Not impossible, but more complex.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/231006_b_NSA.htm
Why Bush's NSA Wire tapping is defeated by VoIP Networks
Google Video | October 23 2006
Bush claims he needs NSA wire tapping to break up terrorist networks but terrorists are not using the phone network Bush is tapping. They ... all » are using private voice over IP internet phones (VoIP) that can't be tapped. This video explains how it works. [Not the smoothest presentation ever, but he gets his fact straight... Bob]
It's not that these lawyers haven't been to law school, they're just using the legal department to advance a (not very smart) strategy.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061024/113745.shtml
Newspaper Pretends It Can Block Fair Use And Threaten Those Who Say It Can't
from the nice-try dept
We recognize that some of the finer points of copyright can be confusing (or are disputed), but some things are pretty clear. Fair use, for example, does exist and cannot be denied by the owner of copyrights (even if they'd like to pretend they can). The latest example of this is pointed out by David Levine, who links to a blog post from legal expert Eugene Volokh ripping apart the claim of an "investigative report" publication who puts "This article is copyright protected and Fair Use is not applicable" at the bottom of all their articles. It also says: "In accordance with Fair Use of Copyright: WE FORBID ANY REPRODUCTION in part or in whole..." As Volokh notes, unfortunately, you can't just make up the law in your favor. [Sure you can! If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then creating a law (of which everyone is ignorant) may let you fool (intimidate) 'some of the people' Bob] Fair use isn't at the whim of the content owner, and it's not in accordance with fair use to deny "any reproduction." Volokh found out about the site from David Giacalone at Harvard's Berkman Center. Giaclone discusses more problems with the legal language the site uses, while noting that it's especially worrisome since the site fights for legal reform. However, the most ridiculous part of the whole thing is that when Giaclone (a retired member of the bar in two areas) points these things out to the editor of the site, she responds by calling him "an ass," saying that the site would be giving him "some publicity" and accusing him of "practicing law without a license," for which the publication's lawyer and the state Attorney General would be alerted. All this for pointing out that their legal disclaimer isn't actually binding? And we wonder why some people have trouble dealing with the finer points of copyright law...
Yesterday there was an article on a court opinion that “reasonable suspicion” was required. Apparently this generated a lot of stories suggesting it was a large problem... I doubt it is. What are they looking for? Terrorist bits & bytes?
http://digg.com/business_finance/Laptops_Have_No_Right_To_Privacy_At_U_S_Borders
Laptops Have No Right To Privacy At U.S. Borders
curtissthompson submitted by curtissthompson 22 hours 48 minutes ago (via http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6128871.html?tag=nefd.top )
Employers have a new worry--that business travelers' laptops, containing private corporate information, will be seized at customs and immigration checkpoints.
If they don't provide the details to Google, most likely they will face their own lawsuit and be forced to provide them to the “gang of Luddite publishers?”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AMAZON_GOOGLE?SITE=VALYD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Oct 24, 4:25 PM EDT
Amazon.com Won't Provide Search Details
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- As expected, online retailer Amazon.com Inc. has objected to providing details about its book search feature to rival Google Inc., which says it needs them to fight copyright infringement allegations from a group of authors and book publishers.
In a Monday filing, Amazon.com described Google's request, which was made via a subpoena served on Oct. 6, as "overly broad and unduly burdensome" and said it would expose Amazon's trade secrets.
Amazon lawyers also note how Google wants "essentially all documents concerning Amazon's sale of books on its Web sites, and all searching and indexing functions."
"Google can not show any substantial need to obtain Amazon's proprietary information," despite Google's promises to only use the information to defend itself against the lawsuits, Amazon's lawyers wrote.
Google says it needs the details to battle recently consolidated class action lawsuits filed against it by several major book publishers and The Authors Guild, which collectively allege Google didn't get the proper approvals before making their work available to anyone with an Internet connection.
Amazon's objections were apparently the first from the group of companies Google formally asked for book searching details in early October.
It's expected that Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and major book publishers Random House, Holtzbrinck Publishers and HarperCollins will also object.
How un-Google-like... Well, it was before the takeover, so perhaps the strategy will change?
http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/10/21/youtube-shared-user-data-with-studio-lawyers/
YouTube shared user data with studio lawyers
Posted on Saturday, October 21st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
In what really shouldn’t be that big a surprise, it has been reported that YouTube provided personal information about a user to a Hollywood film studio:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1576072006
EU, U.S. to share criminal investigation information
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union endorsed an agreement with the United States to facilitate the exchange of information between EU and U.S. prosecutors on terrorism and cross-border criminal cases, it said on Tuesday.
The deal, endorsed by EU ministers on Monday, will allow the EU-wide prosecutors' office Eurojust to exchange information with U.S. counterparts on cases under investigation, said Maarit Loimukoski, a member of Eurojust representing the Finnish EU Presidency.
... EU lawmakers and rights groups have been increasingly worried about protection of data privacy in such agreements.
Eurojust says each party to this new deal will act according to its own data processing rules [Lowest standard wins? Bob] and when sharing information, a prosecutor can impose conditions on how it will be used.
Felons got rights?
http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-da25oct25,0,880434.story?coll=ktla-newslocal-1
Criminal records to be kept from public, media
By Peter Y. Hong, Times Staff Writer October 25, 2006
California prosecutors are no longer releasing routine information about defendants, including their criminal histories and parole or probation status.
The change comes in the aftermath of a Sept. 20 legal opinion from Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer that furnishing such information from law enforcement computer databases violates defendants' privacy rights.
... Newton said the opinion "will almost certainly be universally followed" by prosecutors throughout California, fundamentally altering their relationship with the public.
... The 14-page attorney general's opinion states that prosecutors may not produce records on prior offenses and parole or probation status.
The IT Department is NOT ready for this. I have one client for whom I have captured more than one third of the entire IT network storage capacity – for a single (not large) case.
http://news.com.com/2010-1014_3-6129257.html?part=rss&tag=6129257&subj=news
Clock is ticking on e-discovery
By Eric J. Sinrod Story last modified Wed Oct 25 06:30:33 PDT 2006
perspective Dec. 1 is almost here, a significant date in the legal world when amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will take effect. These rules govern electronic discovery and, in theory, are supposed to reduce litigation costs.
However, it turns out the rules may actually increase litigation costs, especially regarding work that must be performed within the first 120 days after a lawsuit gets filed. What's more, if a party gets it wrong by not properly producing electronic discovery, the resulting penalties can be gargantuan.
The new rules are designed to set out early structure, uniformity and predictability when it comes to e-discovery. Yet, from the very start of a case, the parties need to start evaluating with their IT teams and outside counsel what they need to do to produce relevant electronic data. That effort can be enormous, as data can be located live on a network across multiple servers, on backup tapes, on hard drives, laptops and personal digital assistants.
Opposing parties still will be able to argue that the evidentiary value of particular categories of electronic evidence is outweighed by the burden of searching, retrieving and producing that information. However, the magistrate, discovery referee or judge assigned to adjudicate discovery disputes on a given case may not agree.
And the failure to produce relevant electronic evidence, when truly required, can have dire consequences. A recent case illustrates the point:
In the case of z4 Technologies v. Microsoft Corporation, a defense witness revealed at a deposition immediately before trial that an e-mail he had sent to Microsoft had been provided to Microsoft attorneys more than a year before the deposition.
It turned out Microsoft had withheld production of the e-mail until responses to deposition questions revealed the existence of the e-mail. Once that was revealed, the presiding federal judge ruled that the e-mail was favorable to the plaintiff's position, which did not help the cause of the defense in dealing with its failure to produce.
The judge's decision also pointed out that Microsoft failed to correct deposition testimony eight months before the start of the trial stating that an alleged database did not exist. In addition, the judge concluded that Microsoft neglected to apprise the plaintiff that the database could be located in a sub-folder on a particular CD that had been produced.
As a result of this and other (mis)behavior, the judge determined that the defense had engaged in litigation misconduct and ordered Microsoft to pay additional damages of $25 million, as well as almost $2 million in attorney's fees to the plaintiff.
The judge noted that he had the discretion to award triple the jury's verdict because of the litigation misconduct. That would have amounted to an extra $345 million in damages. Luckily for Microsoft, he decided not to pull the trigger.
The z4 case demonstrates how even a company with the size and sophistication of a Microsoft can get it wrong when it comes to electronic discovery. But if Microsoft can get it wrong, less sophisticated companies also can get it wrong--companies that may not have the financial wherewithal to afford the extra damages for e-discovery mistakes.
The witching hour of Dec. 1 is almost here. If they've been procrastinating until now, companies would be smart to begin working with legal advisers skilled in the e-discovery arena. Such counsel can develop a plan to help ensure that relevant electronic data is preserved, searchable and ready to be retrieved and produced in as economically efficient manner as possible.
The clock is ticking.
“It's where the money is...” Willie Sutton
http://techdirt.com/articles/20061024/182854.shtml
Key Loggers Strike Online Brokerage Houses
from the costly-security dept
One of the more popular identity theft scams these days is to use keyloggers to get someone's bank account info and then take their money. However, it looks like some organized crime groups have taken this up another level with some online brokerage houses. Apparently, both TD Ameritrade and E-Trade were recently victims of multimillion dollar frauds when identity thieves used all of the accounts they had collected up to stage a huge pump-and-dump scam. [Has this been in the news? Bob] Basically, they collected a large number of logins to various accounts. But rather than directly going in and stealing the money, they used all of these accounts in a short period of time to buy certain stocks, pushing the value up, and allowing themselves to sell large quantities of the stock. Both brokerage houses said they had to cover their customers losses out of pocket, with E-Trade paying $18 million and TD Ameritrade spending $4 million. Both claim they're trying to make sure this doesn't happen again, [Gee, do you think that might be preferable to reimbursing $4Million every few weeks? Bob] mainly by being able to spot such frauds faster. Still, it is interesting to see how these identity theft scams continue to evolve -- and how they're clearly getting increasingly sophisticated.
This article doesn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling...
Brief: Congressional Budget Office mailing list hacked
Linda Rosencrance
October 12, 2006 (Computerworld) Hackers have breached the mailing list of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), according to the agency.
"There was limited breach of our list server that has since been patched and closed," said Melissa Merson, a CBO spokeswoman. "When people access a federal government computer, that's considered a possible criminal violation. So we've referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, and it's under investigation."
Merson said the hackers sent out a message purporting to be a CBO e-mail, but she declined to offer any details because the matter had been referred to law enforcement officials for investigation.
However, according to a report in The Washington Post, the CBO recently sent out an e-mail warning that someone was using the the agency's mailing list to try to get private information about those on the list.
"Several people have reported receiving an e-mail message that appears to have been sent from the Congressional Budget Office," the e-mail said, according to the Post. "The message is actually Phish and appears to come from outside the U.S. We are not sure how many people received the message or how the address list was obtained, [but] if you received an email message from: 'Budget Office ' and using a subject line that says 'The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2007 to 2016,' then please delete it. Also, DO NOT click on the link at the bottom of the message. It could possibly infect your computer with spyware or a virus.'" [“possibly” Thay don't know for sure? Bob]
Research made easier?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/10/24/yahoo-bookmarks-enters-21st-century/
Yahoo Bookmarks Enters 21st Century.
Michael Arrington October 24 2006
Yahoo is unveiling an entirely new Bookmarks product this evening at new.bookmarks.yahoo.com - new interface, new back-end, the works. A screencast created by Yahoo developer Tom Chi is here which gives an excellent overview of the service
... The new product caches all text on the page, stores a thumbnail view, and allows both categorization (folders) and tagging of each bookmark.
Drugs for secrets? It's nice to know we can trust our nuclear secrets to such fine, upstanding individuals.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOS_ALAMOS_DOCUMENTS?SITE=VAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Drug Raid Yields Los Alamos Documents
By LARA JAKES JORDAN Associated Press Writer Oct 25, 7:27 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Authorities in northern New Mexico have stumbled onto what appears to be classified information from Los Alamos National Laboratory while arresting a man suspected of domestic violence and dealing methamphetamine from his mobile home.
Sgt. Chuck Ney of the Los Alamos Police Department said the information was discovered during a search last Friday of the man's records for evidence of his drug business.
Police alerted the FBI to the secret documents, which agents traced back to a woman linked to the drug dealer, officials said. The woman is a contract employee at Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to an FBI official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature [...but great FBI publicity value... Bob] of the case.
... Los Alamos has a history of high-profile security problems in the past decade, with the most notable the case of nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. After years of accusations, Lee pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of mishandling nuclear secrets at the lab.
In 2004, the lab was essentially shut down after an inventory showed that two computer disks containing nuclear secrets were missing. A year later the lab concluded that it was just a mistake and the disks never existed.
This is handy!
http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001459.php
Animated Knots
Best knot teacher
All knots are knotty and hard to visualize the first time. This free website is the best knot teacher yet. It beats any of the beginner books I've seen, as well as all the other knot websites. The key here is the stepped animations synchronized with instructions, which you can run at any speed. Replay them till you get them right. Animated Knots is the next best thing to having old Pete next to ya. Once you get the basic ones down, try some of the harder ones. There are 75 cool knots animated in total.
-- KK
Available at Animated Knots
No comments:
Post a Comment