With the Hadopi three strikes program in France kicking into full speed, it may be worth jumping halfway around the world to South Korea, which put in place a very strict copyright law last year, that included the ability to kick people offline for accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. It's worth noting, of course, that the reason South Korea put in place such a draconian copyright law was due to serious diplomatic pressure from the US as a part of a supposed "free trade" agreement between the two countries. It's also worth pointing out that the trade agreement between South Korea and the US was, according to many, the basis for the initial draft of ACTA (though, obviously, it's changed a lot since then).

So, now that the law has been in place for over a year, what's been happening in South Korea? Well, it turns out that people are getting kicked offline for accusations of filing sharing -- but worryingly, it appears they're being kicked off with one strike, not three. Glyn Moody points us to a report on the data behind what's going on in South Korea.

Now, it's important to understand the specifics of the law there. There are two ways a user can have his or her account suspended. The first is if the Minister of Culture orders the ISP to suspend the user. However, this can only come after the user has been warned three times (hence: three strikes). However, there's also a separate way, which is that the Copyright Commission can "recommend" that ISPs warn someone, block or delete materials believed to be infringing or suspend accounts. Deleting or suspending doesn't require any prior notice or warnings or anything. Basically, the Commission says "we recommend you censor this content and/or suspend this user" and the ISPs then have a choice to make. Guess what they do? That's right, they obey. Nearly every time. Out of over 65,000 "recommendations" by the Commission, ISPs have only declined to follow the recommendation 40 times -- 20 times in sending out warnings and 20 times in deleting content. It's never declined to follow a recommendation to suspend an account.

Below is the full chart of data concerning the Copyright Committee's recommendations, and what was done about them: Hopefully, it's clear what's going on. Basically, the Commission has sent out a lot of warnings, and blocked/deleted a ton of content. A total of 31 users have had their accounts suspended -- again, with no indication that there was any number of warnings or pre-notice at all. Separately, the blog post in question does note that the other method (the actual three strikes way, involving the Culture Minister) has sent out a much smaller 275 warnings and 41 orders to delete content, but none to suspend accounts.

We've written a few times about the ridiculousness of courts trying to ban the internet for certain people convicted of various crimes. However, what about specific bans on just part of the internet. Venkat Balasubramani has a post about a teenager ("J.J.") who had received a stolen motorcycle. He was given probation with a variety of restrictions on computer usage:

[J.J.] shall not use a computer that contains any encryption, hacking, cracking, scanning, keystroke monitoring, security testing, steganography, Trojan or virus software.

[J.J.] is prohibited from participating in chat rooms, using instant messaging such as ICQ, MySpace, Facebook, or other similar communication programs.

[J.J.] shall not have a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page and shall delete any existing page. [J.J.] shall not use MySpace, Facebook, or any similar program.

[J.J.] is not to use a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments. [J.J.] is to be supervised when using a computer in the common area of [his] residence or in a school setting.

Note that he wasn't accused of any sort of computer crime here. Also, my first reaction that first ban was to wonder what's wrong with encryption software? And, um, how does he know if he's got trojans or viruses on his computer? That said, the rest of the bans also seemed extreme and overly broad -- which was the point that J.J. made in challenging the conditions. Thankfully, a judge agreed and has dumped those conditions as being unreasonable restrictions on free speech:

Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. . . . Two hundred years after the framers ratified the Constitution, the Net has taught us what the First Amendment means.

As for the oddities in banning him from using computers with viruses, trojans or keystroke monitors, which he could potentially violate without even knowing it, the court changed the terms to say that he can't knowingly use a computer with any of those things on it. Unfortunately, they still include "encryption" on the list. I find it troubling that the court is okay with demonizing encryption (and, to a lesser extent, "hacking" tools) when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. Does that mean he can't even encrypt his email?

We've been talking a bit about some of the communications problem Google seems to have at times, often not doing a very good job communicating with the public on things that may impact them greatly. Here's yet another example, sent in by Ryan, who notes that many people have recently been kicked out of Google's AdWord program with no recourse or explanation.

Now, it seems pretty clear that Google is trying to block "bad" advertisers who are somehow lying or cheating the system -- and that's a good thing. But these sweeping bans seem to be catching plenty of legitimate advertisers, and even more frustrating than the "ban" itself is the fact that as many times as you attempt to get them to explain why you were banned or ask for your case to be reconsidered, the company's response is, effectively, to tell people: "You were banned for being bad, and you will never advertise with us again. Goodbye." While I'm sure plenty of the banned accounts were banned for nefarious activity, it seems ridiculous to do a permanent and total ban with no explanation whatsoever. Google has been known to do this before (certainly many folks who use AdSense have received similar notices with the same lack of info or recourse). It's just a shame, because it's the sort of thing that Google could do right, and seems to have chosen not to.

Mark alerts us to the news that Illinois has approved a new law that bans registered sex offenders from social networking sites. Now, I have no sympathy for anyone who uses a social networking site to approach kids for such nefarious purposes, but this seems like a rather broad brush for a variety of reasons. First, considering how many sites have added "social networking" features lately, this could block out a rather large portion of the internet. Hell, just recently Google announced new social features for its iGoogle homepage. Second, the vast majority of registered sex offenders weren't convicted of trying to entice a kid via a social network. Completely blocking all of those people from social networks seems rather pointless. Finally, the whole idea that social networks are some sort of breeding ground for predators is a moral panic made up by the press. Studies have shown that the common story of a predator getting online, pretending to be a kid, and befriending "targets" and "grooming" them is mostly a myth. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but it's quite rare, and the best way to deal with it is simply to educate kids on how to deal with strangers. Most are smart enough to deal with the issue on their own. But, of course, that doesn't make for good headlines for politicians who want to make sure everyone knows they're "protecting the children."

It appears that Egypt is the latest country to think that it can ban certain websites by court mandate. In this case, it's all pornographic websites, which have been deemed "venomous and vile" by the court. The lawyer who was arguing against those sites responded happily: "Thank God we won, now the government should stop these electronic dens of vice immediately." Of course, what's been left unstated is exactly how the government can stop pornographic websites? My guess is they'll demand ISPs do it for them. However, in the meantime, we're left wondering how these "venomous and vile" sites are forcing themselves on poor Egyptians. I do plenty of web surfing and have found that simply not surfing porn websites is a rather effective way to not have to deal with such "electronic dens of vice."

While there have been lots of attempts to ban spam email (some less effective than others), text-message spam sent to mobile phones has largely escaped legislative scrutiny. The CAN SPAM Act bans sending spam emails to phones, but it doesn't specifically address SMS. An Arizona court ruled earlier legislation covering autodialed telemarking calls also banned SMS spam, but that decision didn't seem particularly solid. Other countries, like India, have extended their Do Not Call lists to cover SMS spam, and now a couple of US senators have introduced legislation that would do the same here. SMS spam hasn't become a huge problem in the US for a number of reasons, mainly because it costs spammers more than email spam, while it's also generally easier to track down those who sent it than with email. Still, it's nice to see a law seeking to get out ahead of something so annoying, rather than waiting until the cat's out of the bag and it's an uncontrollable situation.

Facebook says it's cleared about 5600 sex offenders from its userbase, following the big push from a bunch of state attorneys general. The figure's being compared to the 90,000 people that MySpace said it kicked off, leading to some speculation that Facebook isn't trying hard enough; its chief privacy offer says its requirement that people use their real names could deter sex offenders from registering in the first place. If these people Facebook has identified are using the site in violation of their parole or other restrictions, it's good they're being exposed. But the real problem here is that finding sex offenders on social networks and kicking them off is being misconstrued as the ultimate protection for kids. The actual threat posed by sex offenders on web sites is often exaggerated by politicians, and this sort of find-'em-and-ban-'em response causes some actual ways to keep kids safer online to be overlooked, in favor of non-existent magic bullets.

Some California politicians keep running into a pesky obstacle: The US Constitution. Despite court after court across the country finding bans on sales of violent video games to minors to be unconstitutional, "think of the children" politicians continue to try and implement them. In California, legislators passed such a ban and, predictably, it got tossed out by a court. Led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state appealed the ban to an appeals court, which -- you guessed it -- has ruled that it's unconstitutional. But the bill's author is undeterred. He wants the state to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and waste more of the cash-strapped state's resources to find out what we already know, but apparently bears repeating: these video game bans are unconstitutional.

You may recall, back in August, that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority convinced a judge to ban the Defcon presentation by three MIT students, showing how weak the security was on the Boston transit system, and how easy it was to get past it. Of course, in trying to ban the talk, the MBTA only succeeded in getting a lot more attention for its own security vulnerabilities -- and, in the end, the judge lifted the gag order anyway, allowing the students to present their research.

The good news is that the MBTA has now dropped the lawsuit and done what it should have done in the first place: agreed to work with the students to come up with ways to improve security. It's good that they eventually came to this conclusion -- though still mind-boggling that they went down the legal route first.

Banning Facebook at the office still doesn't make much sense to us, but even if we granted the (incorrect) premise that Facebook should be banned for being non-work related, it's still odd to see the country of Montenegro's reasoning for banning Facebook in all government offices. They're claiming that it's to avoid taking down their own network. Usually, you take down your network from traffic heading in not out. And, it's not like visiting Facebook takes up that much traffic. In the meantime, at least some other governments have realized that Facebook can be a useful way to talk to citizens. Hell, even terrorists now like Facebook. Perhaps governments should think twice about banning it.