KatsBits Community

Terrorism, web sites, games and privacy (anonymity)

kat · 65 · 98189

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 1031
    • ratty's deviantart pages
agreed, crazy and i find it ironic that they call that act 'patriot' which is also the name of one of their flawed missiles systems they sell to just about any country who can afford them. also analogous to breaking an egg with a sledge hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072903gsn1.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/60minutes/main601241.shtml



Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Looks like congress is pushing to make misdemeanor crimes felonies in light of all that news about computers being compromised in recent months. Interesting article on WebProNews - Could Lying on Facebook, Checking Out NSFW Stuff Land You in Jail?. The UK and EU have their own "Computer Misuse Acts".

Refs mention in the article:
Other Resources


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Interesting article in IT Pro about a new bit of draft (daft) Legislation being proposed by the UK Government, the Draft Defamation Bill. Reading through the article I'm not entirely sure who they're trying to blame and/or hold accountable or responsible for cleaning up the mess caused by Trolls or defamatory posts. Without reading further (and based on what's written in the article) this has the potential to set a very dangerous precedent.. exactly who is making the judgement call that "9/11 was an inside job" to use a topical example, is a defamatory statement that merits the invocation of what then would be a 'breach' under the Deformation Bill?

In fact, why is it even necessary for this to be written up? This website, as all others on the Internet, has it's own, albeit generic, Terms & Conditions that allows matters of defamation etc, to be dealt with in whatever appropriate manner is deemed fit by the sites owner - Facebook, Twitter, DigitalArtists et-al can all pull, delete or remove accounts because users voluntary acquiesce to that as a condition of use. In other words, by proxy there already exists a *private mechanism* to deal with most issues that occur to which this Bill seems to infer no-one but the State has the authority to deal with. For the Senior Staff Writer on IT Pro (c/f the box-out comment on site) to make or imply this is anything but a private property matter is pretty bad... for that same person to then imply that freedom of speech is conditional is absolutely horrifying.

(And yes, one has the Right to Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't consequences for being a dumb-ass. It's a very powerful weapon, so use it wisely. Else you give those that can the ability to take it away. Digital ID anyone?)

Further Reading


Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 1031
    • ratty's deviantart pages
interesting and i wish i could say i'm shocked by this latest attempt by our respective governments to demonstate they 'know what's best for us' but yes, the internet isn't like the wild west, it is for the most part privately owned and there are already rules in most places, even if end users tend to ignore them a lot of the time, they can and do get banned for breaking a site's tos. even youtube uploaders can ban users from commenting on their pages, we don't need any more policing.


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Lying on the Internet could land you in jail?!
Quote from: CNet
The law must allow "prosecutions based upon a violation of terms of service or similar contractual agreement with an employer or provider," Richard Downing, the Justice Department's deputy computer crime chief, will tell the U.S. Congress tomorrow ... The law in question, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, has been used by the Justice Department to prosecute a woman, Lori Drew, who used a fake MySpace account to verbally attack a 13-year old girl who then committed suicide. Because MySpace's terms of service prohibit impersonation, Drew was convicted of violating the CFAA. Her conviction was later thrown out.
This is a little odd because the 'crimes' they're wanting to target relate to infringements of 'private property' agreements. The Terms of Service agreements are effectively contractual obligations between consenting private parties so any offense would more likely be a Civil matter rather than a Criminal one - unless some type of harm to others was perpetrated.

References


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Quote from: Develop Online
The Sims creator has established a new company, called HiveMind, and is looking to build a mobile phone app that will pool together an extraordinary level of personal data, and in turn provide services, information, help, ideas and games
For this to work they are going to need one colossally complex protection system to be in place to secure the amount of information they're proposing the game will need to access (and collect over time) in order for it to work well. This potentially makes the data RealID collects on individuals like a single page of War and Peace!


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Reading things like this makes for an increased sense of unease (it should be mentioned that it's taken the UK Gov. six or so months to release this into the public domain for inspection - see comment from Oct 2011).
Quote
Websites are to be given greater protection against legal action over libel or hate content under new legislation to be unveiled today – but only if they expose internet trolls' identities.

Additional Reading


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Via MCV. A Patent registered to Microsoft allows Kinect to monitor activity to ensure content licenses are being complied with.
Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office
A content presentation system and method allowing content providers to regulate the presentation of content on a per-user-view basis. Content is distributed an associated license option on the number of individual consumers or viewers allowed to consume the content. Consumers are presented with a content selection and a choice of licenses allowing consumption of the content. The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action may be taken.

The way the Patent works equates to actively monitoring the "display area" and "display device", sending back information therein to the provider so they can then charge accordingly - license a movie, the system 'sees' 5 people in the room, the fee is then amended appropriately (based on the initial license terms and conditions).
Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office
"[0028] ...a per-viewer license may comprise counting the number of viewers in a viewing area and directly charging for each identified user in the viewing area.".

5. ... including continuously monitoring a number of users at a display device during the performance of the content.

6. ... including determining whether a number of users at a display device exceeds the license option during the performance of the content.

7. ... including presenting the user an option to change the license if a number of allowed user performances in a license is exceeded during performance...

14. ... including identifying specific users within a display area of a display device...

Using the system content providers can even determine how much time has elapsed for content to be considered as having been watched or "used".
Quote from: US Patent & Trademark Office
"[0038] Various algorithms may be used to determine whether a user present within the display area of the display device has consumed enough of the content for such consumption to be considered a "use" of the content".

Further Reading



Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
It depends whether users voluntarily press the red button. That's a key concept in all this stuff which includes the likes of Facebook, Twitter et-al, not just Kinect and other gesture systems. Whilst they all tend to operate under the auspices of the 'commons' (services provided for and to the public), participation in them is entirely voluntary in the final analysis. That's why court cases are typically lost with respect to privacy, with respect to a 'provision of service' (loosing users data is another matter entirely).

Having said that, the Patent in question tends to use the word "monitor" rather than "watch"; whilst there are general technical and legalistic reason for that (words don't always have the same dictionary definition in Law as they do in common use), it's also because those two nouns(?) illicit a completely different response depending on the content. For example, "the device monitors you/your children for age appropriate content access" versus "the device watches you/your children for age appropriate content access". All things being equal, the latter should make ones spider-sense tingle.

Of course this then gets into a discussion about "informed consent".


Offline ratty redemption

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 1031
    • ratty's deviantart pages
understood and interesting. does this also mean that kinect could one day determine if a user was old enough to view certain content?


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Internet Black-boxes in the UK
Quote from: DailyMail
The Bill has encountered stiff opposition, but authorities have been at pains to stress that they're not seeking unfettered access to the content of emails or recordings of phone calls. Instead, they claim, what they are after is what many have described as 'outside of the envelope' information: Who sends a message, where and how it is sent, and who receives it. For example, while the email addresses of senders and recipients would be available to agencies, they would still need to obtain a court order for access to the contents of the emails.

Additional Reading
Access to communications data by the intelligence and security Agencies: Special Report (UK)


Offline kat

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
    • Posts: 2718
    • KatsBits
Still slightly puzzled as to why this was needed giving that the Patriot Act and CISPA in particular pretty much covered all their respective bases already? Remember that generally speaking, and Executive order is an instruction which bypasses the normal Congressional Legislative process. So what's in this that needed that level of Presidential override?

Presidential Policy Directive -- Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience
Executive Order -- Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity