If it is to be true to its name, the World Wide Web ought to reflect the planet's full cultural and linguistic diversity. Currently, though, many sites and tools remain optimized for English and its character set, although that's gradually changing as other countries with different languages and writing systems come online in greater numbers.

This anglocentricity can have some unexpected knock-on effects on how people use their native tongues online, as this article about the plight of the written Polish language explains:

Computer and phone keyboards require users to punch additional keys for Polish alphabet. To save time, Poles often skip the nuances, and sometimes need to guess the meaning of the message that they have received.

Of course, all languages have ambiguities -- as in this post's headline -- but in the case discussed above, the use of technology seems to be introducing some more, because special letters with extra diacritical marks are avoided and replaced by simpler versions that change a word's meaning in important ways. In the same article, a Polish linguist expresses his fears about what this might lead to:

"Today, the Polish language is threatened by the tendency to avoid its characteristic letters," Bralczyk said. "The less we use diacritical marks in text messages, the more likely they are to vanish altogether. That would mean an impoverishment of the language and of our life. I would be sorry."

He probably doesn't need to worry. Technology will soon sort out this problem of its own making: touchscreens allow all kinds of extended keyboards, including those with extra characters, and predictive technology can auto-correct as the user enters text. In due course, voice recognition will be good enough to offer a completely hands-free approach for both desktops and mobiles, and will be able to apply all the diacritical marks required as the dictation proceeds. Indeed, far from leading to diacritical marks disappearing, there's no reason why such digital writing assistants shouldn't help people use them more widely and correctly than ever before.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Every once in a while I almost write "I don't envy big bank CEOs," and then I consider my own finances and the mood passes. But it does seem hard, no? The job is basically that you run around all day looking at horrible messes – even in good times, there are some horrible messes somewhere, and what is a CEO for if not to look at them and make decisive noises? – and then you get on earnings calls, or go on CNBC, or sign 10Ks under penalty of perjury, and say "everything is great." I mean: you can say that some things aren't great, if it's really obvious that they're not. If you lost money, GAAPwise, go ahead and say that; everyone already knows. But for the most part, you are in the business of inspiring enough confidence in people that they continue to fund you, and if you don't persuade them that, on a forward-looking basis, things will be pretty good, then they won't be.

Also, when you're not in the business of convincing people to fund you, you're in the business of convincing people to buy what you're selling and sell what you're buying, which further constrains you from saying "what we're selling is dogshit."¹

Anyway I found a certain poignancy in Citi's correspondence with the SEC over Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, which was released on Friday. Citi and Morgan Stanley had a joint venture in MSSB, and MS valued it at around $9bn, and Citi valued it at around $22bn, and at most one of them was right and, while the answer turned out to be "neither," it was much closer to MS than C. Citi was quite wrong, and since this was eventually resolved by a willing seller (Citi) selling to a willing buyer (MS) at a valuation of $13.5bn, Citi had to admit its wrongness in the form of a $4.7 billion write-down, and the stock did this:

Which is the market's way of saying: no biggie Vikram, we already knew you'd be taking the writedown, honestly we thought it'd be worse than that, we just didn't say anything because we didn't want you to feel bad, but we're glad that's cleared up now.

But the SEC doesn't get to do that, because – and this is sort of endearing – the SEC has to pretend that a company's financial statements convey meaningful information about the actual world, and so last year they sent Citi a bunch of letters to the effect of "um, really, with that MSSB valuation?" To be fair even Citi was admitting, back in its 10-K a year ago, that MSSB wasn't worth what its balance sheet said it was worth – but it said that this was a temporary impairment and so didn't need to be reflected on Citi's financials since MSSB would recover soon and anyway it's not as if Citi was looking to sell at a depressed price. Here is how the SEC responded in April:

We note your disclosure related to the temporary impairment of your equity method investment in the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (MSSB) joint venture. Please address the following:

• You assert that, as of December 31, 2011, you do not plan to sell your investment in this joint venture prior to recovery of the value. Please tell us how you were able to reach this conclusion given the fact that you are currently in negotiations with Morgan Stanley to sell at least part of your equity interest in this joint venture pursuant to options held by Morgan Stanley.
• We note that you have based the fair value of this equity investment on “the midpoint of the current range of estimated values.” However, you do not disclose this range, nor do you disclose how the range was estimated.

Citi's response is absolutely gorgeous; it says:

• We are not in fact negotiating with Morgan Stanley about selling the rest of MSSB, and
• We can't disclose our internal estimate of MSSB's value, because that would hurt us in our negotiations with Morgan Stanley about selling the rest of MSSB.

See what they did there?² The SEC did, a few months later anyway, when the negotiations got so advanced that the SEC pushed Citi for more information about its internal valuation of the MSSB joint venture. Citi obligingly provided that valuation to the SEC, confidentially, ten days after it disclosed the write-down.

Also during these negotiations Citi's investment banking division provided a valuation of MSSB "that slightly exceeded Citi's carrying value of approximately $11 billion for that 49% interest as of June 30, 2012." So:

• Citi provided a valuation of an asset to its counterparty as a negotiation tool,³
• which was higher than the valuation it reflected in its publicly filed financial statements,
• which was higher than its internal estimate of the correct valuation,
• which was closest to the market's estimate of the correct valuation, and the ultimate valuation at which Citi sold the asset.

So Citi "knew" that its financials, and the valuation it gave in negotiations with MS, were "wrong." Making this all a little sketchy, but also a lot no-harm-no-foul. Citi was locked into putting a brave face on its MSSB valuation, because admitting that there was a problem would have actually cost shareholders money, in the form of a worse negotiating position with MS. And so Citi provided two separate estimates of MSSB's value, to MS and to Citi's own shareholders, that did not accurately reflect what it thought it would ultimately get for MSSB. And then it didn't. And since everyone pretty much knew that that was going on, no one has much cause to complain. The typical fraud lawsuit starts with "you lied about X, and when you came clean, the stock dropped by $Y, so give us $Y"; here the lawyers' damages would be negative. Citi came clean, as it were, about MSSB, and the market breathed a sigh of relief.

So, I imagine, did Vikram Pandit, though in his case the relief didn't last long. Citi did what probably really was the right thing for shareholders: it maintained with a straight face that MSSB would be cheap at $22 billion. That was wrong, of course, but since no one believed it, it all worked out okay.

Citi: SEC letters and responses [EDGAR]
SEC Pressed Citi for More Details on Brokerage Joint Venture [WSJ]

1. Unless you're Lloyd Blankfein? This is a fine line.

2. No really, it really says this. To be fair the second part is phrased as "such disclosure could place Citi at a competitive disadvantage in the event that negotiations with Morgan Stanley regarding fair value were to take place in connection with the exercise of the above-referenced options."

3. Ooooh is that bad? Is it Fraud to tell someone that an asset you own is worth $100X when you value it internally at $80X? No, right? I mean not if your counterparty is Morgan Stanley. Ponder CDO cases however.

Other posts from Dealbreaker:

• The Too Big To Fail Subsidy Is Negative Sixteen Billion Dollars, Or Possibly Some Other Number
• Michael Milken Seems To Have Been Overdue For Another SEC Investigation
• Ratings Agency Would Prefer Not to Be Sued, Won’t Cut U.S. Debt Rating

Long term studies of children are expensive, but the data collected may be invaluable -- especially if wide-ranging policies are based on them. The amount of data Facebook is collecting on kids may be massive, but it'll probably only be data mined for marketing purposes. Here are just a few examples of some kid research that could influence the way people raise their kids.

• Measuring the difference between heart rates when a baby inhales and exhales could lead to predictive indicators for whether or not that kid will overcome poverty. For "sensitive" babies, where the difference is large, a stable environment may have a greater effect on the child's future well-being. [url]
• Preschool seems to be important for disadvantaged kids, but the benefits for middle class kids are not as clear. So flip a coin, tiger-moms, but some economists might have a good argument for government funded access to preschool for at-risk toddlers. [url]
• The 7 Up documentary began in 1964 and followed seven year old kids from different economic backgrounds as they grew up. The latest installment, 56 Up checks in on these people now as they face retirement (or not) -- and presents a fascinating snapshot of society. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Mobile World Congress, the big trade show for mobile devices, just wrapped up. It's become sort of the go-to place for mobile device makers to announce their new products (even though two of the bigger Android developers, Samsung and HTC, decided to do their big announcements outside of MWC). For the tech press, it's the the "next big show" after CES. As you may remember, there was a bit of a kerfuffle as CNET's parent company, CBS broke down (with sledgehammers) that big wall between business and editorial by forcing CNET to take away the "Best of Show" award they had chosen to give Dish's latest DVR, all because CBS was suing Dish over the product. So, when I saw that CNET had awarded the Ubuntu Touch as "Best of Show" for MWC, all I could wonder was what products did CBS ban CNET from covering at MWC. Once tainted, it's difficult to trust their reviews ever again, which is a real shame.

Having already kicked down the internet censorship door by ordering that ISPs block access to The Pirate Bay, the UK's High Court has expanded the list of sites to block based on complaints from BPI about which sites it believes are responsible for piracy. And, so, just like that, those in the UK will find Kickass Torrents, H33T and Fenopy blocked. I don't know anything about these three sites. So, for all I know, they could be horrible, horrible actors in all of this, but even so, having a court order them completely blocked from access based on statements from BPI -- a commercial party who clearly would have a bias against upstart, disruptive competitors -- seems crazy. Again, take a look at the history of the entertainment industry attacking every single new type of distribution technology. And now the UK High Court is allowing them to do this to the level of flat out censoring sites.

It was just a couple months ago that Pope Benedict began tweeting to great fanfare and attention. He quickly had well over a million followers. Of course, as you may have heard, the Pope decided to become the first Pope in about 600 years to retire. And, now that this has taken effect... the Vatican appears to have deleted every one of his tweets. That is, uh, not how you use Twitter. Sure, tweets can be deleted, but it seems particularly bizarre to delete the entire historical record of this one Pope's tweets, even if there were a small number of them. Of course, at the very least, this means they won't have to deal with the ex-Pope still having his Twitter login going and rogue tweeting from retirement.

Update: As a few people have pointed out, the Vatican has set up an archive of his tweets on their own website. Still doesn't explain why they had to erase the originals.

As he made clear last year, Bradley Manning has now pled guilty to 10 of the lesser charges brought against him, while pleading not guilty to 12 charges, including the more serious charges of "aiding the enemy" and that he leaked the info to Wikileaks knowing that it would harm the US. He's also pleading not guilty to violating the CFAA. He has argued, in the past, that he believed what he was doing would help the US by exposing bad actions that were being swept under the rug. The case will now continue on those other charges (and possibly the ones he's pled guilty to, as the judge can still choose whether or not to accept the pleas). This is not a plea bargain situation -- he's just taking some of the charges out of the trial phase by flat out admitting to them.

However, the much more interesting revelation is that prior to releasing the information to Wikileaks, Manning claims that he approached both the NY Times and the Washington Post to see if they were interested in the infamous Collateral Murder video. Both ignored him. According to Manning's claims, he felt that the data and information he had collected showed that the US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan was problematic and doing more harm than good:

He thought about what to do and was convinced that the United States was "risking so much for people who felt so unwilling to cooperate with us" and it was "leading to hatred and frustration on both sides." Manning was upset with counterinsurgency operations that consisted of the "capture and killing of human targets."

So he felt that revealing the information he had collected might "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general." In order to do that, he reached out to a few publications:

He called the Washington Post. A woman answered who seemed to not take him seriously, even though he suggested the information would be valuable to the American public. Then, he decided to contact the New York Times. Nobody answered the phone so he left a message explaining he had information that was "very important." He left the Times his email and a Skype address but never received a reply.

That's a pretty big revelation, and once again, shows how Wikileaks was providing a service where the mainstream press completely fell down on the job. People -- including the judge in the case -- have wondered that if the NY Times had published this kind of information, rather than Wikileaks, would there still be the same hysteria and prosecution over the leak. The prosecutors have insisted they would have gone after Manning just as much in that case, but their own actions following other NY Times-published leaks suggests otherwise.

For what it's worth, the NY Times denies that Manning contacted them:

"This is the first we're hearing of it. We have no record of Manning contacting The Times in advance of WikiLeaks."

Separately, it's worth pointing out that Manning also noted that the information he leaked was hardly secret, and was available to tons and tons of people.

"I view the SIGACTS as historical data," Manning stated. It is a "first look impression of a past event." They show IED attacks, small arms fire engagement or engagement with hostile forces.

The reports are "not very sensitive." The "events encapsulated involve enemy casualties," that are "publicly reported" by the Public Affairs Office of the military or reported by "embedded media pools." They are like a daily journal or log that captures "what happened on an immediate day or time and they are constantly updated."

Either way, it seems likely that the government will continue to go after him on those bigger charges, so this case is far, far, far from over.

Last year, we noted that Japan had put in place ridiculously draconian copyright laws that criminalized unauthorized downloads, DVD backups and even watching infringing YouTube videos in some cases. And, of course, what good is a law if it's not used? So, Japanese law enforcement apparently went on a big raid, searching 124 locations and arresting 27 people. Those arrested may face between two and ten years in jail, because that's a reasonable punishment for sharing something. I don't see how this makes anyone respect copyright any more, or gives anyone any additional incentive to support the legacy players who are using this system to put fans in jail.

UPDATE: Direct from Abbi Tatton at Google:

From his post: "An entity going the vague but all-encompassing name of "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" has made a number of claims on various uploads."

That's not an entity. If YouTube generated that message it's because Content ID identified compositions in the upload to which a portion of the rights may be administered by any one of a number of collecting societies. Our message in these cases now reads "one or more music publishing rights collecting societies" to make this clearer -- that Facebook parody page doesn't help though. Help Center Page is here with the details.

Odd things have been happening over at Youtube this month, affecting gamers uploading "Let's Play" videos. Well, not so much "odd" as "annoying" and "clearly abusive of Youtube's copyright notification system."

Early in February, the name "Agora Aggregator" began popping at various internet locations, like Reddit's r/LetsPlay and Google's product forums. This entity is apparently casting a porous copyright dragnet over a wide selection of gameplay videos, ranging from Super Meat Boy to F.E.A.R. 3, with several stops in between (Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3, I Am Alive, The Walking Dead).

Now, trying to track down Agora Aggregator is an exercise in futility. It very likely doesn't exist outside of Youtube. It's a name that sounds vague enough to be credible but not specific enough to step on any existing company's toes. Here's the general M.O.:

Agora files a claim on a gameplay video, but not the entire video or even a large portion of it. Instead, it files for certain "visual content" located at random points in the upload. The uploader is then notified of Agora's claim. If the uploader challenges the claim, Agora immediately drops it. If it goes ignored, Agora is then given this credit in the About section:

Now that Agora has a "hook" in the video, all it has to do is choose the "monetize" option that Youtube provides, sit back and wait for the video to get views, with a big chunk of the money going to Agora. The reality of the situation is one of annoyance, rather than actual harm, in most cases. The other unfortunate reality is that this sort of low-level trolling on gameplay videos is nothing new. "Companies" using the names IMG Media UK, INgroove, and Netcom have also filed bogus claims in the past.

The bad news is this sort of thing will probably always exist, especially in the case of gameplay videos. Gameplay videos exist in a legal gray area. For the most part, game companies are more than happy to let these serve as free advertising, knowing that watching a video can hardly replace the experience of actually playing the game. (One exception that proves the rule: Sega's massive takedown of anything "Shining Force"-related in "preparation" for the release of a new game in the series.) Some companies even allow uploaders to monetize gameplay videos, provided a portion of the earnings flows back to the developer.

Because of this gray area, many gamers will feel they can't challenge Agora's claim since they themselves do not "own" what they've uploaded. Even if it seems dubious and faintly scammy, the slim possibility that Agora actually exists and has a legitimate claim is enough to deter them from disputing it.

This isn't limited solely to video game footage. An entity going the vague but all-encompassing name of "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" has made a number of claims on various uploads. Here's its bio (in full) from its "official" website, which is a Facebook page. (The URL listed on its Facebook page sends you to... MPRCS's Facebook page.)

"Our mission is to file copyright claims so that ads will be placed onto certain videos, and we will be able to make money off of them. We do not seek to have anyone's videos blocked in certain countries or disabled altogether, all we are trying to do is make a bit of money. That's not so bad, is it?"

Sure, it's better than getting videos blocked or disabled, but take a close look at the wording it uses. It pretty much states exactly what it's going to do (make money off the uploads of others), all without feeling the need to demonstrate that it actually has a right to file these claims. There is no other URL for this "company," no list of artists/labels it represents and it has in the past claimed content it clearly has no right to.

They identified my (completely original) song as infringing the copyright of a completely different song that I had never heard of, that I had to search google for, which turned out to be some kind of trance remix of a completely unrelated song…Wtf?

I immediately disputed the claim and received an email from Youtube saying:

“Dear tibetanpunk,

Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society has reviewed your dispute and released its copyright claim on your video, “Sonic Sunset No.2“.” (shameless plug)

Much like Agora Aggregator, MPRCS immediately backs down if challenged. Despite the fact that there's clearly something shady going on, MPRCS sounds ambiguously "official" enough that even Youtube itself makes statements in its defense.

So how do collecting societies affect you as a YouTube user? If you’ve ever received a notice indicating that one of your videos may include copyrighted content administered by "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society," or “one or more music publishing rights collecting societies,” it means that YouTube's Content ID system identified one or more musical compositions within your video to which a portion of the rights may be administered by a collecting society.

While this information may be true (as Youtube states it), it is highly unlikely that the "Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society" is truly representing anyone but the person who lucked into this low-level abuse of Youtube's copyright claim system. One more strike against this so-called "Collecting Society?" Its profile photo is a watermarked Shutterstock picture.

As for Agora Aggregator, it already appears its trolling days are numbered. In a few short weeks, its system has been exposed, leaving it with precious few successful claims. But whoever's behind this remains undeterred. A new "company," Digital Minds Entertainment, has begun making the same sort of copyright claims against random points in gameplay videos. It may be Agora or it may be someone else with the same bad idea. Some unlucky bastard working his way through Far Cry 3 has hit the bogus copyright claim trifecta.

Even if Agora Aggregator goes down, and Digital Minds Entertainment follows, more will pop up to take their place. The system (such as it is) seems to have the success rate of an untargeted mass mailing -- low enough to be almost negligible, but still high enough to make it a worthwhile venture.

Youtube can't do much to prevent this abuse. It has to err on the side of the rights holders, even if the rights holders don't actually hold the rights. This is a necessity. It allows it to show it takes proactive steps against infringement, a requirement in order to benefit from the Safe Harbor protections. The other issue is the massive volume it deals with -- 72 hours uploaded every minute -- which makes it impossible to police uploads with any level of detail. The system is exploitable, and the people behind these "companies" know it.

Since it can't be stopped, the only method left to battle these trolling "companies" is to expose them as quickly (and loudly) as possible. This is only a stopgap, rather than a solution. What's happening now is mostly an annoyance. The real problems will develop later when uploaders being challenging legitimate claims, assuming them to be invalid, and have their accounts closed down. In essence, Agora (and others) are the boy who cried wolf. Only this time, when the real wolf arrives, it will be the townspeople that suffer.

Last week, we wrote about some of the copyright issues around the whole "Harlem Shake" meme (and, yes, we know it's not the "real" Harlem Shake, so don't even bother commenting about that). However, a few days ago, I was talking to an old friend who also happens to be an IP lawyer, and he pointed out one of the nuttier things about our copyright system. Yes, he said, Baauer is making tons of money by monetizing all of those Harlem Shake videos with ads. But Baauer actually had almost nothing to do with the popularity of the song or the meme itself. This isn't a Psy situation, where his video/dance created the meme. Instead, as we discussed, there was this video, which led to this video, and then this video and then this video... and then tens of thousands of copycats bloomed.

Yes, they all use 30 seconds from Baauer's song (which itself included many samples from others, some of which do not appear to be licensed, based on Baauer's own statements), but the popularity was because of the original video by "Filthy Frank," and then TheSunnyCoastSkate (TSCS) building on that to create the basic framework, quickly followed by PHLOn NAN and the folks at Maker Studios. In many ways, this reminds me of Derek Sivers' popular discussion of the importance of the "First Follower." As he notes, it's the "first follower who transforms the lone nut into a leader." And then you have the "second follower" which represents a "turning point" in creating a movement. In this case, none of these key aspects had anything to do with Baauer. Yes, the song was there, but there were any number of songs that could have kicked off a similar dance craze. The reason the whole meme happened had to do with those originators, and the first few followers, turning it into a meme. I don't think any of them are complaining. In fact, they all seem (quite reasonably) thrilled that they're suddenly getting tons of attention and millions of hits (and plenty of new followers) for their role in building the meme.

But, when we step back and look at the copyright system, it does make you wonder why the system is so focused on Baauer's ability to get paid, but not the people who actually made the whole meme what it is. In many ways, this is an extreme example of where copyright may be fundamentally flawed. Content becomes popular through cultural sharing. People talk about something amazing and it gets passed along. The "Harlem Shake" videos are a form of that, where the importance of everyone in the role of expanding the community and making the song/meme a cultural "thing" is that much more clear.

Historically, we've often lumped together the initial creative work with the eventual popularity of it, leaving aside the role of the community in making that work a hit. But the Harlem Shake is a case where we can actually separate out those two things, and realize that perhaps copyright is focused on only one part of our cultural setup, while ignoring what may arguably be the more important part: those who make something culturally relevant.

Now, I'm a big believer in learning to gain benefits without resorting to copyright, and it seems like the folks who really built this meme are being rewarded in their own ways, outside of the copyright system. But, for those who think that copyright is necessary to "reward" creators, and who argue that copyright is all about fairness in protecting the rights of creators, do the people who actually "created" the popularity around this meme not count?

You know, sometimes content creators can be really confusing. Take Game Of Thrones director David Petrarca, for instance. Remember early last year when we mentioned that the show was on track to become the most pirated television show of 2012? And how the success of the show might actually be a result of piracy, rather than its cause?

Well, ChurchHatesTucker writes in to tell us that Petrarca recently opined that piracy is at least partially responsible for the success of the show, providing an avenue through which more people talk about it and comment on it within greater society.

Panel mediator Rosemary Neill noted Game of Thrones was the most pirated show of 2012 and that 10 per cent of the downloads came from Australia. But Petrarca shrugged and said the illegal downloads did not matter because such shows thrived on "cultural buzz" and capitalised on the social commentary they generated.

"That's how they survive," he told the crowd gathered at the University of Western Australia.

Yes, in addition to allowing late-comers to catch up on episodes in preparation for new seasons, piracy helps keep the show in the societal bloodstream, keeps the buzz going, and generally creates more excitement and awareness of the product as a whole. If HBO could manage to provide a more innovative method for delivering the show to those that want it, likely the boon could be even greater. Still, Petrarca noted that HBO is doing well with their subscriber base.

He said HBO alone had 26 million subscribers in the US and 60 million worldwide, which meant there was plenty of money filtering in and allowing the channel to produce high quality content despite any illegal downloading.

While this all sounds reasonable, I wouldn't want to be accused of not presenting the other side of the argument on whether or not piracy helps or hurts this sort of media. So, here to present a rebuttal to David Petrarca... is David Petrarca. He recently had a Twitter exchange with our own Glyn Moody, including these highlights.

I am 100% against illegal downloading. I said that downloading creates buzz but def am NOT in support of illegal downloads. The issue is a distribution system that gets content to viewers legally in a timely manner. People want to pay if made available.

While it should be noted that he certainly isn't being belligerent here, and he in fact notes that if a great distribution option is available fans will pay for content, it's difficult to square the first part of this statement with what he said in the article. Remember, he was specifically responding to a question about piracy (not authorized downloads) and then responded that it helped create social buzz for shows like his and "that's how they survive." But he is "NOT in support of illegal downloads?" I think I understand this to mean that he simply thinks the ideal solution is the kind of distribution platform that would drive nearly everyone away from piracy, by providing widely available, authorized downloads, and with that I'd agree. Still, in the absence of that great system, which HBO certainly doesn't offer, why staunchly state that you're 100% against piracy when you've already said it's helped you survive? I assume that Petrarca likes surviving, but perhaps I'm wrong?

Or, perhaps, the sudden attention that the original story was getting created pressure for him to walk back those statements. Glyn was not the only one that Petrarca reached out to with identical statements: Perhaps it's possible that, like many in the entertainment industry, Petrarca recognized that infringing copies were, in fact, good for his show, but that actually saying that leads to backlash from within. We've asked Petrarca whether or not he heard from anyone at HBO regarding his original comments, and will update this post accordingly should we hear back.

The various ways in which the big ISPs would implement their version of the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System had mostly been leaked over the past few months, but there had been nothing coming out of Comcast. AT&T planned to block "frequently visited websites" after the fourth strike. Verizon planned to throttle speeds so low that it would drive users crazy. It looks like Comcast is doing something similar to Time Warner, which means that after four accusations (not convictions, not proof of guilt, just accusations), anyone using the account of someone who hits that strike will have all of their browsing hijacked and sent to a landing page that they cannot get around. Oddly, for reasons that don't make much sense, the page that TorrentFreak links to on Comcast's site disappeared. If I go to it, I get a 404 not found. But if I do a search on the keyword "mitigation," it still shows up in the index. Then I click, and the page is still gone. Either way, while it's technically true that they're not "cutting off" people, they are clearly cutting them off from the wider web.

"If a consumer fails to respond to several Copyright Alerts, Comcast will place a persistent alert in any web browser under that account until the account holder contacts Comcast's Customer Security Assurance professionals to discuss and help resolve the matter,"

No information is given on what it means to "resolve the matter." It's hardly a surprise that Comcast would choose the most extreme option, considering that it owns NBC Universal, whose execs supposedly drove much of the discussion around the CAS system. In the meantime, are we still supposed to believe, as per the cheery video that the Center for Copyright Information put out, that this is all for the benefit of ISP users?

We recently wrote about how the school district in Prince George County, Maryland, was looking at adopting a policy whereby the school would claim all copyrights on created works by students and teachers. For obvious reasons, this got many people upset and, in response, it appears that a Maryland politician has tried to block the move. Dave Blevins alerts us to the news that Maryland state House Minority Leader Anthony J. O'Donnell introduced a bill that bars schools from claiming the copyright on students' work. The bill does not however bar them requiring staff to assign copyrights, which is unfortunate. It's good to see more widespread recognition of how copyright is abused, but trying to fix it bit by bit rather than looking at the overall system seems like a mistake.

It seems that, once again, the UK is going censorship crazy and not realizing how that only attacts more attention to that which they're trying to censor. This time, it involves some photos that were posted online of one Jon Venables, who at the age of 10, murdered 2-year old James Bulger, in a rather horrifying story. Venables was released from jail in 2001, at the age of 19 (though he has since gone back to prison). Photos of Venables, now 30 years old and apparently using a new identity to avoid his past, appeared online. The UK apparently wants a right to forget the fact that Venables did what he did, and seems to think that there should be no additional public consequences. Attorney General Dominic Grieve has said he's going to take legal action against anyone posting the photo, and has gone even further in telling Google, Facebook and Twitter that they need to magically delete any and all such photos that appear via their services.

It appears that at least Twitter has pushed back a little bit, pointing out that it will take down images if the law requires it upon notification, but that it cannot and will not monitor every one of its users to prevent them from posting the image:

Sinead McSweeney, Twitter's director of public policy in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said she did not wish to be drawn into commenting on individual accounts.

She added: "We work with law enforcement here in the UK. We have established points of contact with law enforcement in the UK where they communicate with us about content, they bring content to our attention that is illegal, and appropriate steps are taken by the company. You may read into those words what you wish in context of the current [issue]."

McSweeney, who appeared alongside officials from Google and Facebook, said Twitter could not be expected to proactively monitor what is published on its social network across the globe each day. She added: "It's important that people increasingly understand that online is no different to offline: what is illegal offline is illegal online."

You can argue that it's unfair for Venables, under his new identity, to be connected back to what he actually did, though I'm not sure I buy that argument. But, it's taking it to a whole different level to then seek to prosecute people for merely posting a photo to their social network feed. They then take it to an entirely ridiculous level to order that third party service providers actively police and censor this particular photo. And, of course, all this is doing is calling much, much, much, much more attention to the photo. A lot more people are now seeing the photo than would have if people had just ignored the original postings.

It's been proven before by various government agencies and it still holds true: if you give someone more access than oversight when it comes to collected personal information, you can't be surprised when this tool gets abused.

The latest abuse of a government-harvested database was uncovered by state auditors in Minnesota. The report details extensive misuse of driver's license records by law enforcement agencies.

The review by the state's legislative auditor — highly anticipated by legislators and privacy advocates — said officers need better training in allowed uses of the protected data, and local and state agencies should do more to monitor use. Beyond 88 incidents of misuse documented in state records last year, auditors found even more suspicious activity buried in audit trails.

More than half of the 11,000 law enforcement users of the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) website in that time frame queried themselves or people with the same last name, for example, or disproportionately searched for people of one sex.

This study's findings will likely result in some additions to legislation proposed earlier this year, which seeks to add penalties and transparency to data breaches by government employees, requiring local agencies to post full investigation reports online should any breach occur. The legislation itself was written in response to a severe data breach traced back to a single government employee.

The legislation came on the heels of news that a former employee at the Department of Natural Resources had viewed thousands of drivers license records — almost exclusively of women — without a permissible use. That employee, John Hunt, is now facing criminal charges, and his actions have spurred five federal lawsuits against the state.

This employee might have been caught more quickly, but Hunt likely knew the limitations of the DPS auditing system and stayed below the radar, despite making nearly 19,000 queries to the database over the course of five years.

The report also recommended that because audits by the DPS largely detect heavy users, rather than suspicious use, local agencies should conduct more proactive monitoring. They suggested the department beef up its abilities to assist local agencies.

[Public safety commissioner Mona] Dohman said in an interview that the queries were so spread out that he did not emerge in their monthly review of the top 50 users.

In addition to the larger breaches, there were also cases where failure to deactivate accounts resulted in additional misuse of the DVS system.

During the 18 months ending June 30, 2012, 13 users conducted queries using access privileges associated with law enforcement agencies that no longer existed. Over the same time period, three former employees of state law enforcement agencies, as well as four former employees of local law enforcement agencies, accessed the DVS Web site using usernames and passwords that should have been disabled.

The current process for disabling accounts is almost farcical in its slowness. The report points out that the DVS allows accounts to remain dormant for 120 days before inactivating them. While this is a huge improvement over the 500 days it used to allow, it's still plenty of time for anyone looking to query a database they should no longer have access to.

Compounding the existing misuse issues is the fact that law enforcement agencies have exempted themselves from many of the policies affecting authorized civilian users. To begin with, sworn officers are not required to attend training or refresher courses on proper use of the DVS system, including policies regarding general security and appropriate data use. Officers are also exempted from the same user agreement that greets civilians at login and are otherwise not held accountable by any agreement when utilizing the DVS database.

DPS (Dept. of Public Safety) has not implemented other access management practices for all users. For example, DPS does not require a user agreement for sworn officers with access to the DVS Web site. Civilian law enforcement employees must sign a user agreement justifying their need for driver's license information, including their specific needs for access to driver's license photographs. DVS staff review the agreements before granting access. BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) has a signed intra-agency agreement with DVS. Agencies with employees who access BCA systems sign an agreement taking responsibility for access by their staff, among other things. Thus, it is only sworn officers who use the DVS Web site for whom DPS does not require an agreement, signed by the user or his or her employer, taking responsibility for appropriate access.

The findings of this study will certainly raise questions about this law enforcement double-standard. The proposed legislation and its attendant penalties and openness is, unsurprisingly, being fought by the law enforcement community.

House author Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, said she has already met resistance from some law enforcement entities.

"If you have bad actors in your bunch, then why shouldn't the public know about it?" Holberg said. "It seems like nobody wants any sunshine around this issue. And I think it would do a lot to rebuild the public trust if there was more public awareness of misuse and consequences."

It's pretty hard to rebuild public trust when you don't trust the public. Or, at least, don't trust them enough to be honest with them. The law enforcement fraternity has never been one for openness and consistency. As the study notes, misuse of the DVS system is handled differently by every law enforcement agency, if it's even punished at all. The lack of a codified "best practices" or even a basic "user agreement" that holds the individual officer responsible for his actions has led to widespread misuse. Minnesota's legislators are on the right track and this audit offers some very sound suggestions, but the feeling that those who enforce the law should be exempted from these same laws is somewhat endemic in law enforcement, meaning this has the potential to get worse before it gets any better. If they aren't careful, this legislation could reach passage with very few "teeth" intact, if it gets there at all.