Home
The Autumnal City [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tarmle

[ website | The Ruins of Morning ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

UK Government Under the Control of Hollywood [Feb. 22nd, 2008|10:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

You may have noticed that the UK government, with the kind assistance of Andrew Burnham MP of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is bowing to Hollywood and the record labels' various enforcement groups, essentially handing them the power to control the uses that UK citizens may make of their internet connections. ISPs have been given until April 2009 to comply with new regulations that will force them to inspect all data transferred through their systems and magically deduce whether or not it involves the sharing of copyrighted material. In the event that sharing is suspected (nothing more is required) the ISP subscriber will receive a strike against them, if they receive three strikes their internet service will be terminated.

No allowances have been made for the technological requirements for deep packet inspection of all traffic that passes through a service providers system. It may safely be presumed that the customers will end up paying extra to have their private data transmissions intercepted and analysed. I have yet to find any comment form Burnham on the morality of cutting off an innocent user when someone else who makes use of the same connection is suspected of sharing - if one family member breaks the rules then everyone in that household loses access this increasingly essential communications service. Nor have I seen any indication from those involved that they have any understanding of the encryption arms race they are about to enter and immediately lose - that will be an awful lot of money spent and trouble caused for a system that will be worked around before it is even put in place. Naturally there is no hint of how the ISP's are to identify copyrighted works from any other shared files. And what are the procedures for proving one's innocence? How does someone with a strike based on a suspicion show that they are not guilty of sharing (baring in mind the technical hurdles already involved in proving positive proof of sharing).

The most sensible response I have heard comes from a Slashdot commenter:

"if all ISPs in the UK staged a strike by cutting Internet access everywhere for two or three days and claim that would be the only possible way to ensure their customers aren't pirating anything, I am sure that the outrage would force another look at the law. And if they did this 2 different times, like once on Thursday Friday and Saturday, it could cause direct deposit information and payroll services to be interrupted. If they did this on again a week later on lets say Monday and Tuesday, there would be so much upset and confusion that those who think they wasn't effected will be."


Personally I will be happy to lose access for a few days if it will do anything to prevent this travesty from going any further. Frankly, the harm done to individual users will not even register compared to the harm done to UK financial sector, not least the content industry. They must learn that the environment has changed and all the legislation in the world cannot change it back. Technology has moved forward and they have failed to follow. Their demise is inevitable, and is only hastened by making enemies of us all.
linkpost comment

The Only Solution [Jan. 11th, 2008|03:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

A growing number of Swedish MPs are questioning the logic and legality of the recording industry targeting file sharers and forcing ISPs to help identify them. They have a simple and obvious solution that many of us will find familiar:

"Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It’s the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet. Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state. Today they want to transform the Internet Service Providers into an online police force, and the Antipiracy Bureau wants the authority for themselves to extract the identities of file sharers. Then they can drag the 15-year-old girl who downloaded a Britney Spears song to civil court and sue her."


Those of us with any insight into the industry already knew that this had gone too far, that the recording industry was seeking powers far beyond those required for commerce and that such grasping power-hungry manoeuvring was a sing of bad things to come. Now it seems they have finally push hard enough to raise the heckles of more than a few politicians. Six members of the Swedish Moderate Party drafted the article quoted above taking into account some uncomfortable questions from various government bodies including the Data Inspection Board and The Competition Authority. It draws attention to the issues of privacy, authority, due process and human rights. Since it's publication support has continued to grow and a second article has been signed by 13 members of the Swedish parliament.

Finally there are politicians who are walking into this argument with open eyes instead of overstuffed wallets. Hopefully this movement will produce something akin to reasonable and workable legislation in Sweden, something that protects private citizens and forces the recoding industry to accept that it no longer has a place in the modern world. With a little more luck, such common sense thinking will prove infectious and we will start to see this attitude spread to the rest of Europe.
linkpost comment

Glitch [Dec. 5th, 2007|10:49 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

Listen, Glick, the movie industry is already doing the one thing that guarantees I will never illegally download their 'products', namely they are now making such deficient, low-brow, half-assed, worthless, over-hyped, over-funded, overwritten, sub intellectual, inadequate, substandard, ridiculous, inferior, scoff-worthy, malodorous, cringe-making, mismanaged, shoddy, insufferable, incompetent and defective low-com-dom crap, that I would never ever even consider wasting one single byte of my precious bandwidth on any of it. I would be perfectly happy to see every last bit of your meritless trash forever erased from the internet were it not for the fact that you are trying to do it by introducing a radically disproportionate mechanism: ending Network Neutrality!

Don't cover your ears Glickster, you need to hear this: Shrek 3 is not important enough to bring an end to our freedom. The only reason the movie industry can say it's losing money now is because they spent way too much on producing something that nobody actually needs and nobody really wants. The Western World will not crumble because they can't turn a profit, but it might if we lose the integrity and security of the single most important communications tool in history.

One way or another the IP delusional industries are one the way out. It's only a matter of time before the average consumer figures out that their 'entertainment' just isn't worth it any more, that the busker on the street outside the cinema is a hell of lot more creative, interesting and memorable than the claptrap movie they just walked out of. How long do you think they'll watch their technology subverted, their personal data ransacked, their legally purchased media disintegrating, and their communications tapped and blocked before they think: "But I didn't even like the Bourne Appendectomy!"

Anyone invested in the movie or recording industries with even an iota of common sense should be selling up now, while their stock is still worth the ferromagnetic material it's stored on. You know it can't go on like this. It just isn't reasonable in consider this a survivable scenario for anyone involved. I mean it. Get out now. This is going to end badly, and you know it.

Glicky, you are not adding to our culture in any positive way beyond uniting the rest of us against you. You are not curing any horrible diseases. You are not on a crusade of righteousness. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are not welcome here.
link2 comments|post comment

Linking a Crime - It are a FACT [Oct. 19th, 2007|10:42 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

The Guardian is gleefully frothing over the arrest of a web site owner for allowing visitors to download infringing content [they even trot out that old Lost Sales gag, I expect then to start discussing internet tubes any moment now]. But as with almost all of these cases things are not so clearly defined:

"One of the world's most-used pirate film websites has been closed after providing links to illegal versions of major Hollywood hits and TV shows.

The first closure of a major UK-based pirate site was also accompanied by raids and an arrest, the anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said today.

A 26-year-old man from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet, Fact said.

Fact claims that tv-links.co.uk was providing links to illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet. The site also provided links to TV shows that were being illegally distributed."

- guardian.co.uk


Yes, you read that correctly, the site was "providing links" to "illegal film content". This site itself contained nothing illegal, there was no copyrighted content available there, it was not possible to upload or download such content to its server. If there's nothing illegal then there is no crime, if there is no crime then the "26-year-old man from Cheltenham" is innocent. I hope 26yomfC has a a decent, IT-savvy lawyer because this could not only put him in enough cash to keep him comfy for a long time but also protect www.tv-links.co.uk from any future prosecutions.

The issue here is the difference between performing an illegal act and describing one. The TV Links site merely described the locations and methods of acquisition for infringing content, it did not actually perform the infringement. By that same token, any author of a novel that describes a murder should be arrested for murder. Anyone who shows a policeman the location of a stolen car should be arrested for stealing it [yeah, I know, 'car analogy'].

Let's run with that last one: if anything this site was a useful tool for IP delusionals, showing them exactly where to find the actual infringing sites and torrents, happily revealed to them by the very people that so plague them. As a resource you would think it far more valuable than a single highly questionable arrest.

Once again these people have succeeded in pissing me off. Remember to use the Bad Guy Sticker greasemonkey tool while browsing Amazon to help you avoid purchasing products from members of FACT. Give these idiots your money and it will be used to harm your rights, prevent you from using your own tools and content, and to restrict your access to your own culture.
link4 comments|post comment

iPRED2 [Apr. 12th, 2007|06:15 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

I hope you will take a moment to go sign this petition against the Second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive (IPRED2) which is due to go before the European Parliament on April 24th:

If IPRED2 passes in its current form, "aiding, abetting, or inciting" copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" in the EU will become a crime.

Penalties for these brand new copycrimes will include permanent bans on doing business, seizure of assets, criminal records, and fines of up to €100,000.

IPRED2's backers say these copycrimes are meant only for professional criminals selling fake merchandise. But Europe already has laws against these fraudsters. With many terms in IPRED2 left unclear or completeley undefined - including "commercial scale" and "incitement" - IPRED2 will expand police authority and make suspects out of legitimate consumers and businesses, slowing innovation and limiting your digital rights.
- copycrime.eu


Besides the fact that we simply do not need any more IP law (really, we need far, far less) the wording of this directing is vague to the point of disingenuousness. Personally I would give the phrase "commercial scale" as much meaning is as "square scale" or "red scale". It leaves the door wide open for interpretation in the effort to punish this newly invented crime.

If you physically copy a CD and give it to an acquaintance, and they then use that CD to create a hundred thousand copies to sell for profit, does that mean you are guilty of 'aiding commercial scale IP infringement"? What if you happen to show up in the same P2P swarm as someone downloading a movie with the intention of making physical copies to sell?

How many copyfight oriented forums and personal blogs out there, including this one, might be considered "incitement" because of their anti-copyright, pro file-sharing stance? I hope the doom9 folks have their ID trails thoroughly obfuscated since their attempts to return our fair use rights are easily interpreted by this directive as aiding, abetting and inciting. Who knows if this law could be used to criminalise something as simple as describing the means to circumvent DRM (like burning iTunes tracks to audio CD then ripping them back into an open format).

Will hardware manufacturers now face criminal investigation for creating devices that might be used in the commission of a crime (where a weapons manufacturer would get off scot-free)? Is this nothing more than a way for the recording industry to persuade hardware developers to sell broken machines?

This directive may be aimed at large scale criminal activity but with language like this it is nothing more than a dragnet for IP-delusional companies and their equally deranged legal departments. Rather than having to pursue civil cases all they have to do is report infringement and present themselves as victims and witnesses.

So-called IP infringement is so simple today that it requires no significant knowledge, no more resources than a networked computer and no more criminal intent than two friends sharing their love of music, movies or any other expression of our culture.

If you do nothing else today, go sign that petition. Don't let bad laws come into force, and certainly not bad laws with such open and easily abused language.

Update: in their article, 'European ISPs: "Aiding and abetting" copyright violations could land our CEOs in jail', Ars Technica points out that recent amendments to the bill now suggests fair use exceptions to national laws and explicitly excludes "acts carried out by private users for personal and not for profits purposes". Good news. But that still leaves this directive with enough interpretive swing to throttle future technical innovations in information technology, to put increasing pressure on our internet service providers to limit our use of what is supposed to be a neutral network, and ultimately tighten the recording industry's grip on our culture.
linkpost comment

Secrecy is Weakness: 641A [Jun. 21st, 2006|04:07 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

"His vision was spherical, as though a single retina lined the inner surface of a globe that contained all things, if all things could be counted. And here things could be counted, each one."


641A by Tarmle - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
linkpost comment

Internet's End [May. 21st, 2006|10:22 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Net Neutrality was a very simple concept that produced two useful conditions. It provided a level playing field upon which all entities were offered an equal opportunity to succeed within the confines of the network. But also, and perhaps more importantly, it made the end points - the content producer and the content consumer - responsible for the nature of the traffic on the network.

This last point is important for two reasons. Firstly the users could make the choice of which traffic deserved priority (that is, their choices decided the distribution of data and this democratic pressure shaped the network). Secondly, the carrier of the traffic was never held responsible for the actions of its users, thus protecting free speech online while also provided a clear path of accountability with regards to illegal activity. Now, with the end of Network neutrality within grasp of the carriers, we will see the end of clear accountability and the end of the democratic Internet.

For the moment, let's set aside the issue of carriers like AT&T extorting money from service providers like Google, who are already paying for the bandwidth they use. Lets also set aside the fact that the double whammy of charges will be a disincentive to those with new services and new ideas to offer, that this will stifle innovation. And we cannot forget that this could end independent IPTV even before it's begun. These things are a disturbing promise but, if you can imagine, not the most worrisome.

The issue of responsibility is far more pressing. You see, if the carriers win this and bring about the end of neutrality, not only will they be able to control the traffic traversing their potion of the Internet, but they could well find themselves under pressure to exert that control beyond the simple economic demands of a tiered system. It is not enough to say the Slow Tier is going to remain free and that it's merely access to the Fast Tier that will be controlled. The fact that the carriers will have provided themselves the ability to discriminate the sources and destinations of any traffic means that they have the capacity to identify and shape all traffic, and with that comes the potential accountability for not doing it.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, since they have control, they will be under a legal and (some may argue) ethical obligation to exercise that control. The no-brainer example of this, and the one that will most likely be trotted out to force a carrier's hand, would be the restriction of access to sources of indecent images of children. Very noble, I think we can all agree, but also very misguided - if the carriers make themselves responsible for this sort of content then perhaps they deserve the ensuing nightmare, you may think. But what happens when such responsibility extends to political content, or religious, or...

Okay, here's a disturbing connection: what if the promised restrictions on the reporting of Anti-IED technology through the press are extended to network carriers? Will some pages of Wikipedia suddenly become inaccessible, will defence and technology sites have to limit their content for fear of being blocked?

If the carriers start acting as content filters then we face the very real possibility that they could be used as a way of bypassing civil liberties and defeating free speech, limiting the nature of the information that reaches the public without having to deal directly with those who's voices are subsequently silenced. In effect the whole Internet could become an edited publication, a walled garden, no longer a common ground of freedom but rather a state and corporate-controlled medium where only the most innocuous information may be transmitted. Certainly there will be small sites who can say what they like simply because they are beneath regard, but as soon as their outspokenness draws the attention of someone who might be offended or threatened their message will be lost to everyone.

With this in mind, one has to wonder if Google's questionable actions in China were not simply a rehearsal for the coming order in the US.

savetheinternet.com
linkpost comment

The Good Fight [May. 12th, 2006|06:18 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Indiscriminate wiretapping is killing freedom - and it's illegal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
linkpost comment

You take my freedom, I take your power [Apr. 24th, 2006|07:30 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

This is insane.

Wiretapping for suspected IP theft? Ten years in jail for just trying to infringe copyright? On-the-spot knee-capping for humming a copyrighted tune in public?

A while back I signed a pledge never to purchase a DRM bearing CD, and I've stuck with it. But I'm starting to wonder if this goes far enough.

I'm considering drafting a new pledge for myself, a pledge never to pay for music or movies again. I'm not suggesting piracy as an alternative, in fact I would pledge not to infringe copyrights or break any related IP law, no matter how draconian. What I am suggesting is a stance that would make these laws irrelevant to me. I would pledge to only accept music and movies that are given to me legitimately and for free. If it is not free then I do not want it!

We have been paying our taxes and we have been buying our music and movies and what did we get? The IP industries are using the money we give them to deploy technology to corrupt our computers and restrict our freedom. The government is using the money we give them to turn those restrictions into law. Granted this is yet more US madness at the moment, but the DMCA made it into Europe just fine, so these extended delusions of intellectual property will likely do the same. And I doubt they care where the funds comes from, some portion of the money I've paid for CDs and DVDs here in Ireland has no doubt assisted in the legal and political machinations of these companies abroad.

Like everyone else I have helped grant power to the content industries, I have bought their 'products' and given them my money and my attention. But I don't like what they've done with that power, now I think I want to take it back, no matter how insignificant it is to the whole.

I cannot in good conscience continue to support any industry that uses my contributions to influence government policy, retard the progress of our culture and pursue the restriction of our civil rights, all in the service of an outmoded business model. I can't keep funding them just so they can break our machines and make it illegal to fix them. I will not help them to do harm, so I cannot help them at all.

It may seem like a drastic step, locking myself out of the majority of new movies and music, but right now I feel as though it might be easy. In the last year I have found very little to engage me in the mainstream, it all seems so bland and uninspired, empty husks of movie remakes and worthless committee-derived sequels, charts full of music that I could swear I was listening to ten years ago. Why would I pay to get into a theatre with lousy AC, overpriced food and patrons who actually answer their mobile phones when they ring, put up with a half hour of adverts and legal notices, all to watch a movie that inevitably disappoints? Why would I buy a wretchedly overpriced CD that might infect my computer with zombiware, might threaten my security and privacy, all for an album of 'new' music that sounds just like the music I already have in my collection from a decade ago? From where I'm standing I see nothing but insipid and tedious repetition in the future of these industries, a profound post-modern malaise. They can keep it.

More and more I have found the things that have touched me, made me laugh or fume or hope, things that have changed the way I think, have come from beyond the IP ideal. They did not need the certainty of success nor any reward from me beyond simple recognition of their achievement. The things I have rushed to tell people about have not required them to hand over money or rights or freedom to experience it themselves. There is a world of culture to enjoy without giving more power to despotic pigopolists.

Still, it's not a decision to take lightly. Somewhere down the line I might regret a pledge like this, some glorious phoenix of a movie may rise from the ashes of Hollywood, or we may witness the birth of a whole new genre of popular music. But I doubt it.

I'm not sure yet, I'm thinking on it.

Any suggestions are welcome.
link4 comments|post comment

All becomes clear... like bullet-proof glass [Apr. 18th, 2006|12:39 am]
[Tags|, , , ]

Sun’s open source Deliberately Retarded Media project, DReaM (read NIghtmarE), turns out not to be quite so "open" after all (yeah, big surprise). According to ZDNet's David Berlind the new DRM software must run as signed code on the new Trusted Computing platform. The compiled application is digitally signed by a trusted third party which can then verify that the executing code on the host machine matches the code deployed on behalf of the rights holders before it is allowed to release control of the copyrighted material. In today's computing environment working around this system in order to exert fair use rights would be a relatively trivial matter, but with the dawn of trusted computing we face a situation in which our own, private hardware will conspire with the middle-men of the content industries to lock us out of our own legally purchased property. While this may fulfill the letter of the open source movement's constitution, it clearly insults its spirit. While we may be able to re-write and re-distribute the code we can do nothing about any existing implementation, we cannot use the source code to regain legal control or invent new ways of using our media. This may as well not be open source at all.

The TC publicity machine has tried to tell us that their technology was designed to keep us safe, protecting our data and our privacy. Now we see what we long suspected, the purpose of TC is to protect the rapidly disintegrating business models of the music and movie industries from a future of consumer control.

Make no mistake, these people are machine breakers, modern day Luddites, smashing the devices that they see as threatening their livelihoods - progress and new thinking be damned! Such greed and shortsightedness can only lead to our being locked out of participation in the art and technology that shapes our lives and our identities. The unthinkable marriage of TC and DRM promises a cultural Flatland where no one is permitted to build upon the work of another, where we are forced to build only outward until every available niche is filled and there is nothing left but a future of ever-extending copyrights and bland repetition.

DRM is 'zombiware', systems designed to perpetuate outmoded business models, to force rigidity and linearity on a new world of flexibility and democratic expansion, to breath the semblance of life into ancient and putrefying industries.

I'd like to suggest that you avoid buying a trusted computing system in the future, but it seems likely that ten years from now you'll have very little choice - you either buy TC or opt out of the greater part of your current media environment.

I really hope Mr Lessig is taking note and planning his rapid withdrawal from any future servicing of the DRM industry. Complementing these systems is like admiring the axe of your executioner.
linkpost comment

Lessig Still Getting a WTF Reception [Mar. 25th, 2006|12:47 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Lawrence Lessig offers this qualification on his blog for his recent positive statement on DRM.

Sun has made recent announcements about their openDRM project. In my view, they've made some commitments that are important for any DRM project. E.g., as I've seen it described, it would be implemented to allow individuals to assert "fair use," and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse. And they've described a platform upon which authors keep the freedom to turn the DRM off, and more the content from the secured platform.

These are good things. But some confuse praise for better DRM with praise for DRM. So let me be as clear as possible here (though saying the same thing I've always said): We should be building a DRM-free world. We should have laws that encouraged a DRM-free world. We should demonstrate practices that make compelling a DRM-free world. All of that should, I thought, be clear. But just as one can hate the Sonny Bono Act, but think, if there's a Sonny Bono Act, there should also be a Public Domain Enhancement Act, so too can one hate DRM, but think that if there’s DRM, it should be at least as Sun is saying it should be.


From a purely legal/logical position (which Lessig may have been occupying for that OMC statement) this might seem reasonable. However, this ignores the capitalist spin that will inevitably be applied to any implementation of DRM: if someone finds a path leading to something desirable, they will, inevitably, use the artificial advantage of a locked gate to make money through restricting access to it.

In Sun's DRM initiative there is an implicit intention to provide locks for everyone and everything. And once everything is safely locked up none of us will be able to move an inch without paying someone for the privilege of doing so. No one will be encouraged to produce free and open content because it will be so easy to apply the locks and make money for doing nothing other than sitting around swinging the keys on a finger. Inevitably, the ownership of all these locks will default to the current breed of pigopolist, those that would have perished without such measures, and we will find ourselves stuck with the RIAA+MPAA parasites forever. Opportunities to engage with our own culture, to contribute to it, will dry up as our tools lose the functions that permit us to build on the work of others. In the end, the entire creative output of our civilisation will recede behind manifold layers of digital defences so that all we can ever do is watch it go by from a distance (or perhaps just hear about it having gone by if we can't afford the ticket price).

Don't be fooled by the opportunity to "assert 'fair use,' and unlock DRM'd content, with a tag to trace misuse." There is little difference between a locked gate and guy with a baseball bat taking names.

Lessig's statements may have possessed some merit in a reasonable world - it's just a pity that world is a myth.

A quick scan of the responses to his last post suggests we are all having this same difficulty reconciling his round-hole activities with this square-peg opinion.
link4 comments|post comment

One Bad Prediction Deserves Another. [Mar. 19th, 2006|04:33 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

There's been a suggestion that Windows Vista could see the end of anti-spyware companies [c|net].

Allow me to re-ambiguate this.

WV will not end the spread of spyware, it will attempt to legitimise it. The applications you pay for will spy on you, and they will have paid Microsoft for the privilege of doing so, they will be licensed to collect information about your activities, and will use that information to further restrict your use of your property. Their files and communications will be encrypted, if you try to hack them or block their access to remote servers they will disable the applications they are bundled with, if they think you are trying to misuse the software they will report you to their vendors, not with a temporary IP address but with your full name, registration details and physical address.

Don't be fooled, just because it has a brandname on it doesn't mean it isn't malware.

Windows Vista is going to put the anti-spyware companies out of business not by bringing about the end of spyware but by getting paid to protect it.

WV does not yet use a full implementation of the Trusted Computing Platform, but when it does (and it will if we let it), this is going to sound a whole lot less like geekish paranoia.
link1 comment|post comment

Secrecy is Weakness: Schrödinger's IED Jammer [Mar. 16th, 2006|05:00 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Loose lips sink ships... and allow the enemy to develop better IEDs (improvised explosive devices) according to Prez. Dubya and the Pentagon who are attempting to dissuade the media from reporting on technical developments in ant-IED technology.

Reporter and blogger Noah Shachtman has been told by a U.S. Colonel that his reporting on the development of technology to thwart the ever present danger of roadside bombs in Iraq was little short of spying. The argument is that revealing this information to the world would allow the enemy to develop work-arounds for the anti-IED systems before they are even deployed:

None of the material in the story -- the stuff about microwave blasters or radio frequency jammers -- was classified, he admitted. Most of it had been taken from open source materials. And many of the systems were years and years from being fielded. But by bundling it all together, I was doing a "world class job of doing the enemy's research for him, for free." So watch your step, he said, as I went back to my ride-alongs with the Baghdad Bomb Squad -- the American soldiers defusing IEDs in the area. [Noah Shachtman - defensetech.org]


To put the cherry on this, the president and the Pentagon, after smearing the Los Angeles Times for the same 'offence', are preparing a policy to prevent further disclosure of this kind of information:

A draft memo prepared for Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, would impose strict limits on all exchanges of information on improvised explosive devices and efforts to defeat them. This includes a mandate that all requests for information from journalists regarding IED threats and IED defeat efforts be routed through public affairs offices, according to a copy of the memo.

The policy would also require entire new discipline on exchanging information related to IED efforts across the government, academia and industry.

"Preserving information security is a critical component to winning this war and protecting the lives of our service members," states the draft memo. "We must protect sensitive information and deny our enemies easy access to critical intelligence." [military.com]


Here's the SiW bottom line: If your anti-IED technology fails just because people know about it, if your ship can be sunk with loose lips, then the truth is not the problem, it's the technology that has failed, and it's the reliance on secrecy that has allowed so much time and effort to be wasted on a fundamentally flawed system. If your device does not work 'in the open' then it does not work at all! If secrecy is your primary defence, you've already lost.

Exactly what kind of war is being fought when a government is forced to treat its own people like the enemy? Perhaps science students should be signing NDAs before their lectures.

A little while back I posted about forensics experts refusing to work with TV series creators to produce convincing science in their shows (such as CSI:*) because they thought that it was giving too much information to criminals on how to avoid leaving evidence (or create misleading evidence). I have to admit, I thought then that it was just amusing, but this is starting to look like the beginning of an extremely disturbing trend.
link2 comments|post comment

TransVideo [Mar. 2nd, 2006|11:40 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

It looks like TV downloads are the next target for the IP delusionals:

Software such as BitTorrent makes pirated material easy to download, episodic TV ensures a fresh supply of content and the popularity of devices such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod creates an appetite for video.

"In the same way that the original Napster was synonymous in the minds of virtually everyone who used it with free music, today if you say 'BitTorrent,' they're thinking television," said Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, a research firm that tracks online traffic. "Even people who are not eye-patch-wearing pirates think nothing of grabbing a show from BitTorrent."

In fact, some people now use file sharing as a source of on-demand programming, outpacing the industry's efforts to set up their own pay-for-view services. Instead of programming a VCR or digital video recorder to record the latest episode of FX's "Nip/Tuck," these users simply download it the next day.

Clicking the mouse instead of the remote has dramatic implications for the TV industry.

Producers of popular programs often take in as much as a third of their revenue from foreign sales - a pot of money that would presumably evaporate if overseas downloading catches on. [latimes.com]


It's fairly obvious that linear broadcast TV represents one of the most rapidly outmoded business models in the content industry. At least for music and movies there was a build up phase in the form of physical piracy and the slow initial growth of broadband. The last few years have seen an explosion in capacity and functionality across the Internet that has plunged TV businesses into a whole new reality of evaporating audiences. This is not to suggest it was not expected, they just weren't paying attention when it mattered.

From my perspective as a consumer I would have to say that the greatest fault in this quickly disintegrating delivery method is the pitifully short-sighted tradition of regional releases. In the past the limited access to communication between regions meant that consumers were not really aware when something was offered to an audience in another region but not to their own, and when they were aware it was really just information rather than any exposure to promotional material. The TV industry's greatest failure has been the persistence of this practice despite that fact that everyone in every region is now exposed to everything offered to every other region.

Today, when people in America see a new TV show that they've enjoyed, it will be a matter of mere minutes before people on the other side of the planet become aware of it. This creates a global demand for a product that is only available regionally, and there is nothing more frustrating to consumers than demand in absence of availability. Downloading TV shows through file-sharing is the most natural response in these circumstances.

If the TV producers are only now starting to worry about this situation it's their own damn fault and I have absolutely no qualms in recommending that viewers around the world make the adjustment to global releases on their behalf. The plan to alleviate this by selling online TV content legally just proves the industry's inability read their audience - why should viewers have to buy something that they, or someone else, can get for free by turning on the TV?

Oh, I didn't forget about advertising revenue, but broken business models are not my problem. The fact that I have to pay €155 per year for a TV license in addition to €325 for the cable service to actually watch anything, and then have to watch adverts as well, does not endear that old system to me at all.

I keep being told what I can't do with the Internet, so I'd really like to know what my €480 per year broadband bill is actually paying for?
linkpost comment

Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win [Feb. 21st, 2006|03:29 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

No one has to pay for numbers anymore. No one is threatened for merely experiencing the development of their own culture. No one is sued for participating in its creation or propagation. The old media business models are gone, burned away by their total inability to adapt to the reality of new technology. In the end they simply failed to comprehend that any product which can be reproduced endlessly by anyone at virtually no cost has, in any reasonable estimation, a market value of zero. Trying to break the technology that threatened them was the final desperate tactic - it hadn't stopped the Industrial Revolution and it didn't stop this one.

Copyright is your right to copy... anything. You are permitted to duplicate, to alter, to republish any piece of information, any text, sound, image or source code, even any object, anything that does not impinge on the privacy of another individual. It even protects your right to make money out of such duplication, if you can. In non-profit situations it also supersedes the now very limited and expensive application of patents. About the only right retained by an artist after they have released a work is their moral right to attribution. So don't get carried away, fraud, forgery and counterfeiting are still crimes.

Like all the technology in your home, your computer and everything on it is your own, down to the last resistor, the last byte. Ironically it still runs Windows. The old proprietary OS has been rebuilt into dozens of open source flavours - there was no point throwing out codes and standards with years of work behind them and such a vast catalogue of useful applications already developed. Even more unexpected is that Trusted Computing has become universal. The technology that would have allowed big business to monitor your activity, to reach into your home and control your computer and your data, is now used to stop just that kind of interference. Encrypted drives, curtained memory and protected media paths prevent malware snooping on your personal files or siphoning away your home movies. Ubiquitous VoIP, secured by privacy amplified encryption, means the national security agencies of the world have to actually investigate threats instead of sitting around waiting for potential suspects to blurt incriminating evidence over illegal wiretaps.

Your culture is faster and more fluid than it has ever been, or ever could have been had the rules not changed, you'll only ever experience a tiny fraction of it in your lifetime. The new movie you glimpsed playing on the back of someone's animated t-shirt at the bus stop last week has already spawned a handful of mash-ups and parodies, by next month the spreading ripples of its influence will be unrecognisable. Even then, if the feeds do not provide what you're looking for, there are the vast peer-distributed media libraries from which you can retrieve almost anything that has ever been digitised, any talk show or radio play, video game or comic, newspaper article or published photograph.

Time and space shifting of media is the norm rather than the hard won exception. You rarely notice the exact source of the information and entertainment you receive, it may have come through the traditional broadcast television channels, via the manifold multimedia blogs piped through your fibre optic Internet connection or picked up virally from wireless peers by your personal server while walking down the street. You rely on your intelligent agent to filter this never-ending flow of information, an application that reduces and organises the mass of live data to a few dynamic feeds, constantly adjusted to match your profile, habits and even your mood. But still, there is so much material even this system has to co-operate with others on local networks to process it all.

With free and instant access to every book ever written there is little use for bookshops, the few that are left sell limited ranges of bound paper works as charming novelties. Often those buying them are just doing so to get their favourite author's signature. For those who miss the feel of a real book but want access to more than the few pulp prints in the shops there are 'magic books' with simulated bindings, touch sensitive e-Ink pages and voice interaction to let them summon an approximation of any volume ever written. The primary functions of public libraries today are the maintenance of municipal servers in the back rooms, used to ensure that less frequented material is never lost from the peer networks, and public access to the Internet for those who might find themselves without a mobile device. The stacks are now roped-off museum exhibits.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Awkward, low-end portable storage like CDs and DVDs are rarely useful, not with ever-increasing bandwidth availability, and not without the requirement to divide culture up into tradable units, the need to trick consumers with physical objects in exchange for their money and their rights. Blu-ray and HD-DVD, their technology moulded to constrict the hold on consumers, never had a chance, too rapidly overtaken by faster, more versatile and more open live storage devices.

The cinema chains have been decimated. Those that persist cater to customers who seek an authentic movie theatre experience. You'll often find movie sponsors subsidising tickets, food and drink sales in return for screenings of 'official' versions of films, desperate to have their product placements seen by audiences in a controlled environment. You often find yourself return to really good movie again and again, drawn by dynamic content generation and commissioned extensions. There's no point banning cameras and threatening legal action, the movie doesn't need to be protected, quite the opposite, and almost everyone there has already seen it. When you walk into a cinema you probably have versions of all the latest films stored in your inside pocket, if you don't you can download them from the cinema's own server as you're watching, or access countless other titles through the powerful ad-hoc networks that settle invisibly over any significant gathering of people.

Outside of the cinemas there is little notion of viewing anything in any particular place, time or order, no way for anyone to dictate or even guess how you listen to your music or watch your news. Instead of a contest advertising has become a war. Average consumers are given the tools to strip away the old style commercial breaks and sponsor messages, tools that would have been illegal had DRM been allowed to develop unchecked.

Increasingly companies rely on getting information about their products integrated into the media, making them inseparable. You won't find a new album online that doesn't contain at least two tracks named after brands of sneakers or snack foods. The rewards for a rapper willing to name a financial services company somewhere in their lyrics are awe-inspiring - a once-off commercial concession like that can fund a popular artist for long time. Your favourite comedy sketch vlog regularly uses humour based on commercial products and services - a few years ago such a thing might have appalled you, yet you still see collections of old TV ads in the media libraries prominently tagged as humour. The Grand Theft Auto MMOG doesn't charge it's players for software or access, instead it sells in-game billboard space for fifty times the price of billboards in the real world, and the virtual cars the players are boosting will often be the latest models, performance and polygon counts boosted by higher paying sponsors, of course. Armed with suitable Creative Commons Contracts, protecting them from restrictive and exploitative deals, artists have little to fear from their sponsors.

The old copyright system did nothing to protect the right of artists and everything to protect the profit margins of the content industries. It might have been argued that without laws to protect artists, and companies to represent their interests, anyone could co-opt their work to use for advertising without rewarding them. But every company that considers such a tactic today must consider a simply question, is it worth more to make an enemy of an artist than to make a friend of one? Ultimately it must be conceded that artists of all forms are the mind and the voice of the world. Unfettered by exploitation and constant resistance, they hold the attention of all humanity. Disrespecting them is never going to be a good idea.

Some further reading:
Creative Commons
The Mozilla Project
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Boing Boing
Wikipedia
BitTorrent

GreaseMonkey Firefox Extension - Web content under user control [wikipedia.com].
AdBlock Firefox Extension - Web content filtering [wikipedia.com]
FeedTree - p2p feed dissemination.
MythTV - homebrew Personal Video Recorder project.

Mechanical Royalties - from a simple and revealing description of what artists' "rights" are worth today [howstuffworks.com]
Empowering Copyright Owners to Fight Illegal File-Swapping - a view from the "other side", for the sake of balance [ascap.com]
Trusted Computing - a relatively balanced view (at the time of writing) of TC technology [wikipedia.org]

Previously on this blog:
Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win - with additional relevant links.
Legal P2P in France?
Music Industry Logic Applied to Cutting Grass
Copyright Logic Applied to Digging Holes
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
link17 comments|post comment

How secure is your faith if it is threatened by a cartoon? [Feb. 4th, 2006|05:54 pm]
[Tags|]

Perhaps such religions should register their significant figures as trademarks.

Ironically, raising your voice against the presentation of an idea that you find offensive, or even illegal, is the best way to guarantee its fastest and furthest dissemination. Hence Don Stewart, the 'VW Bug' artist, could not have bought a better promotion package than Volkswagen's legal threat.
link2 comments|post comment

Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win [Jan. 24th, 2006|01:56 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Going to the movies is not what it used to be. Security at the studio-owned theatres is heavy, it's not a trip to be taken lightly. But if you want to see the film everyone is talking about without waiting a year for the home release, you have little choice. When you enter the lobby the first thing you see are long ranks of tiny, thumbprint activated lockers. This is where you must leave all of your electronics, your personal server and peripherals, even your watch, and you had better not be wearing smart spectacles or contacts. As you enter the security zone you're scanned for anything you may have forgotten. Cochlea and optical implants must be capable of responding with a coded RF identification signal to indicate their systems are secure and cannot record. People with older models, or models implanted abroad where such interrogation is illegal, are turned away. Perhaps they would like to see one of the older releases? Once through the scanner you must submit to a biometric ID test - this is where the known bloggers, hackers and spoilers are ejected. Finally there is the non-disclosure agreement to be signed - these days most moviegoers choose to sign via the MPAAs annual subscription, just trying to take some of the hassle out of visiting the cinema. Finally you get to see the film. In the auditorium the audience is constantly scanned by an AI looking for suspicious activity, so don't rummage in your pockets for too long. It's strange that all this effort to protect the movie industry has done so little to improve the movies.

You don't really own your home computer, or even the data you keep on it. Oh, you paid for it, just like you paid for the fibre-optic Internet connection that it can't function without, but now it squats under your TV using your electricity and does more work for the content industry than for you. The nightly security patches it downloads for itself don't secure your computer against attackers, they secure the system and software against you. TV-on-demand seemed like a dream come true when you first opted in and upgraded all your hardware, but the slowly encroaching charges are becoming a disincentive to turn on at all. Sometimes the last episode of a series makes up 50% of the cost of the whole season.

The Internet is not what it used to be. It's expanded, naturally, the technology giving everyone mobile PCs with vast ad-hoc networking capabilities, it's faster, more efficient, and more available, but it's also more restrictive. Since the ISPs were made responsible for the content they deliver their filtering has become neurotic. Anti-terror, piracy, plagiarism and libel filters search every request and response for signs of illegal activity, always erring on the side of caution. Wikipedia's index has been decimated. Popular blogs like Boing Boing now have more lawyers involved than contributors (the one's that have survived that is). Even if you managed to get something illegal through the filters your operating system's regularly updated self-check mechanisms would eventually root it out, or report you to the authorities, usually both.

These days it seems like every time you turn on one of your gadgets you have to fight with its DRM to get it to do what you want. The home movie of your daughter opening her birthday presents is ruined by a patch of grey fog that shifts with every movement of the camera, tracking sluggishly to keep the TV screen in the background obscured. From the codes embedded in TV's update pattern your camera had decided the show was not licensed for this form of reproduction and blocked it. You wish you had thought to turn it off at the time, but squinting into the camera's tiny screen it hadn't looked so bad.

Even once recorded, your own media is not safe. Everything is stored on your home PC, trapped in the solid-state drive's proprietary filing system. Once there, the only reasonable way to transfer it is to another trusted drive from the same vendor - the DRM won't recognise any other brand of mass storage device. In the meantime the PC constantly searches your files looking for illegal material. A recent security patch has destroyed the last video of your father. According to the email report you received that same morning the latest video and photographic scanning protocols had decided something seen in the footage resembled a new government building, the appearance of which is now classified. You know for sure that there is no such building in the footage, it was all filmed in the old man's living room. But there's no way for you to prove that with the offending shots turned to grey fog.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Too easily duplicated, their security too easily cracked, they've been dropped in favour of heavily encrypted and vendor-locked streaming media. You don't 'own' copies of any music or movies these days, instead your monthly subscriptions grant you only the right to temporarily buffer a few seconds of the distributor's authorised files while you watch or listen. Ultimately, that was the reason ad-hoc networking protocols and mobile PC technologies were pushed so hard, not because the customers wanted them but because the music and movie industries needed them to replace the vulnerable duplication method normally needed for such mobile media.

Physical bookshops are a novelty now; they only sell works that are in the public domain, and only to a few die-hard paper enthusiasts. Their prices rise steadily as demand drops and the printing and binding industry falters. Tightened regulation has made it illegal to sell second hand books that are still under copyright - the bookshops will sometimes give the customer a few cents for old books, part of a commission they receive for sending them off to be destroyed by the publishers. Public libraries have almost disappeared - unable to adapt to an environment where more and more books were only available in locked digital formats, they were forced to close all but the largest repositories - and even those are rapidly becoming obsolete. The last book you tried to download to you eReader turned out to be incompatible. The latest novels are now being streamed as well, one page at a time, and you'll have to buy a new reader that supports wireless quantum encryption. It seems odd that you're old enough to remember when photocopiers were still legal.

The only way writers can get their novels read, or musicians have their music heard, is by signing with a content provider who will claim the work as their own and charge people for access. It's nearly impossible for artists to make money anymore. The celebrities you read about, the millionaires who's contribution to the industry was actually rewarded, are a microscopic minority. But wasn't it always that way? There is nothing to stop an author from reading a work aloud in public, or a band from performing to a live audience, but few beyond that space will hear it. Hardly anyone has access to the technology that would let them record what they're hearing, at least not in any permanent form, and even fewer have the means to share it once they have. And god forbid the artists accidentally use a sentence or lyric already claimed by one of the corporations...

Somewhere out there, hackers and open-source software programmers are still working, beleaguered by diminishing supplies of usable hardware, ever tighter controls on imports and the furious unflinching eye of the authorities. They are constantly interrogated, their work searched for copyright and patent infringements, for any new technologies the content providers and national security services can't control. They can write competitive applications, they can make the systems work faster, more efficiently, if they weren't so fearful, they could make it free. What they can't do is tell anyone that needs to know.


Some browsing material for your (dis)pleasure, in no particular order:
Cinemas as police-states [BoingBoing.net]
UK cinema copyright warnings: a call to action [BoingBoing.net]
Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk [EFF.org - Electronic Frontier Foundation]
Your General-Purpose PC --> Hollywood-Approved Entertainment Appliance [EFF.org]
Protected Media Path, Component Revocation, Windows Driver Lockdown [EFF.org]
Analog Hole Bill Introduced [EFF.org]
New Senate Broadcast Flag Bill Would Freeze Fair Use [arstechnica.com]
Big Content would like to outlaw things no one has even thought of yet [arstechnica.com]
The Dangers of Device Authentication [EFF.org]
Battle for the digital bookshelf gains momentum [NewScientist.com]
Quantum cryptography network gets wireless link [NewScientist.com]
MP3 creators to add copy protection [NewScientist.com]
Movie & Music Industry Proposals ISP Self-Regulation [ConstitutionalCode.blogspot.com]
MPAA want control of both technology and customers. [Corante.com - broken layout]
The 15 enemies of the Internet and other countries to watch [rsf.org]
France about to get worst copyright law in Europe? [BoingBoing.net]
French Government Lobbied to Ban Free Software [FSFFrance.org]
eucd.info - Site created to face the threat from the French copyright overhaul.
What If Copyright Law Were Strongly Enforced in the Blogosphere? [ConcurringOpinions.com]
Study: how Canadian copyright law is bought by entertainment co's [BoingBoing.net]
Vatican 'cashes in' by putting price on the Pope's copyright [TimesOnline.co.uk]
Shirky: stupid (c) laws block me from publishing own work online [BoingBoing.net]
The Copyrighting of Public Space [NewUrbanist.blogspot.com]
Jamming device aims at camera phones [news.com.com]
Yet another account of a paranoia-tinged screening [Defamer.com]
No taking pix of San Fran building from the sidewalk? [BoingBoing.net]
A-Hole bill would make a secret technology into the law of the land [BoingBoing.net]

Previously in this blog:
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
Random Music Generators Save the Earth
How to Save Music
Digital Analogy Management
link54 comments|post comment

Excuse me, sir, would you mind stepping this w- [Jan. 12th, 2006|10:19 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

Full body scanner trail at London's Paddington station (BBC via Gizmodo)

I want someone to explain to me exactly how this is supposed work. Oh, I know about the technology, I remember seeing a demonstration years ago. But how, precisely, is this going to stop something like the July 7th London bombings?

Imagine the scenario: you are a police officer or guard at a station and you are alerted to someone acting suspiciously in the crowds entering the premises. You approach the person and ask them to accompany you to the scanner. Having been discovered the suicide bomber blows themselves up. Congratulations, you've just killed the bomber, several innocent bystanders and yourself.

Perhaps if the police see someone acting suspiciously they could shoot or stun them first, just to be sure. But then they wouldn't need the scanner at all, they could just search their puffer jacket manually once they're down. I suppose this could detect ordinary concealed weapons such as a guns and knives, but then so would a quick frisk or a metal detector.

So, what this scanner might stop is people with explosives on their person who are simply transporting them or who are intending to plant a device, rather than detonate it in person. Well that just means they'll go someplace where there are no scanners, or do the authorities intend to put scanners at every public transport connection? What's to stop the bomber planting the device just outside the doors leading to the security zone or on a bus, or any pedestrian bottle-neck for that matter, where it could be just as effective? Perhaps they should just set up these scanners on everyone's doorsteps so they can't leave the house with explosives.

In the end, what this is going to stop is petty criminals stupid enough to go equipped through the security zone. And, in the meantime, thousands of innocent people will have their privacy invaded because they happen to have dark skin and are nervous because they have a job interview in an hour (well, since they've now missed their connection because of the scan they won't be making that appointment).

Perhaps in a few years this technology or something like it will have advanced to the point where people can be scanned without their knowledge, that way a suicide bomber can be... neutralised before they have a chance to detonate their device. But right now this just seems like a colossal waste of time and money, and does nothing to advance the security or safety of anyone in its vicinity.

The implementation of this technology is not going to make me feel any safer and I doubt anyone with an ounce of imagination can say otherwise. All I get from it is growing unease about the state of personal privacy in Europe.

While we're on the subject of terrorism on public transport, how's this for a "failure of imagination". For my whole childhood in England I was bombarded by public information films telling me how dangerous it is to play around train tracks, mainly because there is no one there to stop a kid doing something that will end up with their being buried in a sandwich box. More recently the emphasis of general concern has moved away from the safety of children to the safety of the trains and passengers (the innocent children having become dangerous vandals). You see, the rail network in England is vast, and dense, and complicated and as such it is impossible to monitor it all 24-7-365. As far as I know, for much of it, the only time the eye of authority will pass over any one section for days (or at least hours) at a time is when it blurs past in the periphery of the driver's vision. So how do you stop a vandal leaving something on a track that could derail a train? Let me put that another way: how do you stop a bomber intent on causing disruption to the British transport network from leaving a massive explosive device on the tracks minutes before a speeding 8am commuter train packed with office workers arrives, a device that will probably vaporise the first two carriages when struck and turn the rest into scrap and meat? Anyone want to tell me how that expensive little scanner toy is going to stop that?
linkpost comment

53rd State [Jul. 23rd, 2005|02:14 am]
[Tags|, , ]

What? Did you blink? Well, here it is again in slo-mo:
US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week.

Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.

irishexaminer.com

Did you get that? Even if it's not a crime in Ireland? So even though it's not a crime to burn the US flag here, the feds are going to kick down your door at 5am because it's a crime in America? And not only that but they don’t have to tell anyone they're doing it. The really amazing thing is that we're only hearing about this now, no debate, no protests, no opportunity to contest the decision at all.

The US government wiping it's arse with foreign civil liberties, what a fucking surprise. Colonialism alive and well. Guess we now know who's the boss of us. You know, that Irish language might be used for communication between terrorists, maybe you guys should ban it from Irish schools, huh?

[ Things to do: make 'burnable' flags with an extra star in the shape of a shamrock. ]
linkpost comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement