Remember that magnetic and other computer media needs a higher level of lock box protection if you are thinking of heat/fire. Believe it or not the computer media can get damaged and rendered unusable at lower temperatures than the paper will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
TA-Lib: Technical Analysis Library at http://ta-lib.org/
Windows and Linux technical analysis open-source software library allowing to maintain and process financial data. Provides RSI, MACD, Stochastic, moving average... plus SQL, ASCII, Yahoo! stock market data access. Works in C/C++, Perl,.NET. Source code included.
In its spyware-fighting tool released in beta last week, Yahoo Inc. left out for automatic detection a category of often-unwanted software for which its paid search division has a financial stake. Yahoo's Anti-Spy beta for its browser toolbar doesn't include adware by default when it scans users' systems for unwanted programs.
[... ]
Among the programs the Sunnyvale, Calif., company classifies as adware are controversial ones from Claria Corp. (formerly The Gator Corp.) and WhenU.com Inc., two common targets of spyware critics who say the companies trick users into accepting unwanted downloads and flood machines with pop-up ads.
With Claria, best known for its Gator eWallet application, Yahoo is also a business partner. Claria, based in Redwood City, Calif., delivers pop-up and other forms of advertising from its GAIN ad network through software downloaded onto users' machines.
The authors have done a security analysis of Diebold code that was downloaded from an open FTP site earlier this year. While the paper is technical, significant portions of it can be read easily by a non-computer scientist.
Using publicly available source code, we performed an analysis of a voting machine. This code was apparently developed by a company that sells to states and other municipalities that use them in real elections. We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially
cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and even janitors, is even greater. Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process....
The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate....
And finally, the text of the Voter-Verifiable newsletter I received regarding this issue, which should appear on this page sometime (July 24, 2003):
Not quite a duplicate but this article was already mentioned on SlashDot in the entry Slashdot | Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far. which is in the Apple section but also on the front page.
The U.S. "Federal Communications Commission" (FCC) set forth new rules this week on how telecommunications carriers can share certain customer information, giving telecom-related service providers a faster track to consumer data.
Carriers can share caller information with affiliates or third-party agents that provide communications-related services using an "opt-out" approach, the FCC said. The policy means that consumers' information will be shared unless they opt-out when receiving a notice of the carrier's intent to share their information.
However, when a carrier wishes to share customer information with an unrelated third party or affiliate that does not provide telecommunication-related services, the carrier must adopt an "opt-in" approach, which requires consumers to provide their consent, the FCC said.
The rules govern what the FCC calls "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), which includes information on what services consumers subscribe to and to whom and where they call.
Up until 1999, the FCC held an opt-in policy for the sharing of all CPNI by carriers. However, these rules were vacated when a Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of U.S. West, which had filed suit claiming a "First Amendment" right to share the information under an opt-out approach.
Since then, the rules have been in a "state of play," an FCC spokesman said, with all information being shared under an opt-out approach.
Privacy advocates are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new guidelines, saying will lie in how carriers go about informing consumers of their sharing practices.
"The test is going to be whether the opt-out option is easily available and exercised," said Paula Bruening, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT").
Telephone companies will be allowed to share, without consent, private customer data with affiliates that offer communications-related services, under rules adopted by the "Federal Communications Commission" on Tuesday.
Consumers will have to opt out of having their information used for marketing purposes, including where, when and to whom they place calls, as well as the types of services subscribers use and how frequently they use them.
The FCC left the door open for companies to use an opt-in approach if they so choose, but the agency refused to mandate that method.
However, the agency said consumers must approve when a telephone company wants to share their private information with unrelated third parties or affiliated companies that do not provide communications-related services.
The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the lone Democrat on the panel, who argued that companies would be allowed to sell information without customer consent to the highest bidder who has just the faintest association with providing telecommunications services.
"FCC"'s contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.
Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says.
Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission.
When it comes to sharing customer data with unaffiliated third parties, the default is reversed under the FCC's new rule. Telecom companies must get the consumers' express consent to "opt in," the FCC says.Advertisement
The decision, announced Tuesday by a somewhat divided FCC, has roiled privacy advocates who say data could be used for consumer profiling by companies with only weak links to the phone carriers.
"Everyone should understand that this decision is neither narrow or pro-privacy," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who dissented in part with the decision over privacy concerns.
The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.
Privacy advocates expressed similar concerns.
"Corporate families are pretty big. I don't know [that] customers feel as familial about the relationship as corporations," says Mikal Condon, staff counsel at the "Electronic Privacy Information Center".
[... ]
However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.
Legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) would require consumer consent in all cases. However, the measure, Senate Bill 1928, but it does appear to have enough support to pass, Condon says.
WASHINGTON -- In a vote with potential national implications, North Dakota residents overwhelmingly agreed yesterday to bar the sale of personal data collected by banks, credit unions and other financial services firms to third parties.
This is the first time that voters in a state have had the chance to toughen privacy protections set in the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial modernization law, which allows financial services firms to freely share information without consumer consent.
Of the approximately 115,000 votes cast in yesterday's referendum, nearly 74% voted to require consumer consent before data is shared. The state elections board offered vote results online.
"This is the beginning of a consumer backlash against the sharing of information," said Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc. in Stamford, Conn.
[... ]
Privacy advocates say the vote reaffirms opinion polls showing that customers want stronger privacy protections. "It's no longer speculation -- people want opt-in," said Chris Hoofnagle, legislative counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The vote comes at the same time Congress is considering legislation by U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.) that would preempt the ability of states to do what North Dakotan voters did yesterday.
"It's becoming clearer that preemption of state law is an attempt to prevent strong privacy protections," said Hoofnagle.
So true. You do have to make sure there are no possible confusion points when talking to Congresscritters. We don't want to give them any excuse to ignore our comments.
I guess I should have labeled it as an inside joke.:-)
As sick as it sounds from a legal perspective its easy. If I remember correctly very few (if any) of the usage restrictions/promises were in the formal agreement. They were all just verbal promises.
Except for the bad publicity there is no downside for them. We can bitch and complain but since our wonderful leaders didn't see fit to put these restrictions in any formal agreement there is really nothing to enforce, Unfortunately this is exactly what the pundits said would happen.
Now if they take the bad publicity seriously enough we might convince them to actually do some of what they promised but I doubt they will do it all.
A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer
records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal
regulator says.
The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel
of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use
information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.
"FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove
important protections to consumer privacy.
But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will
appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision, which pleased those privacy groups.
The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC"
regulation that had forced phone companies to
obtain customer permission before using or
selling call records for marketing purposes.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.
The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.
The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.
The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.
The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.
Here are just a few articles from 2001. All were mentioned in Privacy Digest.
Political News from Wired News - Cybercrime Treaty Finally Ready.
After four years of haggling over the language, several countries including the United States will sign a cybercrime treaty.
The Convention on Cybercrime has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers during its 109th Session, on 8 November 2001 and will be opened for signature, in Budapest, on 23 November 2001.
The Convention will be the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and other computer networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child pornography and violations of network security. It also contains a series of powers and procedures such as the search of computer networks and interception.
Its main objective, set out in the preamble, is to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime, especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international co-operation.
The Convention is the product of four years of work by Council of Europe experts, but also by the United States, Canada, Japan and other countries which are not members of the organisation.
It will be supplemented by an additional protocol making any publication of racist and xenophobic propaganda via computer networks a criminal offence.
Political News from Wired News - Europe Slaving Over Cybercrime.
The Council of Europe has been working on it for four years and has gone through 25 drafts. And its proposed international treaty on cybercrime is still running against all those thorny privacy issues.
[... ]
But Fred Eisner, a consultant for the Dutch government and private companies, said the draft made unfair demands on Internet service providers by asking them to track Web users' online movements.
"This draft convention lacks balance," Eisner told the assembly. "The convention explicitly gives much more power to law enforcement agencies and it has no system of checks and balances."
Bruce McConnell, president of McConnell International, a Washington-based consulting firm, said the treaty should be more forceful in protecting the privacy of Web users who are already worried about being spied on.
"There is concern that the powers of surveillance... are not balanced by comparable protections for individuals' privacy," he said.
Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that-although officially democratic now-don't have a strong traditions of checks and balances on police power.
Do you want investigators rummaging around your clients' computer systems on warrants issued by former Soviet bloc nations?
That's the prospect that has pushed AT&T Corporation and other high-technology companies into feverishly trying to stop or at least soften the treaty. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Information Technology Association of America also oppose it.
Stewart Baker is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street cred on these issues in corporate America.
What worries Baker and his colleagues? Consider the following hypothetical: A Los Angeles screenwriter corresponds by e-mail with a neo-Nazi in Germany while researching a script. Shortly after, he finds federal agents examining the files on his home computer. The agents also visit America Online Inc. to retrieve records of the screenwriter's AOL usage.
The agents are fulfilling a warrant issued by German authorities allowing them to search for Nazi propaganda. Such material is unlawful in Germany but not in the U.S. They framed their warrant in terms of "suspected terrorist activity."
Maybe you're a civil libertarian, and maybe you're not. Maybe you worry about how the United States exercises its vast investigative and prosecutorial powers, and maybe you don't.
But if you counsel U.S. corporations on computer-related issues, you should be concerned about a new proposed treaty known as the "Convention on Cybercrime." The Council of Europe, a 43-nation public body created to promote democracy and the rule of law, is nominally drafting the treaty. Curiously, however, the primary architect is the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.
Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also be handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that -- although officially democratic now -- don't have a strong tradition of checks and balances on police power.
[... ]
Stewart Baker, a partner at Washington, D.C.'s Steptoe & Johnson, is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty's opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the U.S. Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street credentials on these issues in corporate America.
MS-NBC - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules.
PARIS, May 25 -- Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed Friday.
[... ]
Against EU objections, it also limits the right of a country to reject a request from abroad to store and hand over data in potential crime cases if the requesting country thinks it could be misused.
The text says states should make sure that systems operators or other people who know how to use a certain system can be ordered to cooperate in any such a cyberprobe.
PARIS (Reuters) - Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed on Friday.
The Council of Europe, a 43-state human rights watchdog, has amended the text to ensure police respect privacy rights when they follow digital trails to fight online crimes such as hacking, spreading viruses, using stolen credit card numbers or defrauding banks.
''The guarantees in the treaty have been reinforced,'' Peter Csonka, deputy head of the economic crime division at the Council's headquarters in Strasbourg, told Reuters after the Council posted the final text -- version 27 -- on its Web site.
But the treaty, which has aroused heated debate in cyberspace since its draft text became public last year, ignored calls by Internet service providers (ISPs) for fewer costly requirements on preserving data that could be linked to a crime.
It still accorded police wide powers to chase suspected cybercriminals -- powers some critics say go beyond what is legal in some Council member states or in observer countries like the United States, Canada and Japan due to sign the treaty.
Europemedia.net: News - Final cybercrime draft heeds privacy concerns.
There is still some controversy surrounding the draft. The last version didn't cut down on the requirements for preserving data that could be linked to a crime as ISPs had hoped, and some feel it still allows police too much power when fighting cybercrime.
BRUSSELS --Vint Cerf, a founding father of today's Internet, said on Thursday that European Union plans for new rules to fight crime on the Web risked clashing with existing EU privacy regulations.
Cerf, who helped develop the Internet in the early 70s shortly after graduating from Stanford University and now works for WorldCom, said more secure network systems were an immediate priority for the successful development of the ubiquitous Web.
He told Reuters in an interview that Internet traffic should be retained only for billing purposes and was too cumbersome to be stored for police investigations.
Changes to a controversial treaty on cybercrime have done nothing to improve it, say civil liberty campaigners.
Next week, the Council of Europe will vote on the treaty, which has been redrafted 26 times before reaching its final version late in May.
The most recent changes were made to take into account the fears of civil liberty and privacy campaigners. But cyber-rights groups say the latest changes are purely cosmetic and have not diluted what they describe as its most pernicious sections.
The groups say that, if adopted in its current form, the treaty could lead to changes in legislation that would stifle rights to privacy and do little to curb the activities of law enforcement agencies.
[... ]
In December 2000, 23 organisations, banding together under the banner of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), signed a letter condemning the 25th draft of the treaty as "appalling", and warned that it handed law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to snoop and could seriously erode online privacy.
The letter chastises the Council of Europe for refusing to open up the redrafting debates to non-governmental organisations and for, it says, ignoring the human rights and privacy concerns of organisations such as the GILC.
It goes on to say that the original criticisms still stand, and that the treaty does not pay enough attention to existing laws which safeguard human rights. It says the treaty's recommendations on protecting privacy are vague and do not go far enough.
IT industry gurus have branded the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime 'foolish, unworkable and a legal con trick'.
The controversial treaty provides a blanket legislation to deal with all forms of internet crime from hacking to online pornography.
Caspar Bowden, director of internet think-tank FIPR, said: "The Convention is essentially a legal con trick, drafted in secret by a handful of nameless bureaucrats. It equates the internet - a network of private networks - with 'cyberspace', a metaphor from science fiction.
"By this sleight of hand, the internet is defined as a public space over which law enforcement should be granted unfettered powers of surveillance and extradition," he added.
International policy-makers this week ended a round of talks aimed at setting common rules affecting online trade and commerce, but they made little progress in bridging divisions that threaten to delay the pact.
In the works for nearly a decade, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments is still almost unknown outside international policy circles. Nevertheless, it could have broad implications for consumers and businesses by setting new rules for online copyrights, free speech and e-commerce--if it is approved.
Opposition to the treaty heated up Wednesday, when a two-week drafting session wrapped up with few concessions to critics, primarily from the United States, who say the pact threatens free speech and could force Internet service providers to become global content police.
"In a nutshell, it will strangle the Internet with a suffocating blanket of overlapping jurisdictional claims, expose every Web page publisher to liabilities for libel, defamation and other speech offenses from virtually any country, (and) effectively strip Internet service providers of protections from litigation over the content they carry," Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), wrote in a report after the meeting.
The treaty is one of several efforts by the global community to grapple with a complicated legal issues on a borderless Web.
Four years ago, nations including the United States signed onto a World Intellectual Property Organization pact to protect copyright in the digital age. And several countries, including the United States, are hammering out the world's first cybercrime treaty, which would provide a standard for fighting online crime.
The Hague treaty differs from those efforts because it would not outline specific laws participants must follow. It's much broader, requiring participants to agree to enforce each others' laws on a variety of topics. As it stands, the treaty would require courts to enforce the commercial laws of the convention's 52 member nations, even if they prohibit actions that are legal under local laws.
BRUSSELS - The blueprint for a global code on Cyber-crime was agreed on in Strasbourg, France, Friday, paving the way for international rules governing online copyright infringement, online fraud, child pornography and hacking.
The 41 members of the Council of Europe (CoE), plus the U.S., Canada and Japan, signed on to a draft convention on cybercrime that is set to be rubber-stamped at ministerial level in September.
"Once adopted, the Convention will be the first international treaty on criminal offenses committed through the use of Internet and other computer networks," the Council of Europe said in a statement.
In September, the Council of Europe approved the Convention on cybercrime, a historic treatise that lays the foundation for legislation allowing for a greater sharing of information between countries to combat the rise of cybercrime.
The treatise isn't binding, but instead would have to be adopted into law by its 43 European member states and five outside countries including the United States, Canada and Japan.
The treaty is broad, covering crimes committed on the Internet such as fraud, child pornography and violations of computer network security. It also sets up global policing procedures for conducting computer searches, interception of e-mails, and extradition of criminal suspects.
AntiProxy.Com.
Hmm... A rather confusing concept. An anonymous www page surfing service that provides public access to its server-logs so you an see who has been using it. Doesn't that go against the point of using it?Web Server Statistics for AntiProxy.
Before you make statements like this why don't you actually read the updates. You do mention C but you seem to have forgotten D & E (see below)
This bill is quite limited in its scope, allowing only 48 hours to tap without approval and only for immediate threats to "National Security."
I don't see anything that says they can't keep renewing these "48 hour" taps
``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States;
``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or
``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''.
How about submiting a copy of your story over on slashcode? It would make a great resource for future users of the slashdot code in case they ever have to handle a sudden increase of workload. Many of them might look on slashcode for maint info but not think of coming over here. Remember while you might be running on big iron, which lets slashdot run full out. Many users are probably running on smaller boxes. Your experience/tips might give them the clues they need to survive that crush of readers that might kill their smaller box.
BTW thanks for keeping us all up to date with the story
A controversial technology under development by the communications industry that links Internet addresses with phone numbers has quietly picked up key government support as concern mounts among critics that the technology will broadly undermine privacy.
The technology, known as e-number, or ENUM, would link phone numbers to codes that computer servers use to route traffic on the Web. Proponents say the technology would improve communication for consumers and marketers alike.
[... ]
But privacy advocates fear the system could undermine online privacy and erode the security of the public phone system as well. They worry that the system would destroy a pillar of Internet privacy: the assumption by users that they enjoy anonymity in cyberspace.
The government's endorsement of the technology, disclosed in interviews and outlined in an Aug. 21 letter distributed to an industry group, is seen as critical in pushing it forward.
"The United States does see merit in pursing discussions regarding implementation of a coordinated, global [system] . . . for ENUM," Julian E. Minard, a State Department advisor to the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, wrote to representatives of AT&T and other companies. But Minard cautioned in the letter that aspects of the technology advocated by industry "go beyond what is prudent or necessary."
This drive is far from the first DVD recorder on the market. Pioneer has had their A03 out for months. And before that there were high-end professional units. Apple has included the Pioneer DVD-R drive (A03) for months and I think that ComPaq is also shipping a version.
Now it is possible that the drive from HP is the first for the DVD+RW (instead or the DVD-R or DVD-RW) standard. But it is not the first DVD recordable drive by far.
While the rest of corporate America is waking up to the value of truly detailed customer information, the neon-lit enclave of casino gambling is already taking it to unmatched levels.
Socioeconomic databases, loyalty cards, the cross-matching of credit card data with other files--they're all at work in the gambling business. These aren't things that supermarkets, banks or retailers don't do. But casinos have become masters of customer relationship management (CRM), having mined more complex customer data on a larger scale for a longer time than just about any other industry.
In its latest annual report, Harrah's Entertainment Inc. bragged, "We know what our customers like," then provided examples of the kind of detail the company tracks. "Tom likes NASCAR, Clint Holmes, thick steaks. Joyce and Ted like oceanfront views, barbershop quartets, Elvis slots. . .."
Is the new surveillance system the latest twist on Big Brother? Face-matching surveillance already is well established at more than 70 casinos. But the system's biggest opportunities lie in more benign functions: Identifying customers at ATMs or participants in welfare programs, and screening people who want to enter secure workplace areas.
At Raymond James Stadium, surveillance system cameras were focused only on people entering at turnstiles. No cameras were used inside to pan the fans inside. But cameras did sweep the crowds at the NFL Experience, indicating the growing reach of database systems to try and match faces even in large groups.
At UCLA, professor Borgman questioned the technical ability of a system to identify individual faces so quickly.
"If these surveillance systems spread, there may be a considerable margin of error in determining the identity of people who get snagged," she said. "And that is a big price to pay for your civil rights."
The FaceTrac(TM) core facial recognition technology provides the ability to locate faces, to build 'face print' templates and to recognize matches to images stored in a database. When integrated with G-TEC's law enforcement database, FaceTrac(TM) allows rapid search, comparison and identification of suspect facial photos within the database. FaceTrac(TM) may be used for surveillance with multiple locations networked to a high capacity site, for analysis and system-search results. G-TEC installed FaceTrac(TM) at the Raymond James Stadium as a single site system, integrated with a custom designed database and search result notifications for tracking faces in a crowd and monitoring access to secure areas.
The system used for the Super Bowl project, first reported yesterday by the St. Petersburg Times, was lent by companies seeking to market the technology to law enforcement agencies. Tampa police accepted the free use of the system as an experiment and worked with local and national police agencies to manage it during the week of the game, said Durkin.
Dave Watkins, managing director of Graphco Technologies Inc., said the event gave the company a chance to learn how the software would perform, which camera angles were most effective and how the lenses of the 20 video cameras should be focused in a public place.
The American Civil Liberties Union("ACLU") opposes the involuntary capture of biometric details, such as face-recognition data, DNA and retina scans. The organization, in its list of "Privacy Principles," considers the fingerprinting of convicted criminals a worthy exception.
"We are quickly moving to the point where law enforcement and the private sector will be able to identify us no matter where we go, no matter how anonymous we think we are," said Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's associate director. "Not only is it going to rob us of our anonymity, but it's going to be used as a tool of law enforcement to round up 'the usual suspects' and to hassle people on the streets."
The practice is almost certainly legal, but it is in an emerging area of the law that has not been fully tested in court, said Harvard Law School professor Bill Stuntz.
Super Bowl 2001 fans were secretly treated to a mass, biometric scan in which video cameras tied to a temporary law-enforcement command centre digitised their faces and compared them against photographic lists of known malefactors.
Everyone entering Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida last Sunday was subjected to the surveillance system cameras, set up at the entrance turnstiles. No notice or disclosure was ever given, and no one, therefore, had an opportunity to decline to enter the stadium if they should have objected to this unprecedented treatment.
[... ]
"The Company's face-recognition technology is unique because of its capabilities of both rapid and accurate real-time acquisition as well as its scalability to databases containing millions of faces. Therefore, the software can instantly calculate an individual's eigenface from either live video or a still digital image, and then search a database of millions in only a few seconds in order to find similar or matching images."
'Similar or matching.' This clearly acknowledges the possibility that innocent civilians going about their peaceable business may be stopped, hassled, even arrested, merely for resembling someone naughty. This raises sticky issues regarding the presumption of innocence many of us were encouraged to believe in during our grammar-school civics lessons. Is there a violation of this principle when a person is required to produce evidence that they are not, in fact, the evil bastard whom they unfortunately resemble?
Unknown to the 100,000 people who passed through the turnstiles at Sunday's Super Bowl, hidden cameras scanned each of their faces and compared the portraits with photos of terrorists and known criminals of every stripe.
In a command post at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla., the digitized images of fans and workers were cross-checked against files of local police, the "FBI" and state agencies at the rate of a million images a minute.
The cameras identified 19 people with criminal histories, none of them of a "significant" nature, Tampa authorities said. But the undisclosed first test of the technology at a major U.S. sporting event raised arguments about privacy versus security and questions about the future of such spying and its uses.
"Oh my God, it's yet another nail in the coffin of personal liberty," said Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technical officer of "Counterpane" Internet Security Inc., a security monitoring company.
"It's another manifestation of a surveillance society, which says we're going to watch you all the time just in case you might do something wrong," said Schneier, whose book "Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World" warned of the increasing encroachment on civil liberties in high-tech society.
[... ]
Other applications are expected to include ATM machines and public events such as the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
This lnk might give you some of what you are looking for.
Privacy & Human Rights 2000.
This survey, by "EPIC" and Privacy International, reviews the state of privacy in over fifty countries around the world. The survey examines a wide range of privacy issues including, data protection, telephone tapping, genetic databases, ID systems and freedom of information laws. The report finds that there is a worldwide regocnition of privacy as a fundamental human right. Many countries around the world are enacting comprehenisve data protection law to safeguard individual privacy increase. However at the same time, privacy is increasingly being undermined by technical advances and the demands of intelligence and law enforcement agencies for increase surveillance powers. There is a strong need for improved oversight and stricter enforcement of current laws to ensure that legal protections are not ignored as threats to personal privacy increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that magnetic and other computer media needs a higher level of lock box protection if you are thinking of heat/fire. Believe it or not the computer media can get damaged and rendered unusable at lower temperatures than the paper will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
You could always try to sign-up for a Beta at http://koding.com/
It is up --- Its overloaded, but it is there.
It's not there yet. But a link off the MacBookPro page says that the keynote will be viewable(I presume shortly) at: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/
Can they do this?? Isn't the DMCA copyright protected?? ;-)
The article just points to the home page. The Perm link to the Blog entry or http://www.kernelthread.com/blog/archives/000023.h tml
TA-Lib: Technical Analysis Library at http://ta-lib.org/
Windows and Linux technical analysis open-source software library allowing to maintain and process financial data. Provides RSI, MACD, Stochastic, moving average... plus SQL, ASCII, Yahoo! stock market data access. Works in C/C++, Perl, .NET. Source code included.
Another: http://eiffel-mas.sourceforge.net/
and one more library: http://quantlib.org/
In its spyware-fighting tool released in beta last week, Yahoo Inc. left out for automatic detection a category of often-unwanted software for which its paid search division has a financial stake. Yahoo's Anti-Spy beta for its browser toolbar doesn't include adware by default when it scans users' systems for unwanted programs.
[ ... ]
Among the programs the Sunnyvale, Calif., company classifies as adware are controversial ones from Claria Corp. (formerly The Gator Corp.) and WhenU.com Inc., two common targets of spyware critics who say the companies trick users into accepting unwanted downloads and flood machines with pop-up ads.
With Claria, best known for its Gator eWallet application, Yahoo is also a business partner. Claria, based in Redwood City, Calif., delivers pop-up and other forms of advertising from its GAIN ad network through software downloaded onto users' machines.
"iRights" - Voting Machine Analysed, Found Wanting.
From the linked site:
From the conclusion of the paper, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, emphasis mine:
And finally, the text of the Voter-Verifiable newsletter I received regarding this issue, which should appear on this page sometime (July 24, 2003):
Not quite a duplicate but this article was already mentioned on SlashDot in the entry Slashdot | Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far. which is in the Apple section but also on the front page.
The U.S. "Federal Communications Commission" (FCC) set forth new rules this week on how telecommunications carriers can share certain customer information, giving telecom-related service providers a faster track to consumer data.
Carriers can share caller information with affiliates or third-party agents that provide communications-related services using an "opt-out" approach, the FCC said. The policy means that consumers' information will be shared unless they opt-out when receiving a notice of the carrier's intent to share their information.
However, when a carrier wishes to share customer information with an unrelated third party or affiliate that does not provide telecommunication-related services, the carrier must adopt an "opt-in" approach, which requires consumers to provide their consent, the FCC said.
The rules govern what the FCC calls "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), which includes information on what services consumers subscribe to and to whom and where they call.
Up until 1999, the FCC held an opt-in policy for the sharing of all CPNI by carriers. However, these rules were vacated when a Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of U.S. West, which had filed suit claiming a "First Amendment" right to share the information under an opt-out approach.
Since then, the rules have been in a "state of play," an FCC spokesman said, with all information being shared under an opt-out approach.
Privacy advocates are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new guidelines, saying will lie in how carriers go about informing consumers of their sharing practices.
"The test is going to be whether the opt-out option is easily available and exercised," said Paula Bruening, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT").
Technology News Headlines from Reuters UK - FCC OKs Sharing of Phone Company Customer Data.Telephone companies will be allowed to share, without consent, private customer data with affiliates that offer communications-related services, under rules adopted by the "Federal Communications Commission" on Tuesday.
Consumers will have to opt out of having their information used for marketing purposes, including where, when and to whom they place calls, as well as the types of services subscribers use and how frequently they use them.
The FCC left the door open for companies to use an opt-in approach if they so choose, but the agency refused to mandate that method.
However, the agency said consumers must approve when a telephone company wants to share their private information with unrelated third parties or affiliated companies that do not provide communications-related services.
The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the lone Democrat on the panel, who argued that companies would be allowed to sell information without customer consent to the highest bidder who has just the faintest association with providing telecommunications services.
PCWorld.com - Telco Customer Data Goes Up for Grabs."FCC"'s contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.
Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says.
Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission.
When it comes to sharing customer data with unaffiliated third parties, the default is reversed under the FCC's new rule. Telecom companies must get the consumers' express consent to "opt in," the FCC says.Advertisement
The decision, announced Tuesday by a somewhat divided FCC, has roiled privacy advocates who say data could be used for consumer profiling by companies with only weak links to the phone carriers.
"Everyone should understand that this decision is neither narrow or pro-privacy," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who dissented in part with the decision over privacy concerns.
The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.
Privacy advocates expressed similar concerns.
"Corporate families are pretty big. I don't know [that] customers feel as familial about the relationship as corporations," says Mikal Condon, staff counsel at the "Electronic Privacy Information Center".
[ ... ]
However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.
Legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) would require consumer consent in all cases. However, the measure, Senate Bill 1928, but it does appear to have enough support to pass, Condon says.
WASHINGTON -- In a vote with potential national implications, North Dakota residents overwhelmingly agreed yesterday to bar the sale of personal data collected by banks, credit unions and other financial services firms to third parties.
This is the first time that voters in a state have had the chance to toughen privacy protections set in the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial modernization law, which allows financial services firms to freely share information without consumer consent.
Of the approximately 115,000 votes cast in yesterday's referendum, nearly 74% voted to require consumer consent before data is shared. The state elections board offered vote results online.
"This is the beginning of a consumer backlash against the sharing of information," said Avivah Litan, an analyst at Gartner Inc. in Stamford, Conn.
[ ... ]
Privacy advocates say the vote reaffirms opinion polls showing that customers want stronger privacy protections. "It's no longer speculation -- people want opt-in," said Chris Hoofnagle, legislative counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The vote comes at the same time Congress is considering legislation by U.S. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.) that would preempt the ability of states to do what North Dakotan voters did yesterday.
"It's becoming clearer that preemption of state law is an attempt to prevent strong privacy protections," said Hoofnagle.
I guess I should have labeled it as an inside joke. :-)
vote NO on S-2K.
Paul
Except for the bad publicity there is no downside for them. We can bitch and complain but since our wonderful leaders didn't see fit to put these restrictions in any formal agreement there is really nothing to enforce, Unfortunately this is exactly what the pundits said would happen.
Now if they take the bad publicity seriously enough we might convince them to actually do some of what they promised but I doubt they will do it all.
"CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999.
A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.
The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.
"FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.
Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?.
A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.
But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.
The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.
ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.
The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.
The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.
Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info.
The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.
The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.
Political News from Wired News - Cybercrime Treaty Finally Ready. After four years of haggling over the language, several countries including the United States will sign a cybercrime treaty.
WildernessCoast.org - Cybercrime Treaty Bibliography -- By Date. A wide collection of links that talk about the Cybercrime Treaty Same info sorted by title.
Council of Europe - Convention on Cybercrime.
The Convention on Cybercrime has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers during its 109th Session, on 8 November 2001 and will be opened for signature, in Budapest, on 23 November 2001.
The Convention will be the first international treaty on crimes committed via the Internet and other computer networks, dealing particularly with infringements of copyright, computer-related fraud, child pornography and violations of network security. It also contains a series of powers and procedures such as the search of computer networks and interception.
Its main objective, set out in the preamble, is to pursue a common criminal policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime, especially by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international co-operation.
The Convention is the product of four years of work by Council of Europe experts, but also by the United States, Canada, Japan and other countries which are not members of the organisation.
It will be supplemented by an additional protocol making any publication of racist and xenophobic propaganda via computer networks a criminal offence.
Political News from Wired News - Europe Slaving Over Cybercrime. The Council of Europe has been working on it for four years and has gone through 25 drafts. And its proposed international treaty on cybercrime is still running against all those thorny privacy issues.[ ... ]
But Fred Eisner, a consultant for the Dutch government and private companies, said the draft made unfair demands on Internet service providers by asking them to track Web users' online movements.
"This draft convention lacks balance," Eisner told the assembly. "The convention explicitly gives much more power to law enforcement agencies and it has no system of checks and balances."
Bruce McConnell, president of McConnell International, a Washington-based consulting firm, said the treaty should be more forceful in protecting the privacy of Web users who are already worried about being spied on.
"There is concern that the powers of surveillance ... are not balanced by comparable protections for individuals' privacy," he said.
By Mike Godwin to the Cyberia-L mailing list - Treaty on Cybercrime Sounds Like A Great Idea, Until You Read The Fine Print . This message archived on cryptome.orgMaybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that-although officially democratic now-don't have a strong traditions of checks and balances on police power.
Do you want investigators rummaging around your clients' computer systems on warrants issued by former Soviet bloc nations?
That's the prospect that has pushed AT&T Corporation and other high-technology companies into feverishly trying to stop or at least soften the treaty. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Information Technology Association of America also oppose it.
Stewart Baker is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street cred on these issues in corporate America.
What worries Baker and his colleagues? Consider the following hypothetical: A Los Angeles screenwriter corresponds by e-mail with a neo-Nazi in Germany while researching a script. Shortly after, he finds federal agents examining the files on his home computer. The agents also visit America Online Inc. to retrieve records of the screenwriter's AOL usage.
The agents are fulfilling a warrant issued by German authorities allowing them to search for Nazi propaganda. Such material is unlawful in Germany but not in the U.S. They framed their warrant in terms of "suspected terrorist activity."
Slashdot | Your Rights Online: Reading the Fine Print on the Cybercrime Treaty. Mike Godwin, Former Counsel to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and author of Cyber Rights writes about a new international treaty on cybercrime known as the "Convention on Cybercrime."LAW.com (requires cookies) - International Treaty on Cybercrime Poses Burden on High-Tech Companies.
Maybe you're a civil libertarian, and maybe you're not. Maybe you worry about how the United States exercises its vast investigative and prosecutorial powers, and maybe you don't.
But if you counsel U.S. corporations on computer-related issues, you should be concerned about a new proposed treaty known as the "Convention on Cybercrime." The Council of Europe, a 43-nation public body created to promote democracy and the rule of law, is nominally drafting the treaty. Curiously, however, the primary architect is the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are using a foreign forum to create an international law-enforcement regime that favors the interests of the feds over those of ordinary citizens and businesses. Their goal is to make it easier to get evidence from abroad and to extradite and prosecute foreign nationals for certain kinds of crimes.
Maybe you trust the law-enforcement chiefs in D.C. to do the right thing. But here's the catch. The same new powers given to the United States will also be handed over to Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and other Council of Europe nations that -- although officially democratic now -- don't have a strong tradition of checks and balances on police power.
[ ... ]
Stewart Baker, a partner at Washington, D.C.'s Steptoe & Johnson, is one of the chief lobbyists for the treaty's opponents. As a former general counsel of the National Security Agency and recipient of the U.S. Department of Defense Medal for Meritorious Civilian Service, he's got street credentials on these issues in corporate America.
Article was originally carried by: cryptome.org - Treaty on Cybercrime Sounds Like A Great Idea, Until You Read The Fine PrintSlashdot | Implications Of The International Cybercrime Treaty.
SiliconValley.com part of San Jose Mercury News - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules.
MS-NBC - Pioneer cybercrime pact tightens privacy rules. PARIS, May 25 -- Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed Friday.
[ ... ]
Against EU objections, it also limits the right of a country to reject a request from abroad to store and hand over data in potential crime cases if the requesting country thinks it could be misused.
The text says states should make sure that systems operators or other people who know how to use a certain system can be ordered to cooperate in any such a cyberprobe.
digitalMass at Boston.com - Pioneer Cybercrime Pact Tightens Privacy Rules .PARIS (Reuters) - Stiff criticism from the EU and pressure groups has prompted drafters of the world's first treaty against cybercrime to tighten provisions protecting privacy online, the final text showed on Friday.
The Council of Europe, a 43-state human rights watchdog, has amended the text to ensure police respect privacy rights when they follow digital trails to fight online crimes such as hacking, spreading viruses, using stolen credit card numbers or defrauding banks.
''The guarantees in the treaty have been reinforced,'' Peter Csonka, deputy head of the economic crime division at the Council's headquarters in Strasbourg, told Reuters after the Council posted the final text -- version 27 -- on its Web site.
But the treaty, which has aroused heated debate in cyberspace since its draft text became public last year, ignored calls by Internet service providers (ISPs) for fewer costly requirements on preserving data that could be linked to a crime.
It still accorded police wide powers to chase suspected cybercriminals -- powers some critics say go beyond what is legal in some Council member states or in observer countries like the United States, Canada and Japan due to sign the treaty.
Europemedia.net: News - Final cybercrime draft heeds privacy concerns. There is still some controversy surrounding the draft. The last version didn't cut down on the requirements for preserving data that could be linked to a crime as ISPs had hoped, and some feel it still allows police too much power when fighting cybercrime.ZDNet - Internet founder worried over EU cybercrime plans.
BRUSSELS --Vint Cerf, a founding father of today's Internet, said on Thursday that European Union plans for new rules to fight crime on the Web risked clashing with existing EU privacy regulations.
Cerf, who helped develop the Internet in the early 70s shortly after graduating from Stanford University and now works for WorldCom, said more secure network systems were an immediate priority for the successful development of the ubiquitous Web.
He told Reuters in an interview that Internet traffic should be retained only for billing purposes and was too cumbersome to be stored for police investigations.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Treaty 'could stifle online privacy'.Changes to a controversial treaty on cybercrime have done nothing to improve it, say civil liberty campaigners.
Next week, the Council of Europe will vote on the treaty, which has been redrafted 26 times before reaching its final version late in May.
The most recent changes were made to take into account the fears of civil liberty and privacy campaigners. But cyber-rights groups say the latest changes are purely cosmetic and have not diluted what they describe as its most pernicious sections.
The groups say that, if adopted in its current form, the treaty could lead to changes in legislation that would stifle rights to privacy and do little to curb the activities of law enforcement agencies.
[ ... ]
In December 2000, 23 organisations, banding together under the banner of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), signed a letter condemning the 25th draft of the treaty as "appalling", and warned that it handed law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to snoop and could seriously erode online privacy.
Now, three civil liberty groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Privacy International, have sent another letter to the Council of Europe outlining their "continuing concerns" over the wording of the treaty and saying that their fears have not been laid to rest.
The letter chastises the Council of Europe for refusing to open up the redrafting debates to non-governmental organisations and for, it says, ignoring the human rights and privacy concerns of organisations such as the GILC.
It goes on to say that the original criticisms still stand, and that the treaty does not pay enough attention to existing laws which safeguard human rights. It says the treaty's recommendations on protecting privacy are vague and do not go far enough.
IT-director.com - Industry brands cybercrime treaty 'a con trick'. It's tough, but they've managed to please none of the people, none of the time...IT industry gurus have branded the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime 'foolish, unworkable and a legal con trick'.
The controversial treaty provides a blanket legislation to deal with all forms of internet crime from hacking to online pornography.
Caspar Bowden, director of internet think-tank FIPR, said: "The Convention is essentially a legal con trick, drafted in secret by a handful of nameless bureaucrats. It equates the internet - a network of private networks - with 'cyberspace', a metaphor from science fiction.
"By this sleight of hand, the internet is defined as a public space over which law enforcement should be granted unfettered powers of surveillance and extradition," he added.
CNET NEWS.COM - Global treaty could transform Web. Latest Hague convention could thwart free speech and force ISPs to police networksInternational policy-makers this week ended a round of talks aimed at setting common rules affecting online trade and commerce, but they made little progress in bridging divisions that threaten to delay the pact.
In the works for nearly a decade, the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments is still almost unknown outside international policy circles. Nevertheless, it could have broad implications for consumers and businesses by setting new rules for online copyrights, free speech and e-commerce--if it is approved.
Opposition to the treaty heated up Wednesday, when a two-week drafting session wrapped up with few concessions to critics, primarily from the United States, who say the pact threatens free speech and could force Internet service providers to become global content police.
"In a nutshell, it will strangle the Internet with a suffocating blanket of overlapping jurisdictional claims, expose every Web page publisher to liabilities for libel, defamation and other speech offenses from virtually any country, (and) effectively strip Internet service providers of protections from litigation over the content they carry," Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), wrote in a report after the meeting.
The treaty is one of several efforts by the global community to grapple with a complicated legal issues on a borderless Web.
Four years ago, nations including the United States signed onto a World Intellectual Property Organization pact to protect copyright in the digital age. And several countries, including the United States, are hammering out the world's first cybercrime treaty, which would provide a standard for fighting online crime.
The Hague treaty differs from those efforts because it would not outline specific laws participants must follow. It's much broader, requiring participants to agree to enforce each others' laws on a variety of topics. As it stands, the treaty would require courts to enforce the commercial laws of the convention's 52 member nations, even if they prohibit actions that are legal under local laws.
New York Times - free registration required Council of Europe Signs Draft Cybercrime Treaty.BRUSSELS - The blueprint for a global code on Cyber-crime was agreed on in Strasbourg, France, Friday, paving the way for international rules governing online copyright infringement, online fraud, child pornography and hacking.
The 41 members of the Council of Europe (CoE), plus the U.S., Canada and Japan, signed on to a draft convention on cybercrime that is set to be rubber-stamped at ministerial level in September.
"Once adopted, the Convention will be the first international treaty on criminal offenses committed through the use of Internet and other computer networks," the Council of Europe said in a statement.
ISPWorld - (Reuters) International Cyber-Sleuths Demand New Powers .In September, the Council of Europe approved the Convention on cybercrime, a historic treatise that lays the foundation for legislation allowing for a greater sharing of information between countries to combat the rise of cybercrime.
The treatise isn't binding, but instead would have to be adopted into law by its 43 European member states and five outside countries including the United States, Canada and Japan.
The treaty is broad, covering crimes committed on the Internet such as fraud, child pornography and violations of computer network security. It also sets up global policing procedures for conducting computer searches, interception of e-mails, and extradition of criminal suspects.
More details on the CyberCrime Treaty can be found in the Privacy Digest archives dated September 26,2000, September 27,2000, October 09,2000, October 16,2000, October 18,2000, October 19,2000, October 25,2000, November 14,2000, November 20,2000, November 22,2000 and March 24,2001. This is not all the information at Privacy Digest and other sites so if you want to know more try a search
AntiProxy.Com. Hmm ... A rather confusing concept. An anonymous www page surfing service that provides public access to its server-logs so you an see who has been using it. Doesn't that go against the point of using it?
Web Server Statistics for AntiProxy.
This bill is quite limited in its scope, allowing only 48 hours to tap without approval and only for immediate threats to "National Security."
I don't see anything that says they can't keep renewing these "48 hour" taps
``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States;
``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or
``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''.
BTW thanks for keeping us all up to date with the story
"LA Times" - Single-Number Plan Raises Privacy Fears. System would link telephones, faxes and Web addresses while creating giant databases.
A controversial technology under development by the communications industry that links Internet addresses with phone numbers has quietly picked up key government support as concern mounts among critics that the technology will broadly undermine privacy.
The technology, known as e-number, or ENUM, would link phone numbers to codes that computer servers use to route traffic on the Web. Proponents say the technology would improve communication for consumers and marketers alike.
[ ... ]
But privacy advocates fear the system could undermine online privacy and erode the security of the public phone system as well. They worry that the system would destroy a pillar of Internet privacy: the assumption by users that they enjoy anonymity in cyberspace.
The government's endorsement of the technology, disclosed in interviews and outlined in an Aug. 21 letter distributed to an industry group, is seen as critical in pushing it forward.
"The United States does see merit in pursing discussions regarding implementation of a coordinated, global [system] . . . for ENUM," Julian E. Minard, a State Department advisor to the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, wrote to representatives of AT&T and other companies. But Minard cautioned in the letter that aspects of the technology advocated by industry "go beyond what is prudent or necessary."
This drive is far from the first DVD recorder on the market. Pioneer has had their A03 out for months. And before that there were high-end professional units. Apple has included the Pioneer DVD-R drive (A03) for months and I think that ComPaq is also shipping a version.
Now it is possible that the drive from HP is the first for the DVD+RW (instead or the DVD-R or DVD-RW) standard. But it is not the first DVD recordable drive by far.
==Paul
"ComputerWorld" - Casinos Hit Jackpot With Customer Data. CRM leaders keep detailed dossiers on loyal gamblers
While the rest of corporate America is waking up to the value of truly detailed customer information, the neon-lit enclave of casino gambling is already taking it to unmatched levels.
Socioeconomic databases, loyalty cards, the cross-matching of credit card data with other files--they're all at work in the gambling business. These aren't things that supermarkets, banks or retailers don't do. But casinos have become masters of customer relationship management (CRM), having mined more complex customer data on a larger scale for a longer time than just about any other industry.
In its latest annual report, Harrah's Entertainment Inc. bragged, "We know what our customers like," then provided examples of the kind of detail the company tracks. "Tom likes NASCAR, Clint Holmes, thick steaks. Joyce and Ted like oceanfront views, barbershop quartets, Elvis slots. . . ."
St. Petersburg Times - Tampabay: Cameras scanned fans for criminals. Super Bowl fans had their privacy invaded by the technology, critics say. Law officials cite security.
Is the new surveillance system the latest twist on Big Brother? Face-matching surveillance already is well established at more than 70 casinos. But the system's biggest opportunities lie in more benign functions: Identifying customers at ATMs or participants in welfare programs, and screening people who want to enter secure workplace areas.
At Raymond James Stadium, surveillance system cameras were focused only on people entering at turnstiles. No cameras were used inside to pan the fans inside. But cameras did sweep the crowds at the NFL Experience, indicating the growing reach of database systems to try and match faces even in large groups.
At UCLA, professor Borgman questioned the technical ability of a system to identify individual faces so quickly.
"If these surveillance systems spread, there may be a considerable margin of error in determining the identity of people who get snagged," she said. "And that is a big price to pay for your civil rights."
VIISAGE Press Release - GRAPHCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Provides Surveillance for Raymond James Stadium to Identify Known Suspects, Deter Crime. On January 28th, Criminals No Longer Another Face in the Tampa Stadium CrowdThe FaceTrac(TM) core facial recognition technology provides the ability to locate faces, to build 'face print' templates and to recognize matches to images stored in a database. When integrated with G-TEC's law enforcement database, FaceTrac(TM) allows rapid search, comparison and identification of suspect facial photos within the database. FaceTrac(TM) may be used for surveillance with multiple locations networked to a high capacity site, for analysis and system-search results. G-TEC installed FaceTrac(TM) at the Raymond James Stadium as a single site system, integrated with a custom designed database and search result notifications for tracking faces in a crowd and monitoring access to secure areas.
"Washington Post" - Police Video Cameras Taped Football Fans. Super Bowl Surveillance Stirs DebateThe system used for the Super Bowl project, first reported yesterday by the St. Petersburg Times, was lent by companies seeking to market the technology to law enforcement agencies. Tampa police accepted the free use of the system as an experiment and worked with local and national police agencies to manage it during the week of the game, said Durkin.
Dave Watkins, managing director of Graphco Technologies Inc., said the event gave the company a chance to learn how the software would perform, which camera angles were most effective and how the lenses of the 20 video cameras should be focused in a public place.
"Newsbytes" - At Tampa's Turnstiles, Crowd Wasn't Faceless.The American Civil Liberties Union("ACLU") opposes the involuntary capture of biometric details, such as face-recognition data, DNA and retina scans. The organization, in its list of "Privacy Principles," considers the fingerprinting of convicted criminals a worthy exception.
"We are quickly moving to the point where law enforcement and the private sector will be able to identify us no matter where we go, no matter how anonymous we think we are," said Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's associate director. "Not only is it going to rob us of our anonymity, but it's going to be used as a tool of law enforcement to round up 'the usual suspects' and to hassle people on the streets."
The practice is almost certainly legal, but it is in an emerging area of the law that has not been fully tested in court, said Harvard Law School professor Bill Stuntz.
"The Register (UK)" - Feds use biometrics against Super Bowl fans.Super Bowl 2001 fans were secretly treated to a mass, biometric scan in which video cameras tied to a temporary law-enforcement command centre digitised their faces and compared them against photographic lists of known malefactors.
Everyone entering Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida last Sunday was subjected to the surveillance system cameras, set up at the entrance turnstiles. No notice or disclosure was ever given, and no one, therefore, had an opportunity to decline to enter the stadium if they should have objected to this unprecedented treatment.
[ ... ]
"The Company's face-recognition technology is unique because of its capabilities of both rapid and accurate real-time acquisition as well as its scalability to databases containing millions of faces. Therefore, the software can instantly calculate an individual's eigenface from either live video or a still digital image, and then search a database of millions in only a few seconds in order to find similar or matching images."
'Similar or matching.' This clearly acknowledges the possibility that innocent civilians going about their peaceable business may be stopped, hassled, even arrested, merely for resembling someone naughty. This raises sticky issues regarding the presumption of innocence many of us were encouraged to believe in during our grammar-school civics lessons. Is there a violation of this principle when a person is required to produce evidence that they are not, in fact, the evil bastard whom they unfortunately resemble?
"LA Times" - Secret Cameras Scanned Crowd at Super Bowl for Criminals . Surveillance: Faces were cross-checked by new technology in bid to catch terrorists, other suspects. Privacy concerns are raised.Unknown to the 100,000 people who passed through the turnstiles at Sunday's Super Bowl, hidden cameras scanned each of their faces and compared the portraits with photos of terrorists and known criminals of every stripe.
In a command post at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Fla., the digitized images of fans and workers were cross-checked against files of local police, the "FBI" and state agencies at the rate of a million images a minute.
The cameras identified 19 people with criminal histories, none of them of a "significant" nature, Tampa authorities said. But the undisclosed first test of the technology at a major U.S. sporting event raised arguments about privacy versus security and questions about the future of such spying and its uses.
"Oh my God, it's yet another nail in the coffin of personal liberty," said Bruce Schneier, founder and chief technical officer of "Counterpane" Internet Security Inc., a security monitoring company.
"It's another manifestation of a surveillance society, which says we're going to watch you all the time just in case you might do something wrong," said Schneier, whose book "Secrets & Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World" warned of the increasing encroachment on civil liberties in high-tech society.
[ ... ]
Other applications are expected to include ATM machines and public events such as the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
Privacy & Human Rights 2000. This survey, by "EPIC" and Privacy International, reviews the state of privacy in over fifty countries around the world. The survey examines a wide range of privacy issues including, data protection, telephone tapping, genetic databases, ID systems and freedom of information laws. The report finds that there is a worldwide regocnition of privacy as a fundamental human right. Many countries around the world are enacting comprehenisve data protection law to safeguard individual privacy increase. However at the same time, privacy is increasingly being undermined by technical advances and the demands of intelligence and law enforcement agencies for increase surveillance powers. There is a strong need for improved oversight and stricter enforcement of current laws to ensure that legal protections are not ignored as threats to personal privacy increase.