from the radical-transparency dept
Randomly, this can't be particularly surprising when, as we noted a few months ago, some hackers had worked out that a large number of high level government officials in Syria used 12345 as their email password.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Jul 6th 2012 2:20pm
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Jun 6th 2012 12:21pm
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Apr 20th 2012 7:02am
They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.The original district court ruling was fantastic, and did such a great job illustrating why it makes no sense to blame third party service providers for infringement -- because infringement is not an absolute, but requires a court to decide what really is infringement. As the original ruling stated:
Regardless of the actual quality of the evidence gathering of DtecNet, copyright infringement is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question. The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over dozens of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright by use of the BitTorrent system. The respondent had no such guidance before these proceedings came to be heard. The respondent apparently did not properly understand how the evidence of infringements underlying the AFACT Notices was gathered. The respondent was understandably reluctant to allege copyright infringement and terminate based on that allegation. However, the reasonableness of terminating subscribers on the basis of non-payment of fees does not dictate that warning and termination on the basis of AFACT Notices was equally reasonable. Unlike an allegation of copyright infringement, the respondent did not need a third party to provide evidence that its subscribers had not paid their fees before taking action to terminate an account for such reason.In other words, just because someone accuses someone else of infringement, it's ridiculous for the ISP to automatically assume infringement has taken place. That turns the basic concepts of due process on their head. AFACT/MPAA appealed and lost again, with the court once again pointing out that general knowledge that someone on your site infringes is not nearly enough to terminate or suspend users.
Termination of an iiNet account with a customer who has infringed will assuredly prevent the continuation of a specific act of communicating a film online using a particular .torrent file on a particular computer. Regrettably, however, on receiving a threat of such termination, it is possible for a customer to engage another ISP for access to the internet on that computer or access the internet on another computer using a different ISP. Whilst any new infringement would be just as serious as the specific primary infringements about which the appellants complain, this circumstance shows the limitations on iiNet's power to command a response from its customers, or to prevent continuing infringements by them.And, once again, the court finds that mere notice of infringement certainly is not proof of infringement, and requiring iiNet to investigate further is too big a burden:
Updating the investigative exercise in the AFACT notices would require iiNet to understand and apply DtecNet's methodology – which, among other things, involved a permission to DtecNet from AFACT to use the BitTorrent system to download the appellants' films. Before the filing of experts' reports in the proceedings, the information in the AFACT notices did not approximate the evidence which would be expected to be filed in civil proceedings in which interlocutory relief was sought by a copyright owner in respect of an allegation of copyright infringement. Also, any wrongful termination of a customer's account could expose iiNet to risk of liability. These considerations highlight the danger to an ISP, which is neither a copyright owner nor a licensee, which terminates (or threatens to terminate) a customer's internet service in the absence of any industry protocol binding on all ISPs, or any, even interim, curial assessment of relevant matters.All in all, this is a good ruling concerning copyright and secondary liability -- and a bunch of money down the drain for the MPAA, who could have spent this time helping its studios to innovate, but has instead focused on this quixotic legal strategy.
iiNet's inactivity after receipt of the AFACT notices was described by the appellants as demonstrating a sufficient degree of indifference to their rights to give rise to authorisation. However, the evidence showed that the inactivity was not the indifference of a company unconcerned with infringements of the appellants' rights. Rather, the true inference to be drawn is that iiNet was unwilling to act because of its assessment of the risks of taking steps based only on the information in the AFACT notices. Moreover, iiNet's customers could not possibly infer from iiNet's inactivity (if they knew about it), and the subsequent media releases (if they saw them), that iiNet was in a position to grant those customers rights to make the appellants' films available online.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is ramping up the pressure on the government to act. It said today's judgment exposed the failure of copyright law to keep pace with the online environment and the need for the government to act.No, Neil, it's not Australian law that's the problem. It's reality, and the fact that the movie studios refuse to bother to understand how the internet works and how they can adapt. No law will fix this. It will only make things worse. And Gane and the MPAA should be careful, lest they think they can try to pass another SOPA down under. I get the feeling that won't go over well.
"It would seem apparent that the current Australian Copyright Act isn't capable of protecting content once it hits the internet and peer-to-peer networks...," AFACT managing director Neil Gane said.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Mar 29th 2012 12:47pm
Although the agents may not need to have any particularized suspicion for the initial search and seizure at the border for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment analysis, it does not necessarily follow that the agents, as is alleged in the complaint, may seize personal electronic devices containing expressive materials, target someone for their political association and seize his electronic devices and review the information pertinent to that association and its members and supporters simply because the initial search occurred at the border.The court also makes it clear that while border searches may not violate the 4th Amendment, if they are politically motivated, it's possible that there could be a 1st Amendment issue, which could make things interesting. Specifically, the court notes that since none of the government's interest had anything to do with border patrol this might actually be a 1st Amendment violation:
As discussed above, the agents questioned House solely about his association with Manning, his work for the Support Network, whether he had any connections to WikiLeaks, and whether he had contact with anyone from WikiLeaks during his trip to Mexico.... None of their questions concerned border control, customs, trade, immigration, or terrorism....This stage of the case is just the court rejecting the feds attempt to get the case dismissed, but certainly the language explaining why that motion was denied is extremely encouraging.
The Defendants’ assertion that concluding that House has alleged a plausible First Amendment claim would be somehow inconsistent with the Court’s finding that the initial search and seizure was routine under the Fourth Amendment analysis ignores the difference in legal standards that apply to Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims. See Tabbaa, 509 F.3d at 102 n. 4 (noting that “distinguishing between incidental and substantial burdens under the First Amendment requires a different analysis, applying different legal standards, than distinguishing what is and is not routine in the Fourth Amendment border context”). That the initial search and seizure occurred at the border does not strip House of his First Amendment rights, particularly given the allegations in the complaint that he was targeted specifically because of his association with the Support Network and the search of his laptop resulted in the disclosure of the organizations, members, supporters donors as well as internal organization communications that House alleges will deter further participation in and support of the organization. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss House’s First Amendment claim is DENIED.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Mar 19th 2012 10:57pm
Assange had an electoral learning process of his own which played out live on Twitter yesterday morning, with a first message from the Wikileaks feed announcing only that the organisation would be “fielding a candidate to run against Julia Gillard in her home seat of Laylor (sic)”. Very shortly afterwards, a second tweet declared: “We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run.” The spelling error in the initial tweet betrayed a curious ignorance of Australian history, given that the electorate in question is named after Peter Lalor, who led the famous Eureka Rebellion at the Ballarat goldfields in 1854. One would have thought that Lalor, a radical activist who saw his efforts crudely suppressed by the authorities before going on to a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, might have been better known to Assange – if not to the extent that he would have spelt his name correctly, then at least so far that he might have misspelled it in a phonetically correct manner (“Lawlor”). But I digress.I would be pretty surprised if this candidacy (or either candidacy if they really do raise two candidates) actually goes anywhere, but that won't make it any less entertaining to follow.
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Feb 23rd 2012 3:50pm
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Feb 16th 2012 1:08pm
Thu, Feb 2nd 2012 10:15pm
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jan 30th 2012 4:35am
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Oct 10th 2011 7:06pm
Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the e-mail addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full e-mails...It's unclear if Google similarly fought the order. The company says it won't comment on specific cases. It's nice to see that Sonic was willing to fight for its users (which continues to cement the company's reputation as being one of the few user-first ISPs). It still remains likely that the government sent these orders to many others as well. In the case of Twitter there were multiple people being investigated, not just Appelbaum, though it's unlikely most of those others used Sonic.net. So chances are, other ISPs and other service providers received the orders, and whether or not they fought the government may never be known. In the meantime, the government continues its fishing expedition against Wikileaks, but apparently still hasn't found a smoking gun.
Explore some core concepts:
|17:00||DailyDirt: Modern Dating (7)|
|15:42||Canadian 'Digital Privacy' Bill Actually Puts Everyone's Privacy At Risk; Will Be A Boon To Trolls (19)|
|14:41||Travesty: Supreme Court (And Senate) Deny SCOTUSblog A Press Pass (28)|
|13:38||NYPD Update: Stop-And-Frisk Now Under Federal Oversight; Muslim-Spying 'Demographics Unit' Disbanded (8)|
|12:38||Court Declares That, Yes, Bloggers Are Media (8)|
|11:36||Did You Retweet The USAir Pornographic Tweet? You May Have Violated New Jersey's Revenge Porn Law (23)|
|10:30||Court Says That Tweeting Someone Is 'F**king Crazy' Is Not Libelous (9)|
|09:25||Microsoft And Sony Double Down On Patent Trolling; Dump More Cash Into Intellectual Ventures (11)|
|08:10||Recording Industry Wants To Have It Both Ways When It Comes To Pre-1972 Recordings (58)|
|06:53||Lavabit Loses Its Appeal For Mucking Up Basic Procedural Issues Early On (26)|
|05:23||Find The Big Fib In The NSA's Lack Of Concern For Foreigners (34)|
|03:16||Los Angeles Law Enforcement Looking To Crowdsource Surveillance (35)|
|00:11||First Phase Of Security Audit Finds Vulnerabilities But No Backdoors In TrueCrypt Encryption Software (11)|
|20:05||Google May Consider Giving A Boost To Encrypted Sites (52)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Aircraft That Stay In The Sky For Days (Or Longer) (2)|
|15:50||Video Games Do Cause Aggression... If They Suck Out Loud (24)|
|14:48||Google Apparently Chose Not To Tell The NSA About Heartbleed (50)|
|13:43||USPTO Keeps Granting Patents At Record Rates: 6,000 Utility Patents Granted In A Single Week (34)|
|12:40||The FBI's Facial Recognition Database Combines Lo-Res Photos With Zero Civil Liberties Considerations (14)|
|11:27||Intuit Does Subterfuge To Combat Free-Filing Tax Returns (34)|
|10:35||Judge Richard Posner's Ruling In Wacky 'Banana Lady' Case Highlights Just How Wrong Judge Kozinski Was About Copyright (28)|
|09:33||The Most Bizarre Response To The Pulitzers Yet, From The Guy Who Authorized CIA Torture (32)|
|08:34||Dianne Feinstein Asks DOJ To Investigate Leak Of Torture Report Summary To McClatchy News Service (17)|
|07:16||Why We Filed An Amicus Brief In Garcia v. Google: Blaming 3rd Parties Has Serious Impact On Free Speech (22)|
|05:16||Would You Trust The NSA's Advice On How To Deal With Heartbleed? (38)|
|03:12||Yes, Net Neutrality Is A Solution To An Existing Problem (23)|
|00:15||Judicial Branch Finally Acting As A Check Against Government Overreach (7)|
|20:13||Akamai Admits Its Heartbleed Patch Was Faulty, Has To Reissue All SSL Certs And Keys (12)|
|17:00||DailyDirt: Algorithms + Cameras = Awesome (1)|
|16:12||There Are No Good Guys In A Battle Between (Likely) UFC And Ultimate Gay Fighter (15)|