Slashdot Mirror

Under the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, a computer used to receive TV broadcasts over the Internet is a TV receiver and requires a licence. However, this doesn't apply to receiving video on demand, which is what the BBC currently provides. Also the definition of TV set does not include general purpose computers so purchase of a computer does not have to be notified by the retailer to TV Licensing.

From the transcript:
The response of Scott McNealy, boss of Sun Microsystems and one of the most outspoken figures of Silicon Valley, to the challenge from
electronic devices was famously blunt. "You have zero privacy," he said. "Get over it."

Much as this is the unpopular stance to take here, I think we do have zero privacy, and hopefully more people can learn what this means for them.
What has alwauys comforted me in the past, however, is that to exchange informatation about my purchases, my bank details, my crimial record and my health records would be rediculously complicated with vastly different systems of data storage being used.
Mibby I'm just sticking my head in the sand, but there's a difference between being watched and having data stored about me, and it being available to different people beyond it's intended purpose.
That's why I opposed the RIPA extensions act.
Sorry, got OT there...

In the United States: 17 USC 1201, the DMCA that we know and hate. The United Kingdom was ahead of the curve in some ways; check out section 296 of its copyright act from 1988, ten years before the United States got a DMCA.

But the Disabilities Act does not require anyone except government agencies and a few other select public service entities to have assessable web sites.

Au contraire. The Act explicitly covers Access to Goods and Services, and successful cases brought under Part III concern a range of non-governmental bodies.

In fact, studying the actual text of the Act, we see specifically listed examples of providers to whom the legislation applies, including:

(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;

We will repay you any money that is taken from your account due to:

• any error by our staff or our systems
• a computer crime which is not found and stopped by our security system

1. Unauthorised access to computer material.
2. Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences.
3. 3. Unauthorised modification of computer material.

We will repay you any money that is taken from your account due to:

• any error by our staff or our systems
• a computer crime which is not found and stopped by our security system

1. Unauthorised access to computer material.
2. Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences.
3. 3. Unauthorised modification of computer material.

does that cover
smoking,
dreadlocks
Mohawks
cursing
smelling bad
not kneeling to the police as they pass by

3.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

Arguably, a spammer is breaching the Computer Misuse Act 1990

This provides:

*Any* email will "modify the contents of the computers" it is delivered to or passed through.
If the email has been crafted (e.g with nonsense keywords, hidden text, misleading subjects, forged headers) to avoid a spam filter then it could be held to "impair the operation of a program" - i.e. the spam filter.
This to me looks like a section 3 offence, which carries a five year sentence.

I'm not sure how you'd go about making a complaint though..

If anyone is interested, the act making this stuff illegal is Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I can't see it anywhere, but I've not got time to look through the whole thing just now. If you're going to use a reference to an Act dating from 1988 (that's the date from which all UK Acts are online) or later as the basis of your argument, you really ought to provide some sort of link.

Look, they aren't charging for the service, nor are they forcing you to use it.

Whether its free or not is irrelevant. In the UK, there is legislation (the so-called Data Protection Act ) which places tight constraints on how personal data is archived and managed. If the Google mail service falls foul of this act, then it does not matter whether or not the service is free; it is still breaking the law.

There was a disclaimer, OK?

I've just discovered that /. is brilliant for rants (when one is pissed off) especially in threads like this were no one seems to be commenting (or reading) ;-) .

No worries, I do the same. I'm not trying to flame you, just comment from the point of view of someone who works on gov't contracts (as I do).

ATM many parts of the government only produce documents in proprietary Microsoft formats (and even worse expect others to be able to read and send documents to them in the same formats)

Govtalk has a list of 'blessed' formats. Documents filed in "public records office"-compliant systems have to be available in their original (possibly proprietary) format, and a 'rendered' format which hopefully will make the documents visible to future generations/platforms.

Unfortunately the office formats are allowed; pdf, ps, tiff too (adobe-proprietary) but at least with them the specs are readily available. My beef with this isn't quite the F/OSS one: render formats should have an open spec and no plugin architecture - so the spec /fully/ specs the doc - which is clearly not the case for the OLE containers used in office.

Now you have given me the link the previous one, I've looked at it and it doesnt seem to be about software (or for that matter freedom) -- in fact there is no mention of the word software

Indeed, software per se isn't the EC's priority, its the needs of the populace. However, universal online access to services /is/ a priority for them (no inequality of opportunity). This meant, in the first round, targets for ADSL deployment and unbundling the local loop, the setting up of the pathfinder projects, UKOnline, NHS direct, and the original office of the e-envoy.

As time has gone on they felt it necessary to say something about the software that was being developed to meet these needs, so they could avoid being used as a cash cow by the software companies. There's also a pressing need to share software developed in-house; at the moment there's a crazy situtation where some depts will have their budgets /cut/ if they sell software they've developed to other depts, so wheels are continually being reinvented. OSI-compliant licensing is seen as a way out.

I'm sure that *some* departments are aware of this -- many (probably most) really don't seem to be (even) aware of these issues, which is actually why we need a document like the one produced by e-Envoy

Well yes, but my point was really that these things have been in the tenders for the last 3 years. That's where it really bites: you have to be able to answer the questions on support costs and source availability before selling software.

e-Envoy (that name really annoys me ;-) )

Yeah. Well it could have been 'geek czar', count yourself lucky. I have to say it does represent a major step forward in 'joined up government' as regards IT. However, IIRC a year ago their budget was cut and they were pulled in underneath another dept (Cabinet Office? ODPM? Can't remember)

Only recently have they given permission to reproduce them/print them out/&c . I emailed them congratulating them on this decision. However, the sort-of license they give is too vague to being meaningful and I would not consider it to be free.

"It may be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users." - seems pretty unambiguous to me. This goes back to a 1999 instruction from the cabinet office to waive copyright on the text and typography of Acts (among other things).

I suspect they're not doing older acts purely because they have no financial incentive to do so; thats piss-poor. We're only talking about OCRing something like 2500 documents (to get the acts back to 1940 or so), which is a drop in the ocean when you consider that most forms submitted to councils are OCRd these days.

Disclaimer: maybe I'm very cynical and I am in a pissed off mood
No kidding...

also, I believe, at least three-quaters of software is licesed under the FSF's GNU GPL.
Figures?

If the are talking about the GNU GPL, the GPL does not "[prevent] it from being redistributed under a more restrictive licence" -- the author can distribute it under any license

Legally, thats distribution not redistribution as the author originates the material, and they are in fact correct as regards the GPL. But point taken, their executive-level introduction of what open source is is a bit inaccurate. But its just an introduction and not the policy.

So it seems that they are making another action plan as part of their previous action plan on which they haven't done anything yet but produce another action plan.

Bollocks. In fact, the 2005 plan was produced because it was felt many of the goals of the 2002 plan had been achieved.

Oh, and they are only doing it because the EU (who I think are more free-software friendly thanks to FSF Europe bringing them over) forced them.

Government depts are well aware that having access to the source prevents them being held to ransom by companies who need a big license payoff to stay afloat. At least 2 of the Pathfinder projects (50 x 1m local govt projects funded by central govt to kickstart development of online services) were fully open source. I say 'were' because AFAIK all the Pathfinders are now completed, they started back in 2000/2001.

Something I have been campagning for the UK government to do is to release all their laws[..]on request to citizens gratis. They do, at least, have some online now under a restrictive license that requires paying so much per click-through for some uses of the laws."

Eh??? Have you looked at HMSO recently? All the acts since 1991 are there, online, for free, and can be reproduced for free. The only clickthroughs the HMSO uses are for supplementary material, not the laws themselves.

My own complaint about those is that they only go back 'selectively' beyond 1991. That's a problem, because eg the laws relating to pollution since then (which it sounds like you're interested in) have been supplementary to the previous Acts. HMSO say the selection of pre-91 laws is just those that they had available already in some electronic form, but we live in a world of OCR, what's the problem?

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

To take someone's information (you don't even have to post it) and keep it is ilegal IANAL but it is my job to make sure my employer is compliant with this. If I were you I would stay away from the UK and Europe you could end up in jail for up to 5 years.

I would also stress that this information is harmless to them as we proved only that they downloaded a file with the same name as a crack...nothing that poses any kind of threat at all to them.

Irrelevant you did it without there permission.

"why do so many Slashdotters think there's no such thing as criminal copyright infringement?".

Perhaps because we don't live in the US?

In the UK, copyright infringement can be a criminal as well as a civil offence. If you're making profit, it probably is. For the details, see paras 107ff of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The ECHR is enacted in English law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Section 3 of the Act states that courts must, wherever possible, interpret existing legislation in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR.

Section 4 states that where a piece of existing legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ECHR, the court can make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This doesn't have the effect of changing the law in question, but is supposed to act as a "flag" for the Government, calling on them to change the law. That isn't the same thing as saying that everything is legal: necrophilia, bestiality child abuse, etc. are illegal in the UK and the HRA doesn't change that.

IANAL, but I did act as a trainer on the HRA for a major Government department prior to its introduction, so I've sat through numerous lectures on how it works and how it relates to other UK law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (which, as an aside, and before anyone else makes the same mistake that most people do when talking about it, is nothing to do with the European Union and therefore has nothing to do with "European Law", which is the general term for legislation passed by the European Parliament (which is an institution of the EU).

The ECHR is enacted in English law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Section 3 of the Act states that courts must, wherever possible, interpret existing legislation in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR.

Section 4 states that where a piece of existing legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ECHR, the court can make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This doesn't have the effect of changing the law in question, but is supposed to act as a "flag" for the Government, calling on them to change the law. That isn't the same thing as saying that everything is legal: necrophilia, bestiality child abuse, etc. are illegal in the UK and the HRA doesn't change that.

IANAL, but I did act as a trainer on the HRA for a major Government department prior to its introduction, so I've sat through numerous lectures on how it works and how it relates to other UK law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (which, as an aside, and before anyone else makes the same mistake that most people do when talking about it, is nothing to do with the European Union and therefore has nothing to do with "European Law", which is the general term for legislation passed by the European Parliament (which is an institution of the EU).

The ECHR is enacted in English law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Section 3 of the Act states that courts must, wherever possible, interpret existing legislation in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR.

Section 4 states that where a piece of existing legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ECHR, the court can make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This doesn't have the effect of changing the law in question, but is supposed to act as a "flag" for the Government, calling on them to change the law. That isn't the same thing as saying that everything is legal: necrophilia, bestiality child abuse, etc. are illegal in the UK and the HRA doesn't change that.

IANAL, but I did act as a trainer on the HRA for a major Government department prior to its introduction, so I've sat through numerous lectures on how it works and how it relates to other UK law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (which, as an aside, and before anyone else makes the same mistake that most people do when talking about it, is nothing to do with the European Union and therefore has nothing to do with "European Law", which is the general term for legislation passed by the European Parliament (which is an institution of the EU).

The ECHR is enacted in English law through the Human Rights Act 1998.

Section 3 of the Act states that courts must, wherever possible, interpret existing legislation in a way that is compatible with the provisions of the ECHR.

Section 4 states that where a piece of existing legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with the ECHR, the court can make a "Declaration of Incompatibility". This doesn't have the effect of changing the law in question, but is supposed to act as a "flag" for the Government, calling on them to change the law. That isn't the same thing as saying that everything is legal: necrophilia, bestiality child abuse, etc. are illegal in the UK and the HRA doesn't change that.

IANAL, but I did act as a trainer on the HRA for a major Government department prior to its introduction, so I've sat through numerous lectures on how it works and how it relates to other UK law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights (which, as an aside, and before anyone else makes the same mistake that most people do when talking about it, is nothing to do with the European Union and therefore has nothing to do with "European Law", which is the general term for legislation passed by the European Parliament (which is an institution of the EU).

I think you may have missed the point being made, which is that a written document saying you have certain rights is not what is important, it is that you do (or do not) actually have those rights which is important. If the printed words are ignored, they may as well not exist, and you can have the freedoms without haveing the printed words saying you have them.

For example, a law saying "An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) [for police to use special ant-terrorism powers] may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." (Section 44(3) of the UK's Terrorism Act) is irrelevent if it is ignored, and police are allowed to use those powers to harrass peaceful protestors (see the link in my sig, or this page.)

In the uk we have the Data Protection Act (of 1984 and redone in '98 AFAIK) which lays down rules about how your data is handled. Companies etc that collect data on you must be registered and must keep your data secure from others. Also you have the right to view all the data that anyone holds on you and ensure its accurate (except in a few situations such as police investigation), you can even see emails/memos about you and cctv tapes (again AFIAK). Even my old school is registered. There are afew other things which i forget but you can read about here

Like many others I'm down as a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act. I take this role very seriously even though I have just a few personal details, but also because I have access to a lot of other records and I view it from the point of view of: what if it was MY personal data that was being copied about ? My declaration also states that any data never leave the EU. Personally I see any data sent to the US as secure as posting it on the Internet. Good to see the actual US government confirming my views.

One part of the problem is that the net's standards are controlled by bodies like Icann and the Web Consortium whose primary interest is technical stability and corporate interests.

[...]

Before we can change the net, and make it more able to reflect the real public interest, taking it under democratic control, we must remove it from the hands of these groups, whose time, like that of the elves in Middle-Earth, is over.

Note the excessively arrogant language, and the prevailing assumption that the author is already right, and the implication all that remains is to hammer out the implementation details of his perfectly reasonable proposal. This is pure flamebait. Thompson might as well have called this "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Internet from being a Burden to the Children and Despotic Governments of the World, and for making it Beneficial to Media Conglomorates."

I'm tempted to guess that he wrote it with the intention of raising the ire of slashdot readers, and getting the expected bazillion comments that every idiotic net-reform proposal gets.

Of course, there's always the chance that he really did think the proposal reasonable, and didn't intend to be trolling. If you believe that, check out his closing paragraphs:

Of course, one consequence of giving control of the net to governments is that some governments are bad, prying on their citizens, denying human rights and reneging on international obligations.

But not everywhere is the United States or China, and I would rather see the network in the hands of governments who can be lobbied, replaced and argued with, than leave it in the hands of the large corporations who develop the programs or standards bodies who are blind to people's real interests.

Lumping the United States with China on a list of countries that "[deny] human rights"? News flash, Thompson! Can you guess what would have happened to Dan Ellsberg if he'd stolen the Pentagon Papers from the British government and published them in the NY Times? He'd STILL be in jail under the Offical Secrets Act! (Of course, the real irony is that Thompson is complaing about the U.S.-controlled internet because it's too free.) Your flamebait counter should be redlined about now.

It's a troll. Nothing to see here, move along.

what you left out was the clause 'except by the state'

Come to the UK and look at David Blunkett's ideas - somehow I don't think he's cottoned on that the World described in '1984' was a bad thing. Only this week he proposed mining private and corporate databases of personal information so that he can build his ID card database. Breaks every part of the Data Protection Act (1998) - illegal? In his case - no.

Does any other country have a govenment position as creepy sounding as 'The Information Commissioner'? In case you're wondering, they're the unelected member of the government machine that determines if you should be allowed to see any piece of information that might upset the government.

Of course there are a few things NOT covered by the UK's FoI Act... deep breath now... ready? Pay attention there might be questions at the end.

Information accessible to applicant by other means, information intended for future publication, information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, national security, defence, international relations, relations within the United Kingdom, the economy, investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, law enforcement, court records etc., audit functions, Parliamentary privilege, formulation of government policy etc, prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, communications with Her Majesty the Queen etc. and honours, health and safety, environmental information, personal information, information provided in confidence and (finally) commercial interests.

Which leaves pretty much - well nothing. Britain - a land where your secrets are safe - provided you're in government, a spy or a member of an obscure part of the German aristocracy.

Best wishes,
Mike.

That is the fine by britian. I wonder what british law he broke??

Most likely the computer misuse act (1990). Full text here

Have a nice day.

Being in Hong Kong, CD-WOW doesn't strictly have to play by the UK's rules

As a police officer told me, there is no such thing as a citizen's arrest

I don't know about the US, but Citizen's arrests are certainly enshrined in UK law in the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act, 1984.

And in the UK it is a policy that would be illegal under the terms of the 'Sale of Goods Act 1979' (summary) . Subsequent ammendments would mean that it would also fall foul of EU Leglislation.

I expect you are wrong anyway, I can see them attempting to not give you a refund but refusing to swap it for the exact same title and you having no recourse seems unlikely, even in the land of the free.

There is a way round this. In the UK the Data Protection Act (Here) Specifies that data is kept no longer than required.
I'm not sure how enforcable this is, but the legislation is there.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has several requirements for a computer break-in to be considered a terrorist act. It must be "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system" which would exclude some break-ins. For example, someone who just looked around would not be caught. DoS attacks are caught but the downloading of information may not be.

The act must also be "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and be "for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". This is going to exclude the huge majority of computer crimes. Even some political hacks will be excluded. For example, when al-Jazeera's website was hacked, it was for the purpose of advancing a political cause. It was not, however, for the purpose of influencing the government. It was for the purpose of influencing the public, but this is not enough; notice the different wording for acts aimed at the government, and acts aimed at the population.

The DDoS attack on spamhaus.org is an interesting case. It clearly satisfies the first part of the test, seriously disrupting an electronic system. It is probably intended to intimidate people who are involved in campaigning against spam. Is spam a political or ideological cause? I don't know; I suspect only the courts would be able to answer that.

The Terrorism Act 2000 has several requirements for a computer break-in to be considered a terrorist act. It must be "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system" which would exclude some break-ins. For example, someone who just looked around would not be caught. DoS attacks are caught but the downloading of information may not be.

The act must also be "designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and be "for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". This is going to exclude the huge majority of computer crimes. Even some political hacks will be excluded. For example, when al-Jazeera's website was hacked, it was for the purpose of advancing a political cause. It was not, however, for the purpose of influencing the government. It was for the purpose of influencing the public, but this is not enough; notice the different wording for acts aimed at the government, and acts aimed at the population.

The DDoS attack on spamhaus.org is an interesting case. It clearly satisfies the first part of the test, seriously disrupting an electronic system. It is probably intended to intimidate people who are involved in campaigning against spam. Is spam a political or ideological cause? I don't know; I suspect only the courts would be able to answer that.

Back in the BBS days my leet friend was a warez courier. To facilitate this a certain amount of phreaking was required. At the time there was no Computer Misuse Act. He was eventually arrested. The cops had a list of all the alleged phone calls. Each one constituted a separate criminal offence. They had to read him the entire list of calls and he had to answer 'yes' or 'no' to whether he agreed he had made the call. It took them *ten* hours.

It turned out the only thing they could charge him with was 'theft of electricity' and when it went to court he got fined 80.

There was also the time another friend rigged the 'Stars In their Eyes' final when they included to new gee whizz internet voting as part of the viewer voting.

How we laughed when Matthew Kelly (the child abuser!) said "we've had a phenominal response on our website".

They've got a bit cleverer these days with cookies and IP logging but thank goodness for anonymizing proxies

The Law

as published by the government itself.

In theory Virgin customers should be able to request the infomation that refers to themselves by making a request under the Data Protection Act.

Have you read the whole law?

296ZF Interpretation of sections 296ZA to 296ZE

(1) In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program.

(2) Such measures are "effective" if the use of the work is controlled by the copyright owner through -

(a) an access control or protection process such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work, or

(b) a copy control mechanism,

which achieves the intended protection.

(3) In this section, the reference to -

(a) protection of a work is to the prevention or restriction of acts that are not authorised by the copyright owner of that work AND ARE RESTRICTED BY COPYRIGHT; and

(b) use of a work DOES NOT EXTEND TO any use of the work that is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ACTS RESTRICTED BY COPYRIGHT.

(...)

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 16:

16.(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom

(a) to copy the work (see section 17);

(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);

(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);

(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20);

(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21); and those acts are referred to in this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".

(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(...)

I fail to see how viewing a film in your own home is an act inside the scope of copyright (compare section 19).

Disclaimer: IANAUKL

"Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups."

Actually this is not true, Directive 91/250 explicitly recognises the right to make a backup copy.

"We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means."

You won't be able to challenge it under the Human Rights Act 1998, because it doesn't infringe on any fundamental right. The American case is a bit different because the Constitution talks about copyright explicitly. Our Human Rights Act is only interested in fundamental political rights such as freedom from torture. Much as we don't like the outcome in this case, this is the right answer. Democracies are governed by politicians, not the courts.

"Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does)..."

Our copyright law works differently; it has a fixed list of fair-use type rights, rather than a generic doctrine that gets extended by the courts. Our law is more certain but less flexible, so it's hard to know which is best I think.

Section 24 - Circumvention of protection measures

and Section 25 - Rights management information.
These make it a crime to do anything whatsoever with with media you have bought other then to simply put it into a a player approved by the copyright holder, if the copyright holder "packages" it.

That means for example that they can disable the fast forward button during the commercials at the start of a movie on DVD. You go to prison if you try to fast forward over those commercials.

Lets say you have an E-book. You can circumvent the "technological protections" on it and read that book by descrambling the file with pencil and paper, or even in your head while sitting motionless. The law is just plain stupid. That are making it a crime to DO MATH. That's al "circumvention" is, a math calculation. The "tools" to commit circumvention are KNOWLEDGE.

-

Section 24 - Circumvention of protection measures

and Section 25 - Rights management information.
These make it a crime to do anything whatsoever with with media you have bought other then to simply put it into a a player approved by the copyright holder, if the copyright holder "packages" it.

That means for example that they can disable the fast forward button during the commercials at the start of a movie on DVD. You go to prison if you try to fast forward over those commercials.

Lets say you have an E-book. You can circumvent the "technological protections" on it and read that book by descrambling the file with pencil and paper, or even in your head while sitting motionless. The law is just plain stupid. That are making it a crime to DO MATH. That's al "circumvention" is, a math calculation. The "tools" to commit circumvention are KNOWLEDGE.

-

Have a look at the Terrorism Act 2000 (the latest UK anti-terrorist legislation). It's getting close... If the DoS attack can be said to be for the purposes of intimidating supporters of anti-spam legislation, they are probably caught.

By section 56, someone directing an organisation carrying out such a DoS attack is liable to life imprisonment.

Have a look at the Terrorism Act 2000 (the latest UK anti-terrorist legislation). It's getting close... If the DoS attack can be said to be for the purposes of intimidating supporters of anti-spam legislation, they are probably caught.

By section 56, someone directing an organisation carrying out such a DoS attack is liable to life imprisonment.

IANAL, but at least in the UK...

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (c. 18) section 3 covers things like "A person is guilty of an offence if he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer;" (opening unrequested popup advertisements.. well, they are modification of the contents of the computer that are unauthorised, so got them there). Now, subsection 2 gives the requirements for intent as given in subsection 1, and "to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer" sounds very much like popunders to me: they are hindering you seeing the contents of the popup by placing the main window in the way. Subsections 3, 4 and 5 are even nastier for them.

IMO popunders are a blantant violation of the UK's computer misuse act, unrequested popups probably are as well as they hinder the use of the main browser and are unauthorised and unrequested.

It's a shame that as one part of the government expands its OSS use, another part Implements the DMCA

First SunnComm to sue 'Shift key' student for $10m and then they change their minds so as not to stifle research, but who is really the guilty party?

In the UK, this appears to be completely illegal:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--

(a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and

(b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing--

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

(3) The intent need not be directed at--

(a) any particular computer;

(b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

So if they install a device driver without asking, they must know it is unauthorised (satisfying 3.(1).(a)), and it will certainly do all of 3.(2).(a), 3.(2).(b) and 3.(2).(c), have they broken the law, and aren't computer users completely justified in informing each-other how to protected their systems against such unauthorized abuses?

Or is it the record label, or the vendor who is ultimately responsible for the unauthorised access?

The UK already has fairly severe (IMO) penalties for computer crime. The Computer Misuse Act of 1990 makes unauthorized access of a computer system a crime with a maximum sentence of 6 months or a fine of 2000. If there is an intent to commit a crime, then maximum sentence increases to 5 years. The unauthorized alteration of computer data also carries a maximum sentence of 5 years.

The Act covers any crime with a significant link in the UK. Additionally, it also includes conspiracy and incitement. Personally, I believe that the Act was a knee jerk reaction to the thought of criminals running round a wired nation. However, it is rare for somebody to be prosecuted under the Act.

No idea about in Canada, but in the UK under Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2334, The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 you have the right to cancel an order at any time up to dispatch and up to 7 days from receipt of goods in which to return them and obtain a refund (which must be paid within 30 days). There are exemptions to the law - unsealed computer software, magazines, perishable goods, lottery or gambling services or if the good is personalised to the consumer.

What MS are doing is quite probably against the law. If an XBox is considered to be a computer, then they are in clear violation of Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which states [emphasis mine] that:

3.-(1)A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a)he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b)at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

(3)The intent need not be directed at-
(a)any particular computer;
(b)any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c)any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

(4)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.

(5)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

(6)For the purposes of the [1971 c.48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.

(7)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.

So, according to section 3 subsection 4, If you did not give Microsoft explicit permission to modify your XBox, but they deliberately changed some software or data on it to stop you doing something, then they have quite probably broken the law. You may not have automatically authorised the modification merely by opening the box, see Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for my reasoning {note that certain sections would not be valid in respect of a software licence}, but I am no lawyer.

They will not outlaw encryption because of banks and others - but they can already require you to provide a key or an intelligible form of the message (and make you keep secret the fact you have done so). See Sections 49 - 54 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.