November 23rd, 2009

Internet: A threat to government or the other way around? (Part 4)

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 23, 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Blogs, Censorship, China, Commerce, Congress, Copyright, Courts, Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Cyberwar, Defense, Disaster recovery, E-government, Elections, European Parliament, European Union, FCC, FTC, Government 2.0, Government technology, Green Dam, Homeland security, Intellectual Property, Intelligence, International, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Open government, Regulations, Security, Senate, Social networks, Spam, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, UK, United Kingdom, United Nations, Web, politics

Tags: Law, Court, Counter Point, Internet, Government, Doug Hanchard

Justice systems around the world had their entire world turned upside down over the past several years because of the Internet. The basic sets of laws, often founded on a nation’s constitution are being used in ways that many forefathers never anticipated or envisioned. Republic, Dominion and Socialist government institutions around the world are all facing the same issues - often without any clear path of legal precedent.

One of the challenges facing courts is jurisdiction. Because of the very nature of the Internet, legal systems are now faced with new roadblocks that did not exist 10 years ago. Traditional methods of law enforcement and legal treaties do work and continue to be the basis of process and dealing with prosecution and trials. Interpretation of existing laws and applying them to Internet-related cases has not been a significant challenge in many cases. But there are some new aspects of what is admitted into court.

Evidence

What has shocked the system is how Internet-based materials are now used in the courts as evidence. Everything from ISP logs, website blogs, and social media sites (among others) are now being used in ways that prosecutors and jurists have never had to deal with in the past. It is also becoming a battle ground for several areas of law, particularly the integrity of evidence. This has many in the legal world concerned. It’s becoming clear that this will be an area of significant debate and will have far-reaching consequences. Internet evidence does not have look and feel of traditional evidence and, in many cases, has yet to be challenged as to its validity. Prosecutors are faced with a dilemma that impacts how and what they prosecute. This in turn has created a new source of political initiatives that are not only questionable, but in some parts of the world viewed as extreme.

Don’t have a Law yet? We’ll make one

The evolution of law and how it is created has traditionally been a slow and low priority part of the political system. No longer is that the case. Government ministers and cabinet officials appear to be fast-tracking new laws, specifically because of the Internet at a rapid pace of late. Politicians are practically tripping over themselves drafting new bills that claim that they know how to fix the problems of cybercrime and abuse. These ideas are moving at such a rapid pace that often few people actually have read the fine print. What concerns many is the advice politicians are getting on how Internet law should be created. Governments all over the world will have significant impact on such issues as free speech, Net neutrality, news, crime and governance of institutions.

Prosecution

There is not much sympathy for the courts in many parts of the world. That may soon change as news travels across the multimedia world of the Internet. Attorneys general throughout the United States are political and create their own priorities and thus control what is heard before the courts. This may have significant consequences as to the timing of how the Internet evolves and impact the economics of the service that potentially influences it’s usage for decades. In the United Kingdom, the courts will have to take into account European treaties and the European Parliament. Canada’s magistrates may strike down or uphold newly created laws that may wind up creating in-balance that could take years to reverse.

Rules await the Internet

Regulators such as the CRTC, FCC, OfCom are charting new territory in communication rules and regulations. Lawmakers are beginning to micro-manage this process. No one yet knows what the impact these new elements will have on the judicial system. It will take years before this is known and goes through several rigorous tests of the court system. Case law may take a decade or more before any true outcomes are known. By that time, a nation will have changed political administration and have new agendas that reset the cycle before some true outcomes are known. Net Neutrality will be debated and wind up before the courts in jurisdictions around the world. The results will vary like your bandwidth speed and access to content.

Global perspective

Laws of a nation are now being combined in many parts of the world. The very essence of a sovereign nation set of laws is slowly being merged into a single set by which it will adhere to. This is particularly true in Europe where the European Parliament is attempting to create laws specifically surrounding the Internet. This has the potential to create political and legal challenges for courts in how they make decisions. The consequences have significant long term impacts on how courts operate and what order of Appeals and jurisdiction as they enter cyber space with profound outcomes yet to be decided.

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court decisions have not had an impact on the Internet - but likely will. Major court decisions at local, state, and provincial levels are being appealed and many will eventually be argued before the Supreme Court. That draws concern because of how many governments nominate and select jurists to be a part of the Supreme Court framework. In general terms, the institution is politically driven and has the potential to create decisions that may in fact be contrary to the very principles that many of us take for granted. It also works in the other direction. Many a government has had policies and laws overturned by the courts. Key segments will be privacy, Internet access and tracking - along with content management tangled with identity security. It could be argued that elected government officials are not a threat to the Internet, the courts are. The counter point is that will force parliamentarians to change the law, a task far easier said than done. Compounding the problem is that the highest courts around the world have (almost) unlimited tenure until death.  Jurists that will have profound impacts on the stance of governments surrounding Internet issues are in China, Pakistan, India, Russia, and the Middle East. China is unique in that it will have to eventually deal with treaties in which it is a signatory to, but no one has yet to appeal any government policies. It may soon have to. If WTO treaties are before their court system, the Internet could be next.

The court system in most democratic nations has dynamics rarely resulting in quick decisions. It may take years before government’s leaders and the lawmakers truly understand what they are dealing with. Some will fail in creating new laws that are considered extreme by many; others may actually pass the litmus test of a Supreme Court decision. History awaits the outcome.

Epilogue - it will never have an ending

So here we are; some of the files are out in the open, more need further decryption, understanding and updating. The pace of the discussion is increasing and appears to be moving along with few delays. 2010 promises to be the start of a new decade that has a few fundamental issues to resolve. The debate has begun and could be a pivotal point in how society uses and government manages the Internet.

Go back to:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 in this series

November 17th, 2009

Internet Governance Forum goes to Egypt and hits a few snags

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 17, 2009 @ 9:42 AM

Categories: Censorship, China, Copyright, E-government, Green Dam, International, Internet Governance Forum, Journalism, Justice, Net neutrality, State & Local Govt, United Nations, politics

Tags: Internet Governance, U.N., Egypt, Internet Governance Forum, Internet, Doug Hanchard

It seems that no matter where, when and why, somebody has to make sure a political statement is made. Now it seems that the United Nations is also getting into the Internet debate and dipping its toes into the Net Neutrality debate. The Internet Governance Forum is no different. Funded by the United Nations, its political firestorms are no different than those occurring daily at the World Headquarters in New York.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee delivered a keynote speech, launching the World Wide Web Foundation at the Internet Governance Forum sponsored by the United Nations being held in Egypt.  A most unique place in which to hold the event some suggest. That in turn raised some eyebrows of another group, Reporters without Borders suggesting that the Government of Egypt is ‘hostile’ to the very concept of the Internet.

Then not even a day into the conference, Egypt announces that it’s launching a Arabic domain .masr to abbreviate Egypt name. And then somebody lit the fuse.

The BBC reported that the United Nations requested that certain posters and flyers stop being handed out during the conference with respects to a film about ‘Free Tibet’. From there it has been all downhill. This is the headline story instead of one of the key topics of the event, Security Openness and Privacy.

And the conference isn’t even over yet.

November 13th, 2009

Google hit again with Street View privacy concerns - in Switzerland

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 13, 2009 @ 7:50 AM

Categories: Canada, Copyright, Courts, Databases, European Parliament, Google, Government technology, Intellectual Property, Privacy, State & Local Govt, Switzerland

Tags: Google Inc., Switzerland, Image, Privacy Concern, Doug Hanchard

First it was Canada, then in Google’s own back yard in the U.S. and now other countries are following suit with privacy concerns over Google’s Street View image database. Switzerland has been reviewing privacy concerns about Street View for the past year.

Google had some significant challenges deploying street view images of Canadian cities and towns based based upon complaints from the Canadian Privacy Commission. Google’s solution was to blur out the images of licence plates and faces. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner (and others) and reviewed the solution and blessed it. Google thought this would be the right path for other countries. Turns out, it’s not enough. In a BBC report, a Swiss court has instructed Google to pull all images in Street View, saying that it did not make sufficiently ‘unrecognizable’ people in images published.

It’s not just images of people that also concerns the Swiss authorities - it’s where, such as hospitals, prisons and other sensitive areas. That has not been brought up in other countries as an issue - yet. Google has blurred images of licence plates and peoples faces in all the cities I checked, Vancouver, B.C. near Canada Place, New York City on Wall Street and Geneva, Switzerland.

 Loading ...

Here are three images I created using Google’s Street View service.

Vancouver, B.C.

New York City, New York

Geneva Switzerland

November 9th, 2009

Wireless users may be shut off if sharing copyrighted files

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 9, 2009 @ 6:28 AM

Categories: Commerce, Copyright, Courts, International, Justice, Law enforcement, Mobile/wireless, Net neutrality, Patents, Privacy, Security, Telecom, UK, Web services, piracy

Tags: Service Provider, U.K., Wireless, Wireless Security Problem, Internet, Wi-Fi, Wireless LANs, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Business Services, Wireless And Mobility

Internet services have created explosive growth in distribution of copyright materials. Some people are distributing it and don’t even know it, some argue. Reaction, regardless whether a consumer knows it or not, is to push for extensive reform and new enforcement capabilities to prevent further erosion and  protect their content. The U.K. government responded (Oct. 28) with proposed enforcement options for OFCom to use at its discretion. Among them is the ability to shut off a user’s wireless WiFi service if user is found to be transmitting internet traffic such as file transfer of copyright material. Singling out wireless access to the internet is just the start. Read the rest of this entry »

November 5th, 2009

Copyright associations want enforcement for free

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 5, 2009 @ 10:41 AM

Categories: Canada, Censorship, Congress, Copyright, Courts, Cyber Security, Cybercrime, Defense, E-government, European Union, Intellectual Property, International, Justice, Law enforcement, Privacy, RIAA, Regulations, Security, State & Local Govt, Telecom, UK

Tags: Monitor, Internet Service Provider, Deep Packet Inspection Technique, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Monitors & Displays, Internet, Hardware, Components, Doug Hanchard

The internet has opened the Pandora’s Box - that everything that can be duplicated - will be. This simple truth will drive up costs for you the consumer. You will pay one of three ways: through the government and the court system (taxes);through your monthly internet access fees paid to your ISP (network operations and infrastructure); or, finally, through higher product costs. More than likely, you will pay all three.

The first generation of technology, copyright protection was easy to target and manage. Organizations such as the MPAA, RIAA, and others lobbied and won governing laws and regulations that ‘taxed’ (in some countries it is defined as a levy) blank tape cassettes and eventually blank CD and DVD products to ‘pay’ for potential infringements of copyright materials. Products that were not taxed (so far) were hard drives, memory cards and Next Gen (NG) Personal Video Recorders (PVR’s) used to record television shows. The time has probably come in which artists and vendors will have to contribute funding for enforcement through sales of their products directly in each jurisdiction they wish to have copyright protection.  That cost would then be passed onto consumers through increases in prices. Read the rest of this entry »

November 2nd, 2009

Net Neutrality: You own the Internet - make sure it becomes Law

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ November 2, 2009 @ 6:23 AM

Categories: Censorship, Congress, Copyright, Courts, Cybercrime, E-government, FCC, International, Journalism, Justice, Law enforcement, Net neutrality, Privacy, Regulations, Security, Social networks, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, Web services

Tags: Regulation, Net Neutrality, Law, News Organization, Changes, Internet, Doug Hanchard

Last week I wrote about how Net Neutrality could be blown to pieces in satire and followed up with another piece suggesting that the Internet is not free from government monopolies and corporate service providers. An advocate of an open system that has choice and no boundaries barring access needs some ammunition to fight back with. It has plenty if used appropriately.

For the first time in the world, there’s a service that has a unique platform, allowing all free people to interact, demonstrate, express and bind together to resolve issues. The internet is the vehicle which has and will continue to drive change, innovation, and create an entirely new political landscape that does not have limitations. Could turn out to be a bad or good thing. But internet users will be decision makers on this point, not corporations. Read the rest of this entry »

October 22nd, 2009

Net Neutrality: Why the Internet will never be free. For anything. So get used to it

Posted by Doug Hanchard @ October 22, 2009 @ 10:10 AM

Categories: Antitrust, Canada, Censorship, Commerce, Congress, Copyright, Courts, E-government, FCC, FTC, Google, Government technology, Green Dam, ICANN, Intellectual Property, International, Journalism, Justice, Microsoft, Net neutrality, Open government, Privacy, Regulations, Social networks, Standards, State & Local Govt, Telecom, VoIP, Web browsers, Web services

Tags: Provider, Google Inc., Network, Law, Net Neutrality, Yorkton, Market Pie, Internet, Networking, Doug Hanchard

Call it Net Neutrality if you want, but it doesn’t exist, nor is it required when you already have antitrust, regulatory and other local and state, and international law in place. Choice, innovation and open access are the principles in a free enterprise competitive market, not the halls of government.

Before I start, I wish to make clear that ’Law’ is what makes our society what it is today. Without, we would have anarchy and society as we know it today would not exist. Also this is not your typical blog story, what follows is an medium depth look at the problems and challenges Net Neutrality would have on providers, users and government policy if implemented. It doesn’t ask all the questions or give solutions to every aspect in fine detail but does give the reader a general knowledge and sense of issues.

Overview - Net Neutrality - a philosophy or set of regulations?

Your government will ensure Net neutrality with whatever they believe it is. You may not like it, but it is coming. I just don’t know if the lawmakers know what they are getting themselves into. The world believes the Internet is open to everyone. Some are arguing and even demanding we need Law and the RIGHT to eliminate censorship and have choice in all its forms.  The Internet is the People’s network and everyone owns it. Thus Net Neutrality would enable and ensure innovation, freedom, choice and access. Read the rest of this entry »

September 10th, 2009

Google says it would make books available to Amazon, Copyright Office says deal 'usurps' Congressional role

Posted by Richard Koman @ September 10, 2009 @ 9:05 AM

Categories: Copyright, Google Book Deal

Tags: Google Inc., Settlement, Copyright Law, U.S. Congress, Copyright Office, Amazon.com Inc., Competitior, Litigation, Business Operations, Richard Koman

Google’s David Drummond is making promises on the fly during today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing. He just announced that Google would make books covered under the settlement available to competitors like Amazon or Microsoft on a reseller basis — and Google would share the majority of their revenue.

Asked by an approving Chairman John Conyers for Amazon’s reponse, Amazon’s Paul Misener explained that Amazon didn’t much cotton to the idea of having to go through Google instead of purchasing rights directly.

In his oral comments, Misener made the point that the deal is in fact exclusive (note, all quotes are real-time paraphrases, not exact):

The settlement gives Google exclusive, liability-free rights to orphan works. It goes further, it releases them from liability not just for past acts, but prospectively. Google gets everything. What does a competitor get? Nothing, except what is opted into the Registry by rights holders. Competitors are limited only to rights holders who have opted in their works. Ggets everything less some opt-outs. competitiors gets nothing plus soome opt-ins. And orphans by definition don’t make an option. They don’t opt out of the google corpus and they don’t opt in to the competitor corpus.

In her opening statement, Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters argued that the settlement largely usurps Congress’s role in making copyright law. “To allow a commercial entity to sell such works without consent is an end-run around copyright law as we know it,” Peters said.

While aspects of settlement have merit, key parts are fundamentally at odds with the law. They impinge the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders. The settlement agreement creates a compulsory license and covers behavior not part of the dispute. It would alter the landscape of copyright law — which is the purview of Congress, not the courts. It would jeopardize the efforts of Congress to craft comprehensive legislation. In the view of the Copyright Office, the settlement proposed by the parties would encroach on responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally has been the domain of Congress.

In addition, Peters said, the settlement has “serious international implications” that could impact U.S. obligations in treaties with foreign governments.

July 14th, 2009

Should radio have to pay royalties? Pandora, labels say yes

Posted by Richard Koman @ July 14, 2009 @ 1:41 PM

Categories: Congress, Copyright

Tags: Performance, Radio, Royalty, Pandora, Advertising & Promotion, Marketing, Richard Koman

For 80 years, radio has not had to pay for the privilege of playing records over the air. In legal terms, it has not had to pay royalties for the “performance right.” Stations still have to pay composer royalties to ASCAP.

Web radio, satellite and all other technologies do have to pay performance royalties under the 1995 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act. But radio was explicitly exempted from that law. Now that webcasters, led by Pandora, have cut a deal with SoundExchange for reasonable performance royalties, Pandora’s CEO Tim Westergren wants to level the playing field.

There is a new effort in Congress to fix the broader issue of how musical artists are compensated across all forms of radio. The system as it stands today remains fundamentally unfair both to Internet radio services like Pandora, which pay higher royalties than other forms of radio, and to musical artists, who receive no compensation at all when their music is played on AM/FM radio. We, along with the artists whose music we play, strongly support the establishment of a level playing field, a truly fair system, as articulated in a new bill called the Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848).

Read the rest of this entry »

June 22nd, 2009

Having forced one Irish ISP to adopt three strikes rules, labels sue to force others to match policy

Posted by Richard Koman @ June 22, 2009 @ 8:41 AM

Categories: Copyright, Government technology, RIAA

Tags: RIAA, British Telecommunications, Internet Service Provider, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet, Richard Koman

The RIAA recording industry is determined to rip Internet access away from illegal downloaders and it continued its campaign with legal action in Ireland. Check this one out, it’s really jaw-dropping. The Irish Times reports reports that the Big Four are suing telco BT Ireland and cable company UPC Ireland to force them to adopt a “three strikes” policy against downloaders.

The reason: As part of a settlement against Eircom, in which the ISP agreed to kick off persistent downloaders, the RIAA promised to get BT and UPC to do the same. They didn’t exactly agree with smiles and a handshake, so now the RIAA is suing them.

To force companies with whom they have no settlement agreement to declare the same war on customers that is working such wonders for the recording industry.

UPC held firm: A spokeswoman said UPC “has made its position clear from the outset – it will not agree to a request that goes beyond what is currently provided under existing legislation”. She added:

There is no basis under Irish law requiring ISPs to control, access or block the internet content its users download. In addition, the rights-holders’ proposal gives rise to serious concerns for data privacy and consumer contract law.

BT declined comment.

Even though the European Parliament rejected a three-strikes package because it viewed Internet access as a “fundamental right,” and a French court threw out a similar three-strikes law, and Digital Britain declined to recommend cutting off downloaders, the industry continues its campaign to bring the Internet under its control through whatever outrageous schemes its lobbyists can convince technophobic officials to embrace.