Slashdot Mirror

They might legally include a contract clause forbidding installation of your own WiFi hotspot. They certainly could then enforce the contract clause, which might involve a penalty, might ban them from doing business with them in the future, might even be able to eject them from the space.

The FCC decided this issue in 2006 when the Massachusetts Port Authority tried banning tenets, in this case Continental Airlines, from deploying WiFi. It is an unlicensed service so no WiFi operator is entitled to protection against harmful interference from other WiFi operators.

Notwithstanding [in spite of] contract terms to the contrary, the FCC has ruled that tenants are allowed to install their own WiFi networks within their own leased space.

http://www.ibls.com/internet_l...

I actually had to look up .nu, as I've never encountered it before.

From AegisLab Security blog in regards to this attack:

"The detailed attacking paths are as follows:

[script] hxxp://lilupophilupop.com/sl.php

            [hop] hxxp://doutl31inesst.rr.nu/n.php?h=1&s=sl

            [hop] hxxp://www3.simplerfnetwork.rr.nu

            [hop] hxxp://www1.smartscanerjkm.rr.nu

                    [download] hxxp://www1.smartscanerjkm.rr.nu "

A little Googling and some interesting reading led me to the small South Pacific island country of Niue. Never heard of it.

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

From that article:
"Niue purported to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on December 12, 2007.[17] However, in light of its Constitution it is uncertain whether Niue had the capacity to enter diplomatic relations with any country. Traditionally, Niue's foreign relations and defence have been regarded as the responsibility of New Zealand, which has full diplomatic relations with China. Furthermore the Joint Communique signed by Niue and China is different in its treatment of the Taiwan question from that agreed by New Zealand and China. New Zealand "acknowledged" China's position on Taiwan but has never expressly agreed with it, but Niue "recognizes that there is only one China in the world, the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of China."

Interesting.

A little more searching and I find this article that discusses the tax-haven aspects of Niue in terms of Chinese businessmen...

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2447

The closing statement from that article...
"Niue's trust laws resemble the laws of offshore centers that are, or sometime were, British colonies. The important factor here is that, due to its location, Niue has become a financial center for wealthy Chinese who want to use the financial figure of offshore trusts. This means, Niue has a good prospective given the flourishing of the Chinese economy."

Indeed, the Chinese have been trying to buy their way into residency status on Niue (in effect giving them New Zealand residency status)...

http://www.niueconfidential.com/2011/03/immigration-rort-may-liquidate-company.html

I know it is a leap, but is it possible the Chinese are using Niue as a "Cyberwar base of operations"?

Boy, talk about a agency with a bad record for IT issues. Isn't DOI the agency that was told by a court to disconnect from the Internet for their miss-dealing with the Indian Nations. Bozos. http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2352 Yea I can believe they made the choice before they let the RFQ.

The US can't do that in the US either. Just an FYI.

Horseshit.

The US passed laws basically saying that any data which lands on a US server (or one controlled by a US company) is open to full inspection by them, regardless of the laws in the country of origin.

Also, in this court case, they established that:

to solve this case, the court resorted to the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law 442 (1987). Section 442(1)(a) states that a court or U.S. agency may, when authorized by statute or court rule, to order a person to produce documents, objects, or other information relevant to an action or investigation, even if the information or person in possession of that information is outside the U.S.

It covers how they might balance US wishes with foreign laws, but more or less leaves it open to interpretation. If they want it bad enough, they'll decide they have the right to compel it.

Expect this to get worse as the US continues to decide that its self interest trumps the sovereignty of other countries.

It's easy to see how a lot of anti-US sentiment can happen when your politicians act like bullying assholes to the rest of the world.

Wrong. If you order from another EU country the company is required to charge your local VAT. It is mainly luxury and media taxes that can be dodged, but only if they're charged at the engros level or later. For example; I can (and do) avoid paying the Danish media tax on writable discs by ordering from Germany, but I still pay Danish VAT. The evil Swedish goverment insidiously charges the insanely high luxury-tax on snus at production level, so I get to pay that AND Danish VAT, even though I live in Denmark (where the tax on smoke-free tobacco is a more lenient less than 10€/kg). Yes, an opinion irrelevant to TFA snuck in, but there you are.

That is not correct, and hasn't been correct for at least two years. The VAT "one-stop-shop" rules in the EU mean that in a transaction, the seller can choose which country's VAT rates it wants to comply with - which is usually the seller's country. I.e. a German seller charges you only German VAT, and Amazon smartly set itself up in Luxembourg and only adds on 15% Luxembourg VAT even if you order from Germany or Denmark.

It has to work the way you described if you ordered stuff from outside the EU - the US, for instance...

I am getting the suspicion that this story pretends this to be a bigger issue because it affects an American company.

However, this kind of "which laws are affecting what I do" has already got individuals. See for example the case of Hew Raymond Griffiths,

  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths
  * http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1778&s=latestnews

Griffiths was extradited from Australia to the U.S., a country he had never visited, for some "Intellectual Property" crimes.

For a company it is a mere money issue, but when individuals are extradited it becomes extremely problematic.

Stephan

Try this one instead - but Australia are rolling over and being the US's bitch this time.

They can't have it both ways. If the US protects fugitives from justice who've committed crimes against other countries laws then other countries should reciprocate and tell the US to shove their extradition requests up their fat asses.

See how Disney and Microsoft like that.

I think the "otherwise" is superfluous there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4428270.ece
http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=1778&s=latestnews

The ADA may have provisions demanding that sites make themselves handicap accessible, but until those provisions are enforced they mean very little - Loosely enforced provisions do not affect the bottom line. Sad but true.

You mean until they get sued, or at least hire a legal team worth his or her salt, that is.

Also, I didn't know that about IE8 - Thanks for the heads-up. It's always a relief when we see Microsoft do something right.

No problem. Since I do some Web development from time to time, and run Linux, I have the IE 8 beta running under VirtualBox. ;)

Last time I checked, people who are not citizens of these great United States of America are not entitled to protections offered under the bill of rights.

      Oh ok, so you can extradite an Australian citizen for violating US intellectual property laws, yet the same, or other, citizen(s) has no protection under the US Bill of Rights?

      Come on. Either you apply ALL YOUR LAWS to foreigners, or you apply NONE of them. You can't pick and choose which law a person is entitled to and which law they aren't. The Law is a package deal. However this is typical of the attitude of the current administration - manipulating, abusing existing laws far beyond their original purpose and intent, and creating arbitrary laws. "Justice" no longer exists in the US. I just hope you personally never have to find out the hard way.

I have been wondering about the legality of computer generated images. Since our graphics cards can render photo realistic images in real time, have the pedophiles taken up CGI?

Without digging into the gutter, google came up with a couple of hits.

In the US, apparently you have to prove the images are of real children that are under age. Not sure how to do that, especially with better faster computers. Also not sure how they did that in the past either with "barely legal" models, must track down the model and show the pics were illegal when taken?

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1653

In the UK (where first amendment does not play) they apparently allow possession of images but not distribution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6175441.stm

Perhaps because they wanted him to "crack" it?