Saturday, September 11, 2010

Local Could be an interesting resource...

Colorado gets first victims advocate for ID theft cases

September 11, 2010 by admin

David Migoya reports on how Colorado received a grant to have an ID theft victims’ advocate within law enforcement itself so that people can be referred to someone who can assist them.

Read more about it The Denver Post

Something to keep in mind: If the kids can get them without the parents, could they get several by going to several 'centres?'

UAE: Children required to get ID card

September 11, 2010 by Dissent

Binsal Abdul Kader and Rayeesa Absal report:

Children under 15 years of age should register for ID cards as per a new decision of Emirates Identity Authority, a government spokesman told Gulf News on Wednesday.

Emirates Identity Authority (EIDA) Director General Dr Ali Al Khoury said: “Now ID card is mandatory for children under 15.”

Earlier, registering children with the authority’s population register was mandatory, but getting an ID card for them was optional.

“The new decision does not make any extra burden on parents [except a fee] as children can complete the registration at certified typing centres without the need to visit the authority’s registration centres,” he said.

Read more in Gulf News

This could be useful in criminal investigations, but will it “migrate” to job applicants or Insurance companies or high schools?

Oh no… another “reasonable expectation of privacy” morass looming?

September 10, 2010 by Dissent

Via Security Curve, take a look at the Intelligent Fingerprinting site, where they advertise:

The company has developed a series of reagents for the detection of illicit drugs in fingerprints which will be available in 2010:

  • IntelliPrint ™ Cannabis assay

  • IntelliPrint ™ Methadone assay

  • IntelliPrint ™ Cocaine assay

So… does this mean that if you leave your fingerprints anywhere in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from the government testing your fingerprints for drug use and then using that evidence against you?

Lawyers? Anyone?

At last we will have an answer to the question we have been awaiting for thousands of years!

Do Egyptian mummies have a right to privacy?

By Dissent, September 10, 2010

Okay, I’ve occasionally blogged about the right to privacy for the deceased, so this article by Jo Marchant in New Scientist really caught my eye. Here’s how it begins:

Should we consider the privacy or reputation of the individual when analysing an Egyptian mummy? The assumption that ancient corpses are fair game for science is beginning to be challenged.

Though strict ethical guidelines apply to research on modern tissue samples, up until now there has been little discussion about work on ancient human remains. In a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.036608), anatomist Frank Rühli and ethicist Ina Kaufmann of the University of Zurich, Switzerland, argue that this is disturbing because research on mummies is invasive and reveals intimate information such as family history and medical conditions. And, of course, the subjects cannot provide consent.

“The human body, alive or dead, has a moral value,” says Rühli, who is himself involved in mummy research. He says that no matter how old a body is, researchers must balance the benefits of their research against the potential rights and desires of the deceased individual.

Read more on New Scientist. I’m glad to see a thoughtful discussion of the issue.

What are the risks of Cloud Computing?

Great resource:

September 10, 2010 by admin

The good folks at Open Security Foundation have created a database of cloud computing incidents. The incidents are tagged as “AutoFail,” “DataLoss,” “Hack,” “Outage,” or “Vulnerability,” permitting researchers and professionals to analyze different types of incidents. As of this morning, there are 222 incidents in the database as they have backfilled some earlier incidents going back to 1998.

Check it out at Via Voltage.

“Behavioral Advertising is so profitable we need to ensure that we gather the information, even if we promised we wouldn't.” Never assume it is deliberate when ignorant is more likely?

Privacy Snafu As Web Sites Bypass Cookie-Blockers

September 10, 2010 by Dissent

Wendy Davis reports on the new research report out of Carnegie Mellon mentioned earlier today on this site.

Last year, researchers at UC Berkeley documented that some Web companies appeared to be circumventing users’ privacy settings by using Flash cookies to recreate deleted HTTP cookies. Now, a new report by Carnegie Mellon indicates that Web sites are thwarting users’ privacy choices by providing erroneous information to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

Read more on Media Post. I’ll also have more on this research report and its implications next week.

[From the article:

Like other browsers, Explorer allows users to automatically reject certain cookies, including tracking cookies. In order to honor users' preferences, Explorer and other browsers rely on Web site operators to create accurate "compact policies" or CPs -- described by researchers as "a collection of three-character and four-character tokens that summarize a website's privacy policy pertaining to cookies."

The problem is that a great many sites aren't doing so.

… "It appears that large numbers of websites that use CPs are misrepresenting their privacy practices, thus misleading users and rendering privacy protection tools ineffective," the summary says.

I love a good argument.

Property as Privacy: The Old Supreme Court Did It Better

September 11, 2010 by Dissent

Alex Harris writes:

Up until I began doing my reading for this fall’s Criminal Procedure: Investigation course, I largely bought the heroic Warren Court story of privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

The story is simple: The Supreme Court, concerned only with helping businesses through decisions like Lochner, had left people unprotected from warrantless searches and seizures. In decisions like Olmstead v. United States (holding that a warrantless wiretap did not violate the Fourth Amendment), the Court threw privacy under the bus. But, as with the First Amendment, Brandeis and Holmes dissented, presaging the arrival of the glorious Warren Court, which overturned Olmstead in Katz v. United States.

Though, unlike many FedSocers, I love the Warren Court and its expansion and constitutionalization of personal liberties both procedural and substantive, the heroic story just isn’t quite right.

Read more on The Technology Liberation Front.

We knew that... Didn't we?

Court Says First Sale Doctrine Doesn't Apply To Licensed Software

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 10, @05:21PM

An anonymous reader wrote to tell us a federal appeals court ruled today that the first sale doctrine is "unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works." This reverses a 2008 decision from the Autodesk case, in which a man was selling used copies of AutoCAD that were not currently installed on any computers. Autodesk objected to the sales because their license agreement did not permit the transfer of ownership. Today's ruling (PDF) upholds Autodesk's claims: "We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying our holding to Autodesk’s [software license agreement], we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense. "


Patent Office Admits Truth — Things Are a Disaster

Posted by timothy on Saturday September 11, @08:01AM

"For years the US Patent and Trademark Office has published data to show how well it and the patent system were running. Under new leadership, the USPTO has begun to publish a dashboard of information, including a new look at questions like how long does it really take to get a final answer on whether you will receive a patent or not? The pat answer was, on the average, about 3 years. But with the new figures, it's obvious that the real number, when you don't play games with how you define a patent application, is six years. The backlog of patents is almost 730K. And the Commerce Department under the Obama administration wants the average down to 20 months. How does this happen? Only if everyone closes their eyes and pretends. It's time to take drastic action, like ending software patents. As it is, by the time companies get a software patent, there's little value to them because, after six years, the industry has already moved on."

Think they'll fight over 2/19000ths slipping through their net? (That's the US Copyright Group for those not following this, not the Coast Guard.)

BitTorrent John Does Catch a Break as Judge Reignites Jurisdiction Issue

September 10, 2010 by Dissent

Thomas Mennecke reports:

Every single US Copyright lawsuit against nearly 19,000 John Does has been filed in Washington DC. Discovery has been granted in every case, which means the identification process against many of these individuals is taking place as you read this article. Before the USCG can obtain the identifiable information associated with the IP address collected during their copyright infringement investigation, they have the opportunity to file a motion to quash – or prevent the USCG from obtaining their information.


… two of the defendants were located outside the District of Columbia. In an order rarely seen in these cases, the Judge ruled that the USCG must show cause by September 30th why the cases against them shouldn’t be dismissed due to jurisdiction.

“These defendants appear to live outside of Washington, D.C… Because they live elsewhere, it is questionable whether [defendants] had sufficient contact with the District of Columbia to warrant this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.”

Read more on Slyck.

Related: Ars Technica: “Questionable” whether lawyers can sue 14,000 P2P users in 1 court

We have always had “shadow organizations” within organizations. They do the real work that isn't accurately reflected in the organization chart. Why wouldn't they develop their own systems?

September 10, 2010

Article Highlights 5 Shadow IT Enterprise Apps

5 Companies Thriving on the Rise of Shadow IT: "Shadow IT refers to "IT systems and IT solutions built and used inside organizations without organizational approval." In the past few years, it's gone from being considered a problem to being consider something to be embraced and learned from. Thanks to SaaS, entire companies have been built on Shadow IT decisions." [Darlene Fichter]

Slick! - A Very Dynamic Visual Dictionary

Not only does Snappy Words let you learn what any word means, it can actually work as a dynamic thesaurus that will show you how words relate to each other. These connections are displayed on a web that can be repositioned and explored at will, and the way everything works means that you can end up far away from where you started in just a couple of clicks. And yet, the relation will never be an irrational one Everything is going to make perfect sense.

This service is absolutely free. You don’t have to sign up in order to look anything up. And there is no limit to the number of searches that you can actually carry either.

No comments: