This seems to sum up most of the articles I'm seeing today.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/23/1735202&from=rss

The Culture of Evasion

Posted by Zonk on Saturday September 23, @02:40PM from the dodging-the-bullet dept. HP Businesses The Almighty Buck

theodp writes "In the wake of Patricia Dunn's resignation, Wired's Fred Vogelstein walked away less than impressed with HP CEO's Mark Hurd's spying mea culpa. He says it smacked more of standard corporate ass covering than leadership, especially coming 3 weeks after the scandal broke. His sentiments are echoed in Computerworld's Culture of Evasion, which was written before Hurd mounted an I-knew-nothing-defense. Hurd claims that he bailed out on a meeting that approved the spying, neglected to read the spying report directed to him, and was clueless about the tracer technology employed in the reporter-baiting false e-mail he personally gave thumbs-up to."

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/23/2021224&from=rss

Google Relents, Publishes Belgian Ruling

Posted by Zonk on Saturday September 23, @05:28PM from the who-is-afraid-of-belgium dept. Google The Courts

gambit3 writes "Google on Saturday published on its Belgian website a court order which forbids the Internet search engine to reproduce snippets of Belgian press on its news amalgamation service. The move constituted a u-turn as Google had said on Friday that it would not comply with the court order despite facing a fine of 500,000 euros ($640,900) daily if it did not publish the ruling." From the article: "Google said its service is lawful and drives traffic to newspaper sites because people need to click through to the original publisher to read the full story. It now displays stories from news agencies, foreign newspapers and Internet sites belonging to local television stations."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004917.php

Texas Investigators Reveal Another Sony DRM Flaw

September 19, 2006

Hot on the heels of the announcement of Sony BMG's settlement with its Canadian customers comes more news about the dangers of Sony BMG's DRM. According to Texas government investigators, Sony BMG's XCP software may cause a computer's CD-ROM drive to be disabled. If a CD with XCP technology is loaded on a computer running AOL's "Safety and Security Center" software or CA Inc.'s PestPatrol, the programs will attempt to delete the XCP components and may, in the process, disable the CD-ROM's configuration in the PC's operating system.

This news underscores the need for strong limits on Sony BMG's future use of DRM, to ensure that Sony BMG carefully vetts the software it distributes with its CDs, takes appropriate steps to correct any potential problems, and advises music fans of exactly what is loaded on an innocent-looking CD. That way, customers can protect themselves against potential security vulnerabilities. Small wonder that Canadian public interest organizations are challenging Sony BMG's refusal to commit to such limits in the Canadian rootkit settlement.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060923/NEWS/609230357/0/FRONTPAGE

Lawyers laud ruling on arrest video

Police ordered Leominster woman to remove footage from Web site

By Richard Nangle TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF rnangle@telegram.com Sep 23, 2006

Lawyers for a Leominster woman accused of illegally posting a video of a state police arrest of a Northboro man on her Web site say a federal court judge in Worcester correctly ruled that public interest trumped law enforcement privacy concerns.

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the lawyers said a restraining order preventing state police from forcing the removal of the video from Mary T. Jean’s “Conte 2006” site should stand. The first appeals court date is scheduled for Nov. 6.

Ms. Jean is being represented by John Reinstein of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Eric B. Hermanson and Sara E. Solfanelli of the Boston law firm Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP.

“In the present case, the district court properly concluded that the public interest in publication of a videotape of alleged state police misconduct — and public discussion in which Ms. Jean sought to engage, concerning Mr. (Worcester District Attorney John J.) Conte’s supervision of that state police unit — outweighed the relatively minimal expectation of privacy that the state police officers may have had during their warrantless search of Mr. (Paul) Pechonis’ premises” in Northboro, the lawyers said.

“Ms. Jean’s attempt to expose this police behavior — and her related allegations of supervisory negligence against Mr. Conte, a prominent local official whom she maintains a Web site dedicated to criticizing — go to the very heart of the First Amendment. They deeply implicate the Supreme Court’s profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Last month, state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly’s office contended, in a separate filing, that U.S. District Judge R. Dennis Saylor IV erred when he extended a restraining order that bars state police from forcing Ms. Jean to take the videotaped arrest of Mr. Pechonis off her Web site. The attorney general’s brief said the judge misinterpreted two important First Amendment cases on which he based his ruling.

“On the basis of those errors, the judge erroneously found that the plaintiff has shown that she is entitled to First Amendment protection and therefore has a likelihood of success on the merits,” Assistant Attorney General Ronald F. Kehoe wrote.

Mr. Kehoe said Ms. Jean knowingly obtained the illegal videotape of the arrest, which was recorded without the arresting troopers’ knowledge, in violation of state law.

Ms. Jean has testified that she did not know Mr. Pechonis until he gave her the recording after he found her Web site online.

Mr. Pechonis maintains he was unaware at the time of the arrest that a camera in his house was activated and recording the state police who appear in the video to search his home, without presenting a warrant, before arresting him in September 2005.

In his April ruling in favor of Ms. Jean, Judge Saylor cited a Washington, D.C., case in which he said the D.C. circuit judges “wrongly decided” in the case of U.S. Rep. James A. McDermott, D-Washington, who was found to have violated federal law when he gave reporters a recording of a 1996 telephone call that involved then House Speaker Newt L. Gingrich, U.S. Rep. John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican who is now House majority leader, and others.

Judge Saylor also cited the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Bartnicki v. Vopper upholding the right of someone to publish information if they received it legally, even if the person believed the original source of the information was illegal.

Mr. McDermott was ordered to pay Mr. Boehner about $700,000 in damages, most of which covered legal costs. A Florida couple has pleaded guilty to making the tape and providing it to Mr. McDermott, who has admitted giving it to the news media.

The full nine-member Appeals Court has agreed to hear the Boehner case.

Ms. Jean posted the video on her Web site in January and state police ordered her to remove it in a Feb. 14 letter. State police sent Ms. Jean a letter that read in part, “Be advised that this secret, unauthorized audio/video recording is in violation of M.G.L. c.272, 99 and subject to prosecution as a felony.”

Judge Saylor issued a temporary restraining order Feb. 17 allowing her to keep the video on the Web site until April 7. That order was later extended.

[The video is at: http://www.conte2006.com/arrest%20video.htm Bob]

http://tech-hints.org/?q=node/2

The Ultimate Backup Guide

What to backup, and what to lose

The oldest “computer expression” is that there are two kinds of computer users, those that backup their data and those that will. Often, it takes a “data disaster” to compel otherwise responsible people to make a regular habit of backing up their data. Still, the majority of computer users do not back up their data.

According to Computer World, the annual cost to recover lost data per laptop is over $800.00 per year. This amounts to billions of dollars per year spent nationally to recover (or not recover) data that has been lost due to users not backing up their data. Critical data files are often stored on personal computers and laptops and often not subject to regular backup.

No one seems too concerned by this... As long as the King is safe, all else can be ignored?

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw060922_2_n.shtml

Bloodless coup rocks Thai relations with US

By Robert Karniol JDW Asia Pacific Bureau Chief 22 September 2006 Bangkok

Interim prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra has little support in Bangkok, and the capital reacted benignly to the coup while a number of world leaders expressed concern in its immediate aftermath. Typical of this response was a statement from outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who commented that military coups are "not a practice to be encouraged".

In international terms, perhaps the most serious consequence may lie in Thailand's relationship with the US. Bangkok and Washington are treaty allies, but US law bars government-to-government assistance to any country whose duly elected head of government has been deposed by a military coup.

This US provision is outlined in Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which could shut down military co-operation between the two long-standing partners. However, the obligations under Section 508 may be open to interpretation.

It can be argued that Thaksin was not, in fact, a "duly elected head of government". Although twice elected to power with substantial popular support, the snap election he called in April 2006 was boycotted by the opposition and declared void by the courts.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/sentinel/sent060922_1_n.shtml

22 September 2006

Executive Summary: Thailand

After more than a half century of military coups and other interventions, Thailand once suffered a change of government following a bloodless military coup in September 2006. The coup has for the moment stymied Thailand's primary source of instability, namely political paralysis and mass public demonstrations inspired by opposition to the Thaksin administration.

However, uncertainty now characterises the Thai political system, with a new constitution apparently to be drawn up and the possible fragmentation of the largest party in the previous parliament, Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party.

Although the military has stated that new polls will be held by October 2007, Thailand's history of military interventions and draconian suppression of popular unrest could again incite opposition to the military government. In particular, tensions between pro- and anti-Thaksin groups could again surface, with the risk of violence and subsequent repression by the military a credible threat.

Further, in the immediate term the lack of a prime minister has undermined the military government's authority and could encourage challenges to the government's hold in power. Thus, the military coup, while preventing immediate social unrest, has created greater challenges to the security forces in the latter part of 2006 and into 2007.

This security threat will overshadow the insurgency in the country's Muslim-majority southern provinces. The southern crisis intensified in January 2004 and by September 2006 approximately 1,500 people had been killed. While the insurgency has shown no sustained sign of easing it has also not regularly spread out of the south and is unlikely to do so.

Political crisis

The 2 April 2006 election, won by Thai Rak Thai, failed to provide a constitutionally acceptable legislature and although a tentative date of 15 October was set for a new poll, elections were never held as a coup seized power in September 2006.

Although the coup was motivated by a desire to correct severe weaknesses in Thailand's political system, primarily the ability of a prime minister to dominate the political, military and financial structure, should the new military government fail to fulfil its promises of holding elections by October 2007, or deal with any potential demonstrations in a heavy handed way, the possibility of destabilising social unrest exists.

The short-term effect of the coup is likely to be positive, with fewer mass protests, but the questions the coup has brought up, including the need for a new constitution, and the expected wholesale changes to the Thai political landscape, could lead to serious civil unrest in 2007.