Skip to content

Piracy and Privacy

Can you imagine that what you download from the internet can be tracked and disclosed in some situations?

Yes, it is true.

In the case “TorrentSpy ordered to start tracking visitors”, a court decision reached could force websites to track visitors if the sites become defendants in a lawsuit. TorrentSpy, a popular BitTorrent search engine, was ordered by a federal judge in the Central District of California in Los Angeles to create logs detailing users’ activities on the site although TorrentSpy has promised in its privacy policy never to track visitors without their consent.

You may say that it is normal that some websites will record your activities in their web services. If you don’t agree their term of service, just don’t use it.

All right, let’s take another look. In this article “Piracy and Privacy”, it says that in an effort to stymie Internet pirates, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a music industry group, is asking European lawmakers to require Internet service providers to use filters to block the illicit transfer of copyrighted material.

It is the case that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a privacy advocate, responded by sending a letter to the European Parliament arguing that such filters would be an “ineffective measure that will do little to practically address the concerns of major rights holders while imposing serious costs on the individual rights of European citizens.” I very much agree with EFF’s opinion that the filtering technology would not be effective because pirates would simply encrypt files to bypass it in the same way that banks encrypt credit card information.

However, it seems to inevitably become a trend that internet service providers (ISP) are requested to help prevent from piracy. In 2008, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) at G8 meeting in Japan may have far-reaching consequence that anyone who offers copyrighted files over the internet or downloads them may be labeled a criminal and forcibly disconnected from the net, which may become internal law in the future.

Moreover, according to the article “Leaked ACTA draft treaty reveals plans for Net clampdown”, the author states that ACTA proposes making ISPs (Internet service providers) liable under civil law for the content their subscribers upload or download using their networks. To avoid being sued by a record company or Hollywood studio for illegally distributing copyright-protected content, the ISP would have to prove that it took action to prevent the copyright abuse. An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider’s system or network of repeat offenders.

It seems reasonable for me that ISP terminates subscribers who illegally distributing copyright-protected content. However, this means ISP will be spying you all the time to see if you do something illegal. Why do I lost my privacy because piracy from others?

In the article “Net piracy: The people vs the entertainment industry”,  Marks mentions that  ISPs would have to scan the contents of every chunk of data, using what is known as “deep packet inspection” technology, which is used by China and Iran to monitor and censor internet communications. But even if ISPs install such technology, identifying infringers will be far from straightforward. The EU has ruled that before anyone can be sent a warning letter, rights holders must take an ISP to court to get the name and address of an alleged culprit. You will expect this is kind of snooping won’t be happened in a modern western democracy. It would raise huge questions that ISP invades customers’ privacy by sifting through their personal data and freedom of expression.

On the other hand, ACTA should think that such threats would deter some people from illicitly sharing content. Others, though, will simply seek ways of carrying on regardless. Marks states that freeloading on an unsuspecting neighbour’s Wi-Fi connection is one option – and is possible even if the connection is secured. YouTube carries videos on how to use free software to “sniff” the passwords of protected connections. The ease with which people can “borrow” Wi-Fi in this way undermines the assumption that the owner of a connection can be blamed for everything downloaded by it. The mobile broadband connections provided via cellphones or computer USB sticks offer another loophole to the disconnected. Mobile providers do not assign IP addresses to users as fixed line providers do, so it’s not possible to track file sharing to individuals.

“Public attitudes and the nature of digital information mean that large numbers of people will continue to breach copyright”, says Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Meanwhile, O’Brien predicts offline sharing will become more common, as ultra-high-capacity hard drives get cheaper.

I highly disagree with the treats ACTA try to propose. In my opinion, what ACTA try to do is only track “online piracy”. Even only tracking online piracy, people will still try to find a way to breach copyright. However, those treats invade our privacy. In addition, I personally agree with the declaration of The Pirate Party (course reading): The Pirate Party wants to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens’ rights to privacy are respected. Their agenda is:

  • Reform of copyright law
  • An abolished patent system
  • Respect for the right to privacy

Many corporations often use copyright to protect their own profit and block knowledge distribution, which limits creative works. On the other hand, I very much agree with “Piracy is just a business model”. The co-chair of Disney’s board has recognized piracy as a “business model” to be competed with, instead of a war to be fought on Disney’s customers:

“We understand now that piracy is a business model,” said Sweeney, twice voted Hollywood’s most powerful woman by the Hollywood Reporter. “It exists to serve a need in the market for consumers who want TV content on demand. Pirates compete the same way we do – through quality, price and availability. We don’t like the model but we realise it’s competitive enough to make it a major competitor going forward.”

Companies or organization should try to make their product or content competitive to appeal customers’ purchase instead of fighting piracy while sacrificing customers’ privacy.

First image source from http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/28/business/29online.190.jpg

Second image source from http://stuff.lifetimeblood.info/piracy-is-not-theft.png

2010 03 11 Josh Uncategorized Comments (4) Permalink

The phenomena of Virtual Lawyers.

More and more sites are popping up to offer you virtual lawyers’ services. The law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney in Philadelphia has set up a virtual office. They are the firm that handled the infamous “sex bed” case. Kevin Alderman created a virtual bed that allowed avatars to engage in certain behaviors. As the bed caught on, another user made a copy of the code and started selling it for profit.  Alderman and Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney managed to secure a consent judgment which ordered the bed-copier to quit.

Animation of the Davis LLP Virtual Office

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Cover-Story-New-Frontiers.html

Davis LLP is the first Canadian firm to open an office on Second Life. They use it as a publicity tool. A way to get their name out there, even if they don’t fully understand just how to “Use” all this Web 2.0 technology, they want to make sure they are seen as being at the cutting edge.

There are many blogs available discussing the ever changing landscape of law. While blogs may not be considered an authoritative source, they are helpful in this case since the Laws of the Land change much slower than culture demands. Blogs allow us to see the current views of those in the legal realm. One such blog is Virtually Blind, a blog about the Legal issues that impact virtual worlds.  http://virtuallyblind.com/

Benjamin Duranske is the editor of Virtually Blind and author of Virtual Law. He ceased work on the blog in 08 to focus on his career. But it still serves as an online resource. His book Virtual Law is used in many Information ethics classes as required reading. Duranske also joined the firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman of Silicon Valley and helped them create an office in the virtual realm. Even though law is a relatively slow process, jumping into a new field like virtual law allows lawyers to rapidly expand their horizons.

http://www.lawyersinagamersworld.com/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-04-27/business/17194388_1_second-life-virtual-worlds-san-francisco-s-linden-lab

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/Cover-Story-New-Frontiers.html

Tagged ,
2010 03 10 mandy Uncategorized Comments (2) Permalink

Cross Border Copyright

In 2009, two European commissioners proposed “Cross-Border Net Copyright” to EU for hearing. The idea comes from the complexity of selling digital content in 27 European countries. Obviously, no on-line content dealers will be happy with satisfying requirements from 27 copyright laws. “Apple, which do sell music and video across E.U. borders, have been required to sell the songs at different prices in different countries, a reflection of varying copyright fees.”(O’Brien, 2009) The new proposal seems to ease digital content dealers’ job, protect the copyrighted products and hopefully decrease the sell price.

While the idea of cross-border copyright is getting popular in EU, it’s less common in other countries where business owners have strong lobby power. One of the cases is “WIPO Treaty for Sharing Accessible Formats of Copyrighted Works for Persons Who are Blind or Have other Reading Disabilities.” (Kravets, 2009) The proposal of the treaty is designed to open a window for visual disabilities under tightened copyright law. However, many of the American enterprises, especially the book publishers opposite this international treaty because this treaty widely loosening the copyright restrictions. “Under these circumstances, publishers not unreasonably hesitate and wonder whether they can expect such a market to flourish when potential customers would still have the option of relying upon a statutory exception to get an accessible version of a work without having to pay for it,” the association’s vice president, Allan Adler. The concerns from the proprietary companies are understandable. After all, their mission is to make profit.

From the above two cases, we realize the needs of Cross-Border sharing of copyright. The digital age has made this trend inevitable challenging the current copyright principal. Should the non-profit attitude be taken into the consideration of copyright principal? If not, how do we solve the problem that affects disabilities who needs and deserves the protections from the international community? Maybe we should reexamine the spirit of copyright. The case of “Amazon turn off the function of reading a book aloud” has taught us how crazy the current copyright is. 

relevant sources:

(wiki, 2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-border_injunction

(Kravets, 2009) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/blind_block/

(O’Brien, 2009) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/business/global/copyright.html?_r=1

Tagged
2010 03 09 CHuang Uncategorized Comments (1) Permalink

Behavioral Ads & Privacy: FTC Allows Industry to Self-Regulate Activities, For Now?

On March 15, 2010, a coalition of marketing associations will require members to display a unique “I” icon with ads that are targeted at users based on data collected about their web activity which includes search queries, web pages visited and content viewed. It is an attempt by the industry to alleviate user privacy concerns by showing its commitment to the public on being transparent as to how they use the information collected about individuals in targeting ads.

Placing information about behavioral targeting into the privacy policies has proven not to be a good choice as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has highlighted that privacy policies of companies are often not clear or easily accessible for users to under as to whether their online data is being used appropriately. This is quite troubling because majority of consumers are unaware what information is being collected with regards to their online activity along with no clear explanation as to how it is being used. These actions could be viewed as a invasion of privacy especially for consumers who feel they did not authorize to have their information collected for the purposes of having specific ads directed at them.

The FTC’s interest in area stems from the growing sophistication of data collection and profiling applications that as a direct result has generated massive amounts of rich data for the purpose of online advertising.  As stated by George Steely in Ad Week “ The Federal Trade Commission has voiced specific concerns about storing and combining Internet-use information, such as a consumer’s restaurant preferences, neighborhood housing values and online research on medicine or medical conditions.”  The potential for fraud or other harm to consumers has been noted as another reason as to why the FTC has pushed the issue forward.

The FTC seeks to remedy this by placing expectations see in their2009 Self-Regulatory Behavioral Guidelines on companies and marketers to provide not only clear notice about behavioral advertising but also a way for consumers to choose whether to have their information collected.

The added fact that eMarketer, a digital marketing research company has forecasted that advertisers in the U.S. will spend more than $1.1 billion on behaviorally targeted ads this year only further draws attention to the issue by regulators and heighten concerns.

The development of the “I” icon and its implementation was brought forward when the FTC warned that unless the industry wanted it to step in, it had to devise stricter self-regulatory principles.  Companies including Microsoft, Google, General Electric, and more helped developed their own  self-regulatory guidelines document which is where the idea for the icon was conceived from in an attempt to meet the demands of the FTC and consumer advocacy groups against online behavioral advertising targeting claiming the process is violation of individuals’ rights to privacy. The principles range from giving Internet users a choice to not have their information as to what they do online collected to making sure organizations that collect such data  have protocols in place to keep the information secure.

The new icon will display phrases such as “Why did I get this ad?” when users move their mouse over it. If they choose to click on the icon, it will take them to a page that explains more about the process used to serve the ad to them, including the use of behavioral data collected.

In my opinion, the icon will serve to be a beneficial tool for educating consumers. It is an important step to provide transparency in terms of what information is being collected about individual consumers and how it is being used.  As stated by Lora Bentley of IT Business Edge “consumers are often oblivious to the fact that some businesses share a great deal of their personal information with other businesses who deliver targeted behavioral.” Exploiting this fact for profit is a violation of consumer privacy. How can consumers control what they reveal about themselves online when they don’t even know what’s being collected? The guidelines that have been set forth by the coalition of companies and marketers have shown promise as they attempt to provide consumers choice to opt out of having their online behavior collected

However, the underlying question here is not simply if the informative icon will be good for the consumers but ultimately who should enforce it’s use along with the other regulatory guidelines set to protect consumer privacy. The current guidelines show promise in educating consumers and giving them some kind of control as to what information companies can collect especially with regards to personal identifiable information (PII).

But some have argued that regulation and enforcement should fall into the hands of the FTC as seen below:

In BtoB Magazine,  Lee Peeler, president of the National Advertising Review Council mentions that “the criticism of self-regulation is that it’s good for those who do it voluntarily, but if an advertiser doesn’t do it, there are no consequences” (Hosford, 2009)

According to Robert M Brecht, Ph.D. Director of Research & Education at the DMN3 Institute has stated that “It is safe to say that, without the pressure of the FTC and congressional hearings on the subject, we would not be seeing these efforts at self regulation”

Others view the current voluntary self-regulation by companies and marketers to be a much more effective approach in alleviating consumer concerns about privacy. Many companies and marketers argue that that legislation or regulation by the FTC would move too slowly to reflect technological changes and would choke Internet revenue. Below are some of the statements made in support voluntary self-regulation:

According to Commerical Alert, Nancy Hill, president-CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said she was “heartened by the FTC’s continued understanding that the people best equipped to regulate this new technology are the practitioners who use it daily and are evolving it at seemingly warp speed.”

George Steely in Ad Week states that “ultimately, as we have seen, consumers want convenience along with value. They are willing to trade some privacy to store their financial information on retail sites, just as they are now comfortable with allowing cookies to make it easier to log onto certain sites.” He view that people will trade privacy for convenience in the long run which is why it is not necessary for the government to step in.

Overall, I’m in favor of voluntary self-regulations for the immediate future because the FTC has no clear expertise in this area. Especially, in balancing the privacy concerns of consumers on the internet and advertisers business need to have access to a wide range of data about users to create better ads. There needs to be a dialogue between both the FTC and marketers to generate ideas that will benefit both sides. It is impossible for the FTC to enforce some mandatory regulation as the ramifications is can have is uncertain. What is going on now, should be treated as a learning experience to see what works and what doesn’t. It is inevitable that marketers will push to meet the FTC needs inorder to maintain this self –regulation system. This is evidenced by the creation of the “i” icon that will be incorporated in many behavioral ads in the future. However, should marketers and companies fail to follow through with the guidelines they set forth. Only then, should the FTC consider intervene in making those accountable.

Sources:


http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/behavioral_advertising_privacy_icon.jpg

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/ftc-has-internet-gone-beyond-privacy-policies/

http://www.revenews.com/andrewbaer/ftc-sounds-off-on-online-behavioral-advertising-privacy-issues/

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/community/columns/other-columns/e3ifa3e60e2b52e22815c0a927cd26011d6

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/02/P085400behavadreport.pdf

http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/FREE/303039999/1445/FREE

http://www.iab.net/media/file/ven-principles-07-01-09.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_targeting

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/are-you-ready-for-regulation-of-targeted-advertising/?cs=38111

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information

http://www.dmn3.com/_blog/DMN3_Blog/post/Online_Advertising_New_Consumer_Alert_Icon_for_Behavioral_Advertising/

Tagged , ,
2010 03 09 Andrew Uncategorized Comments (1) Permalink

Where is freedom of expression in WWW?

I do not know how to show the videos for this long blog.
But if you do not mind, go to link below and view two videos and compare it before you move on the report.

Sources:

Video2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJIH1ail1no

Video1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEn5WKm-AAY

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/07/123_48856.html

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2009/07/129_49084.html

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/296787.html

http://www.komca.or.kr/eng2/tariffs.htm

http://www.komca.or.kr/eng2/distribution.htm

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/07/eu-kills-3-strikes-i.html#previouspost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_Full

Your five-year-old niece listens a popular song at home. Her gig is so cute, so you pick up your iPod touch to record her one-minute performance. You upload the clip on your own blog to share it with your friends and relatives.

This seemingly benign act, however, is in violation of the Korean copyright law. No kidding. Last month, there was an actual incident in which a video clip showing a five-year-old kid singing Son Dam-bi’s “Crazy” — for 58 seconds, to be exact — was uploaded on a blog run by Naver.com, and the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA) asked the country’s biggest portal to block public access to the video clip.

Online users cite the case as a striking example that foresees what would come once the revised copyright law goes into effect todays. Although the government authorities and copyright associations try to reassure Korean online users that no drastic development will happen, anxiety is spreading far and wide across the local cyberspace.

KOMCA recently released a statement describing its position about the sorry incident surrounding the innocent girl, but it emphasized that even under the existing law it’s illegal to upload a video clip containing lyrics or music performances on blogs or online communities, unless the person in question gets a formal permission from all the copyright holders.

The revised copyright law also explicitly bans people from capturing footage of a film or TV drama. There are now countless blog postings which contain such captured images from movies and TV dramas, so a growing number of bloggers are cleaning up their personal writings, screening out potential materials that would invite legal disputes.

At the same time, some bloggers and community operators are abandoning Korean services in order to avoid lawsuits and seek freer cyberspace. This “cyber exile” phenomenon underscores the deepening distrust of Korean users about the new copyright law, which is allegedly designed to protect copyright holders only, while disregarding the right of ordinary users, as evidenced by the Son Dam-bi song’s use by a kid.

Under the revised rules, the Culture Ministry can shut down an online community or service in connection with copyright violations, even without the complaint from copyright holders. When the user or bulletin board gets the shut-down order three times, the ministry can shut down the services in question for up to six months under a three-strike-out system killed in EU already.

The so-called “heavy uploader,” who habitually puts illegal material on cyber communities, will be subject to the same three-strike-out system.

But what ordinary bloggers fear the most is the threat from law firms. A host of Korean law firms are currently representing copyright holders in the fields of music, images, and video, and they often send an email to users, asking them to pay a settlement fee in return for dropping the lawsuit.

Recently, I saw the news, a local law firm threatened to file a suit against 8,047 users on the charge of copyright violations, and earned 7 billion won in settlement fees, a tactic that turned out to be illegal. Experts said if such threat comes from a law firm, users should not opt for a settlement and instead seek consultations with the related authorities.

To relieve the anxiety, some copyright holders are venturing out to open up their content for free. A popular Web cartoonist Kang Full said he will allow his online comic strips to be freely circulated in blogs and cyber communities.

Indeed, I think the revised copyright law should target heavy uploaders and companies which take huge profits out of pirated materials, brushing aside growing concerns about the negative impact on freedom of expression on the internet.

To ensure freedom of expression, a fair use act should propose at the internet place and the standing committee is reviewing the proposed revision that would allow people to use copyrighted materials without any formal permission when they make non-commercial material such as online UCC (user-created content).  Also we should not too complacent about the fact that this unfair new law violates due process and a whole raft of basic principles of the Korea constitution, and is therefore, reconsidered.

However, we need to think about this copyright law with its initial thought as well. For instance, plenty of unfair laws in the Korea and other countries violate basic due process guarantees and fundamental rights enumerated in our constitution, and they’re still on the books and getting enforced every day. Asset forfeiture in the Korea is a gross violation of due process, but it’s being used constantly and expanding like crazy. The KCC (Korea Copyright Commission) violates due process but it’s in effect and being abused at an accelerating rate.

Mere accusation of a wide variety of crimes today in Korea is sufficient for massive sanctions, including kidnapping without charges or trial confiscation of all your property (asset forfeiture), home invasion (accusation of being a “terrorist” for planning a peaceful political protest) and so on.

The mere fact that these laws are grossly unconstitutional under Korean law doesn’t seem to stop law enforcement agencies from using and abusing them in Korea . Why should it stop law enforcement agencies and other muggers with badges in Korea?

In conclusion, I remembered in several months ago that a famous social networking company in Korea has been alerting its users to the new law, notifying them that not only is the sharing of copyright songs, movies and TV shows illegal, but also the use of any copyrighted images or videos. Any of these could earn the infringer a strike. Any homemade videos that contain copyrighted music in the background are also banned and will also get you a strike. and for song lyrics, and excerpts from books.

We shall know shortly if the copyright industries behave responsibly with their new found power or if they choose to use it as a weapon of mass disconnection. Either way, South Korea’s adorable broadband position is hardly likely to benefit from the legislation.

Tagged , , , ,
2010 03 09 JoeYun Uncategorized Comments Off Permalink

Imagine there is no other choice…

Apple request ITC to halt shipments of infringing HTC phones that are coming into the United States.

March 2nd 2010, Tuesday, Apple filed suits against HTC, “alleging that the company is infringing 20 patents “related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture, and hardware,” before both the US District Court and the International Trade Commission. (Patel, 2010)

For your information before you look up for the detail on these patents, they mostly were granted in the past year,  and one of them just got the patent authorized February 2. Yes, last month.(Patel, 2010)

Although it could take years to have a result in court, both courts have the ability to stop HTC from selling devices and issuing fines, but none of that is going to happen anytime soon.  This move from Apple was regarded as an attacking move instead of defending it homeland, because some of the patent were directly pointed to the Giant–Google and its Android’s Operating System structure, which by no means could be infringed by the phone manufacturer, a relatively smaller player, HTC. (Patel, 2010)

Before we take a look on what this lawsuit is about, let’s listen to both sides first. Here comes the word from Steve Jobs:

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

And then the HTC’s response:

“…HTC Corporation values U.S. and international patent rights and will work with in the U.S. Judicial System to protect its own innovations and rights. HTC believes that consumer choice is a key component to success in the smartphone industry and this is best achieved through multiple suppliers providing a variety of mobile experiences. HTC has focused on offering its customers a uniquely-HTC experience through HTC Sense and its broad portfolio of smartphones…”

Apparently, both parties emphasized on different takes here. Apple had a strong argument on their patents were infringing, and the way to stop this would be to freeze the import of HTC’s product–which covers mostly Android phones and some of Windows Mobile phones. On the other hand, HTC brought up the awareness that Apple is using its patents to exclude other smartphones from the market (Apple and Nokia have been in a patent suiting war for a while, and some of the patents infringing that Apple claimed were as same as this case. That case is still pending a rule, which will be an important reference if Apple v.s. HTC case goes on trial. )

Despite the fact that the whole case could last years,  one thing I would like to discuss here is: as an user, which side would you take? I am not asking you to be an expert and breakdown 20 patents that Apple claimed against HTC, but think about the reading we had on “The Future of the Internet — and How to Stop It” by Jonathan Zittrain, would the case between Apple and HTC bring up some Déjà vu  for you?

Yes, the case between TiVo  and EchoStar.  In 2004, TiVo sued the satellite TV distributor EchoStar, accusing the company of infringing on its patent on DVR technology. After some drawn-out litigation, TiVo ended up winning the case, and a Texas judge ordered EchoStar to disable the DVR functions on most of its set-top boxes. An appeals court is reviewing the matter. (Bilton, 2010)

As we all know, Andorid phone was on the market since 2008. Andorid phone  had around 1.5million users in Q3, 2009. If Apple won the lawsuit,  would all the Andorid phone become patent-infringing products?

See how Mr. Zittrain comments on this case: ““The judge simply ordered EchoStar to connect to the DVR boxes via the Web and destroy the functionality,” Mr. Zittrain told me in an interview. “Patent law is a completely different universe online. That means if the court were to side with Apple and issue an injunction that insists HTC kill the phone, or at least some of its functionality, they easily could.””(Bilton, 2010)

For that being said, it brings us back to the original spirit of patent law, which should be “encouraging innovative ideas.” Compare to what the patent law being used as a tool to defend whoever’s niche market, even the law was enforced, consumers will lose the choice on the market eventually.

Consumers, do you want to lose your choices?

This is not a statement defending the service that ripping other’s work to its own possession. Had HTC infringed the Apple’s patents, HTC would have to take the consequence regardless. However, if the patent law was being used to protect whoever gets the patent first on the fundamental component and other else were excluded from building on the good innovation , the benefit of encouraging innovative idea is no where to shown.

Mr. Zittrain made the point on the patent in his book “The future of the Internet–and how to stop it?” that “patent infringement doesn’t require a copying of the original material, so once someone have came up the idea already, the new work is infringing. Not only does patent not have such a limitation, but it also applies to the abstract concepts expressed in code, rather than to a specific set of code.” This speaks the fact that patent warfare nowadays turns into a race on the path to USPTO. And whether the patent owner suing the infringing entity just depends on if it’s worthy to suing.(Zittrain, 2008)

And I take the side on Mr. Zittrain, that “This is not an ideal state of affairs for anyone. If those who see value in software patents are correct, infringement is rampant. And to those who think patents are chilling innovation, the present regime needs reform.” In a lot of situation, the companies are just going for business interest. And that lead to the public perception that how the companies disputing on the patent infringement are actually just trying to wrestle their opponent out of business. “Mr. Von Hippel also said that these lawsuits pointed to a bigger problem with the patent system. “It’s a bad scene right now. The social value of patents was supposed to be to encourage innovation — that’s what society gets out of it,” he said. “The net effect is that they decrease innovation, and in the end, the public loses out.””(Bilton, 2010)

Come back to this case at the end. The possible outcome of this case is that neither one can get the win completely. While a settlement seems likely, Google would not like to see that happen since the settlement could mean the end of Android. Apple will possibly win some of their 20 patents infringement claims, but it might not be the result that Apple is seeking: ruling out the Android phones and possibly some Windows Mobile phone too. (Sterling, 2010) We will see what happen next after Apple starts the patent warfare on the smartphone industry.

Web sources:

Patel, N. (2010, March 2nd). Apple vs htc: a patent breakdown. Retrieved from http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-vs-htc-a-patent-breakdown/

Patel, N. (2010, March 2nd). Apple sues htc for infringing 20 iphone patents. Retrieved from http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/02/apple-sues-htc-for-infringing-20-iphone-patents/

Bilton, N. (2010, March 2nd). Http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/what-apple-vs-htc-could-mean/?em. Retrieved from http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/03/canalys_q3_2009_iphone_rim_taking_over_smartphone_market.html

Sterling, G. (2010, March 03). Apple vs. htc (android): it’s not about money. Retrieved from http://internet2go.net/news/hardware/apple-vs-htc-android-its-not-about-money

Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the internet and how to stop it . New Haven: Yale University Press.

2010 03 09 YLiu Uncategorized Comments (2) Permalink

Weak security leads essential software to hackers and malware distributors


McAfee, a famous internet security company, reported that feeble security controls in the systems that were used for software creation make it simple for hackers to steal important data from technology companies. In a white paper released McAfee said “such systems often don’t impose adequate security by default”. The McAfee paper pointed out on issues in the popular system made by Perforce Software, whose customers include Google and many other technology companies.

Security in IT is always an issue – especially in the areas around developers. Unfortunately, good security is sometimes inconvenient, time consuming and administratively costly – it is trying to duplicate lock&key security after all. In an active development environment, deadlines are all important and anything that impacts the ability to deliver on time, especially for key project elements will get shunted aside. Also, just to get the SCM1 software up and running I suspect that “default” installs are the norm rather than the exception. There is a naive expectation that since these tools are on the “inside”, they are safe. I’ve heard security folk describe a great many organizations’ IT security as “Hard and Crunchy on the outside, Soft and Chewy on the inside. The assumption being made that just by keeping the bad guys out will keep you safe. Unfortunately, there are bad guys on the inside too. Or if the bad guys do get in there isn’t anything to stop them once their past the gate.

Besides the SCM2 tools mentioned, there are others in the Open Source arena like SubVersion or proprietary ones like PVCS that I suspect may have similar holes.

This is also particularly frightening especially if you want to really create an exploit – just think what could happen if you can check out source code, modify it to build your own “back door”, then put it back. That could be way better than stealing code – especially if it is in the financial services arena or government (law enforcement or intelligence).

Tagged , , , ,
2010 03 08 JoeYun Uncategorized Comments (3) Permalink

Microsoft’s Bing: Reducing Storage of IP Addresses to Six Months

Back on January 18, 2010, Microsoft announced that they would make advances with search privacy for Bing by shortening the amount of time it stores IP addresses of search queries from 18 months to six months.  The company will delete IP addresses after six months but retain cookies and other session IDs for 18 months.  This policy shift was brought by the European Union’s Article 29 Working Party, a panel comprised of national privacy regulators from each of the EU countries. They have asked Microsoft, Yahoo and Google to meet their demands to have data retention be cut to six months.

Microsoft’s move has drawn interest in possibly generating stronger competition in the area of privacy for the search industry.  Currently, Google anonymizes data after nine months while Yahoo leads the way in shortening data retention by deleting IP addresses after three months. The highly publicized cyber attack on Google and other major companies has only further prompted concern as to how secure is information stored by search companies from exploitation.

Personally, I believe reducing the amount of data search companies store about us is a step in the right direction. However, the question here is can more be done? I believe so.  The move to delete IP and Cross Session ID’s eventually need to be mandatory. In response to  search companies like Google that argue user data logs are a vital component to their business that  enable innovations, improvements to search quality, improve security and so forth.  Those are valid points and search companies should be able to use data in a manner that benefits them financially and provides value to the public. However, at some point there needs to be a balance between business and user interests.  Concerns about privacy will continue to grow as conscious users, advocacy groups and governments point to the issue.

Microsoft’s move may in some ways be purely out of the interest to be competitive against Google’s search engine in one area.  But what they have done has only further prompted the need to reconsider the need for some kind of mandatory baseline for search providers to follow in terms of how much data they  can retrain and for how long while still giving them the freedom to innovate their businesses.

Sources:

http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/01/18/microsoft-advances-search-privacy-with-bing.aspx

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/index_en.htm

http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy_faq.html

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/microsoft-to-delete-yahoo-search-data-after-3-months.ars

http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/

Tagged , , , ,
2010 03 07 Andrew Uncategorized Comments (3) Permalink

Privacy concern with Google Health

Google Health is a free personal health record service provided by Google, which allows users to integrate their separate health records into one centralized profile. By merging users’ input, Google Health gives users a personal health portfolio, including health record, information on conditions and possible interactions between conditions and drugs. Google Health also provides users convenient way to share medical records with insurance companies and doctors. Although Google Health seems a useful and convenient tool, a lot of people qualm about the secure of their health information. Under Google Health’s Terms of Service, , it’s not covered by the “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996”, which means HIPAA privacy laws do not apply to it. Next, Google Health can share uses’ health information with affiliated companies, subsidiaries, other trusted businesses or the U.S. government. Moreover, Google Health can sell off users’ health information to the third party.

Although Google claims to protect users’ health information and addresses the HIPAA concerns in a blog post. Privacy concern issues about Google Health still exist , including how Google Health uses and shares your information, advertising to physicians and privacy concerns, information Security issue of online application. In my opinion, using free web-based service is a kind of trade-off. Users get the free online service  by providing their personal information, but users also take the risk of their personal information. Although Google need to address more on privacy concern issues, maybe it’s the price users need to pay.

2010 03 07 Henry Uncategorized Comments (5) Permalink

Trademark Infringement on Search Engines?

According to the news “Yahoo Settles Trademark Infringement Case With American Airlines“, Yahoo has quietly settled a lawsuit by American Airlines about the alleged use of its name to trigger search ads.

Another article “American Airlines Sues Yahoo! for Trademark Infringement Based on Sale of Keyword Advertising”, mentions that in 2008, American Airlines, the world’s largest airline, brought suit against search engine company Yahoo alleging five counts of federal trademark infringement, dilution and related causes of action under the Lanham Act and an additional six counts of various state law claims, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.

The article also states that search engine companies such as Yahoo and its competitor Google earn revenue by selling advertisements shown on the search engine webpages and on the webpages of third parties. When a user enters search terms into Yahoo’s search engine, the search terms are also used to provide advertisements related to the content of the user’s search. According to the complaint, Yahoo allows its advertisers to buy “keyword” triggers to advertisements that include both generic terms and trademarks.

My question here is if search engines infringe on trademark by allowing one company to use another’s name as a keyword to trigger pay-per-click ads. While many companies have sued over this type of practice, no search engine has yet been found liable for trademark infringement. American Airlines filed a similar lawsuit against Google, which also settled. The court could not decide the pivotal issue because these kinds of cases were settled before judging. I think this would lead most companies are very cautious to avoid using trademark of others without permission to prevent from costly disputes as this case.

2010 03 06 Josh Uncategorized Comments (3) Permalink