one where no one wants to be in. Filesharing protocols aren't solely used for supposedly illegal downloads; they more often than not serve as a helping hand in distributing all kinds of copyright-free media, GNU/Linux or *BSD distributions, ... - False files uploaded by the entertainment industry to annoy/catch copyright terrorists: a few years ago a torrent circulated supposedly containing Madonna's latest release. Instead, it contained a sort of "open letter" from the entertainment industry on how bad it is to try and download/share copyrighted material. The fact that this particular torrent contained the anti-"piracy" rant quickly became well-known, and thousands of people downloaded it to satisfy their curiosity and/or to be amused. Will you be guilty under these new laws, fully knowing that what you downloaded wasn't what the filename claimed it to be; and fully knowing that you weren't committing copyright infringement at all?
- Once cutting off internet access becomes a fairly current and 'acceptable' punishment, what other reasons will a government use to disconnect people? Will speaking out against them, and therefore being undemocratic and anti-freedom, be enough? Will viewing an unauthorised or "suspicious" website do it?
Will it be enough to encrypt your traffic? After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why would you encrypt your packets?
What will stop the next government from re-using this law to exert even more control over the population? This doesn't necessarily require a government that is rogue from the start: the Nazis were voted in democratically too, remember? - If you live with your family or in shared accommodation, and the internet connection's in your name, you will get disconnected and considered a "pirate". Is the person who registered the phone line/internet connection suddenly responsible for the online actions of everyone in the building?
- Neither the WEP nor WPA wireless security protocols are actually secure. The former can be cracked in seconds, the latter in minutes (or, apparently, sixty seconds) (mirror). There are plenty of tools available to aid script kiddies in (ab)using their neighbours' internet access.
- What about people who believe in share-alike internet access wherever you go, such as those who use FON; or those who keep their wireless network open for whatever reason? Will technically-challenged people, who haven't even got a remote understanding of securing their wireless network or spotting someone piggy-backing on their connection, be convicted under these laws? After all, there is no way to prove you know or don't know how to secure your network.
As for now, these atrocities are nothing but law proposals. We can still hope that they won't actually become law. However, history has shown us that hope is anything but the alpha and omega of human life - on the contrary, when faced with the authorities, it has shown us that it is futile to hope because the govermnent is always right. And if, by some freak accident of law or nature, they appear to be wrong, they will quickly make themselves right.
29 August 2009
More snooping and punishing
In a ridiculous new law proposal, the Australian government would make ISPs (internet service providers) spy on every packet passing through their customers' internet connection (mirror) to find out who's committing the dreadful sin of copyright infringement; and then hand over all the details to the copyright holders.
Now, if you make the ISPs work more, they will charge their customers more. If this law gets through, customers will pay up for the privilege of losing any notion of online privacy. In our Western world, where everything and everyone is connected to the internet, unacceptable doesn't even come close to describe this proposal.
The same war on online "piracy" continues in the UK: the (unelected) Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, wants to put draconian measures in place to criminalise filesharers (mirror).
These include fines up to £50,000 and cutting off customers' internet access (mirror), which is very reminiscent of the French HADOPI law proposal.
Peter Mandelson came up with this intelligent plan after having had dinner with billionaire record producer David Geffen (mirror), whilst on holiday with the Rotschild family at their Greek villa.
A born-rich man like Mandelson, who moves in such proletarian circles, of course knows exactly what the people want and need. And he's obviously aware of all the alternative ideas that are floating around with regards to copyright law.
Our Italian brethren have in their turn proposed a new law which would force everyone who puts their opinions online to publish a "right to reply" (mirror) from any person or entity who takes offense to that opinion - on penalty of a €10,000 fine.
Francesco Pizzetti, the Italian Data Protection Authority president, has said that this law "probably" won't really apply to private persons but mainly to the online press. However, unless this is specified in the letter of the law (which it won't), no one is going to be free from prosecution.
It won't kill the internet (for now), as some people have claimed, but it will be yet another step in the direction of total internet control and the death of free speech online - the only place where a shred of freedom remains.
17 August 2009
A Kafkaesque reality
The government is always right. They are incapable of making mistakes. If something is wrong, it is you that is wrong. The government is always right because they work for you and love you; and you love them. If you don't, they can cure you.
However, in a massive reversal of always being right, a UK government clerk ruined Andre Powers's business (mirror).
Andre Powers spent so much on his starting business that he fell three months behind on his mortgage payments. His lender took him to court, but Mr Powers settled the debt before the case came before a judge.
However, a smart clerk, who obviously double-checks his sources, mistakingly entered a County Court Judgement (CCJ) for the full amount of Mr Powers's mortgage. Mr Powers didn't find out until a potential investor performed a credit check on him through Experian. The credit check failed because, according to the government database from which Experian buys its information, Mr Powers was over £240,000 in debt.
No investors means no business. As the government database error was responsible for ruining his business Mr Powers tried to claim for compensation, but a judge dismissed his claim citing an apparently very unrelated precedent of a prisoner being held longer than the time he was convicted for and not being able to sue over it (Quinland v. Governor of Swaleside Prison). Full of compassion, the judge did decide that the CCJ should be removed.
Thanks to one clerk and one judge, a dangerous precedent has been set. When the government ruins your life because of a simple database error, there is no way you will be able to claim back the money or time you lost because of it. All it takes is one government clerk's idiocy, bad typing skills, or pressure to reach his data entry targets to ruin your life.
With a bit of luck, they'll remove or change the erroneous information, but that's it - your losses are completely yours to carry.
In another great database scheme, the same UK government has had the genious idea of vetting everyone who frequently visits schools, such as children's books authors (mirror).
For the privilege of being part of this database, the "candidate" gets to pay £64. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, you either pass or fail the vetting: you do not have access to the information that is kept on you, so you cannot defend yourself. This information consists of your criminal history and, surprisingly, allegations and suspicions reported by the public. You better not have any enemies.
There will be no official charge or trial, just a pass or fail. If you fail, because at some point your ex-wife/ex-husband accused you of abusing your children to spite you (it's not like that never happens) (mirror), you're marked for the rest of your life: you failed a vetting that was put in place to protect our children from dangerous sexual predators. As far as public opinion is concerned, you are nothing but a child molester.
In their quest to set up another database, the government has conveniently forgotten that, in any school, no visitor is ever left alone with a child: a teacher is always present, as they carry the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of their little students.
Luckily, the government has promised to rethink the details (mirror), but you probably shouldn't get your hopes up.
For all the bullshit the UK government spouts about "human rights", this legislation is very much against the European Convention of Human Rights.
Speaking of databases, the UK government is still pushing to implement its national ID database, including biometrics.
Ordinarily, different government agencies would hold different information on you - with a national ID database, all information will be centralised. Great idea, now the rogue-nation-of-the-day only has to crack one database to mess up the lives of their enemy-of-the-day's citizens.
But it's all alright, because they're going to add fancy biometrics to the database to make it extra safe! If only biometrics could be infallible, which they are not.
Quoting or referring to Orwell's 1984 (mirror) is going to become a lot less cliché when our society becomes exactly like the one Winston Smith hated so much. But, as Smith, we will be cured to love it.
16 August 2009
Copyright infringement: the new rape?
In June 2008, Californian Kevin Cogill uploaded tracks from the then-upcoming Guns'n'Roses album "Chinese Democracy" onto the Antiquiet website.
When asked by the Guns'n'Roses singer's legal team, he removed the offending files. So why exactly did he end up convicted in court because of it?
Initially, he was charged with a felony, with the prosecution asking for six months imprisonment. Traditionally, the word felony is reserved for such crimes as homicide, rape, and kidnapping - maybe, in the near future, we can officially add copyright infringement to that list?
The copyright terrorist's charges were eventually deduced to a misdemeanor, but not all that end's with not going to prison ends well.
Kevin Cogill was sentenced to one year of probation, two months of home confinement and having his computer activity monitored by the government (well, they'll specifically monitor his computer activity). Adding to that, he'll also have to record a so-called "public service announcement" (i.e. an anti-"piracy" advertisement) for the RIAA.
He was tried and convicted as if he were a robber or burglar - all for the civil crime of copyright infringement. As cliché as it may sound, I think that a certain character in one of George Orwell's books would be very, very proud.
Why did the prosecution ask for a prison sentence? Why would Cogill need to be removed from society? I may not know him personally, but I'm fairly sure he won't be stabbing the clerk at his local 7-11 anytime soon.
One could say the punishment did not exactly fit the crime in Cogill's case. But, as always, this case isn't the only one.
In June this year, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay a US$1,920,000 fine for sharing 24 (yes, twenty-four) songs via the peer-to-peer program Kazaa.
In another case, Joel Tenenbaum was ordered to pay damages of US$675,000 to four record labels, all subsidiaries of Warner Music, Sony and Universal Music.
Again, a downright evil thief was found and tried (fairly, no doubt). US$675,000 may seem a little steep, but it sure beats the maximum $4,500,000 (yes, that is four and a half million US dollars) that could have been awarded to the so-called "victims"... for sharing thirty songs.
Luckily, there has been and is nothing but good news on the horizon for the big record labels and other media holdings alike. It seems that their lobbyists do excellent work: late July, the European Commission of Justice ruled that snippets of only eleven words can constitute copyright infringement.
For a long time now, copyright laws and the prosecution of those who go against them have surpassed and ignored common sense; but now it's coming close to punching every tax-paying citizen in the face. Twice.
By Jove, eleven words: it's (nearly) as bad as pulling a gun on someone's grandmother to steal her pension cheque.
At this rate, next year we'll be fined (or shot on sight?) for humming a tune on our way to work.
And speaking of grandmothers, it's exactly them who the Queensland, New Zealand, police are out to protect: by wardriving for unprotected wireless networks.
Of course, they're doing this to combat fraud and identity theft (shouldn't that be fraud through impersonation?), by apparently limiting the criminals' area of operations.
Right. Because any coffee shop, any public library or any airport hasn't got wireless networks available to anyone. No, criminals are going to use their own neighbours' networks; or sit - inconspicuously and unnoticed, I'm sure - in a car on a residential street; rather than use any of these open networks in public spaces where they won't get caught.
Maybe, just maybe, the Queensland police are trying to limit the "area of operations" for the kid next door who thinks he's cleverly evading capture by downloading or sharing songs over his neighbour's network? But of course, that's just speculation on my part.
Either way, I'm sure it won't be a waste of the public services' time. As I'm sure none of the other cases mentioned have been a waste of the justice system's time. It's not like they've got murderers and rapists to convict in this little perfect world.
7 August 2009
Forced vaccinations
Pharmaceutical companies are racing to be the first to finish a swine flu vaccine. Any sane person who's ever survived a case of regular influenza would do good to refuse such a rushed vaccine; as the vaccine itself seems likely to make you more sick than the illness it's supposed to protect you against.
However, the WHO's advisory board (the same WHO who shifted its focus from battling Africa's hunger to battling Europe's smoking), which includes executives from the big pharmaceutical companies, recommends mandatory vaccination (mirror).
Taking the intelligence displayed by our governments in the past few years into account, there should be no doubt they will take these pharmaceutical companies' advice as the Unchallengeable Truth™ and act accordingly.
The following 1979 news report sounds scarily familiar today. One major thing has changed, though: in 1979 people could sue when the 1976 vaccine ruined their lives. For the vaccine being created now, the US government has made it clear that the pharmaceutical companies will be immune from prosecution (mirror) (within the US - for now).
If the video above goes down, the .flv file can be found here.
1 August 2009
Amazon's Orwellian flaws
Last Friday, Amazon deleted several books by George Orwell from their users' Kindles because of possible copyright issues. Kindle users didn't receive any notice or warning - their only information came from an e-mail confirming a refund for the books.
It is downright invasive that Amazon grants itself access without users' knowledge or consent. They have the supposed right to delete the books because they're not the buyer's property: Amazon licenses these digital editions instead of actually selling them. Of course, until now they've never made that explicitly clear; except in the mythical Terms of Use/Licence Agreement which no one reads because, simply put, they're unreadable unless you're a lawyer (but I do believe that's the point).
The idea that a manufacturer still has rights over a device after it has been purchased (cfr. Apple) is ludicrous. Once the sale is made, it becomes private property. If you smash your Kindle against a wall, Amazon aren't going to be angry, because it's not their property anymore.
These digital books should be sold, not licensed. Licensing, in general, is more profitable - and everyone likes money - but users' rights and freedom cannot be thrown out of the window just to pay for an executive's second swimming pool.
Amazon has said that in a future situation like this, they won't automatically remove books from users' devices.
Great idea. How about the next time they mess up, they contact the company claiming to own the copyright and discuss costs/compensation with them, whilst the users continue enjoying their disputed digital editions. The users shouldn't suffer to rectify Amazon's mistake.
As sorry as Amazon claimed to be after the New York Times article, they've already taken the same action for disputed Harry Potter and Ayn Rand books earlier this year. I don't have high hopes for a change in tactics.
What if the US retroactively extends the period of copyright (again)? A US-based user's entire Kindle content could be emptied overnight. I'll stick with old-fashioned books for now - I'm sure Amazon's Kindle won't survive 451°F either, anyway.
Ironically enough, one of the deleted books was 1984; and Amazon's actions are a perfect example of how our society turns more Orwellian every day. And if we don't stand up to it, Stallman's fictional story The Right To Read may very well become our future reality.
20 July 2009
Facebook data retention
After MySpace, let's see how Facebook holds up in the eternal all your data are belong to us competition. My pronostic would be "not so good".
On a sidenote...
With regards to Facebook privacy, Bruce Schneier has some interesting links on his blog about Facebook's privacy settings:
Scheiner's original blog entry was about a study (.pdf) stating that the more people are 'reassured' about the safe-guarding of their privacy, the more they care about it - and thus, the less they are willing to reveal personal information. Henceforth, "social networking" websites prefer to remind you about the supposed benefits of their services, rather than the fact they will (not?) protect your privacy.
Meanwhile, the pictures deleted from MySpace on 4 July are (at the time of writing) still on their servers.
18 July 2009
Bye bye, MySpace!
The last message to ever pass through my personal MySpace profile.
This page shan't be used anymore. Ever since I created it - through the coercion of everyone else is using it and has stopped using other means of online communication rather than actually wanting to - I've felt dirty about it. Now I've come to a point where I'm not just tired of feeling like a private corporation's commodity, but I want to act upon it. Near-eternal (and soon eternal) data retention and the selling-off of marketing databases (to provide us with better services, of course) is not exactly my proverbial cup of tea.
Not using a personal MySpace page anymore is barely an example of that, but at least I'll feel slightly better about myself.
"Web 2.0" (MySpace, Facebook et al) has caused the death of user-run and user-controlled online communities, and as I've witnessed over the last few years has caused the internet to cease what it used to be. When I first connected to the worldwide tubes in 1998, it was a great network of knowledge and freedom. Over eleven years, it has turned into nothing less than subscription cable TV: you think that what you're getting is what you want, rather than fat executives deciding what you want - and you gladly buying into it. Hey, it's the newest thing, so it must be good, right?
Hypocritical as I am, the Indigetes Dii MySpace page will continue to exist; purely because the music is too shitty to have any listeners were it not for the drunk people clicking through from other profiles.
As for the data retention, check this page with links to four pictures I deleted to see how long they stay on MySpace's servers. Because, like it or not, they own them. But, like everyone else, you didn't read the Terms Of Use, did you? Of course not. No one outside of MySpace's (or Facebook's, Bebo's, ...) legal department ever has, as they're simply incomprehensible unless you're a seasoned lawyer.
So bye-bye, MySpace friends - if any of you long-lost e-pals of yore ever return here, you can contact me via www.indigetesdii.org. Or add the Indigetes Dii profile and be a "friend" (how that word has lost its meaning over the past years...) of the crappiest experimental noise ever made!
I hope you realise that your freedom, online and otherwise, is being taken away from you day by day; and that you will act upon it by closing your rectum to the corporations trying to stick their penises in it. Toodle-pip!
04 July 2009