P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28-05-14, 08:48 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - May 31st, '14

Since 2002


































"We have improved DVD-Ranger for use with torrent files. Now DVD-Ranger CinEx HD can remove Cinavia from downloaded torrent video files such as avi, mkv, mp4, mov and others." – Ingo Förster






































May 31st, 2014




Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Arrested After Two Years On the Run
Rose Powell

Peter Sunde, founder of file sharing site Pirate Bay, has been arrested after two years on the run after being sentenced to eight months in prison and fined several million pounds for copyright violations.

Sunde was one of four Pirate Bay team members pursued by the Swedish police, who raided the Pirate Bay servers eight years ago, leading to criminal charges.

He was sentenced to a one-year prison sentence and a £2.85 million fine in 2009.

The prison time was later reduced to eight months on appeal, but the fine was raised to £4.1 million.

Their final appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court was rejected in early 2012. Sunde was listed on Interpol shortly after this.

Swedish newspaper Expressen is reporting the authorities have confirmed the arrest, which took place in a farm in the town of Skåne.

The 11-year-old site, which is used for sharing and downloading music and movie files, is still online.

The website includes a detailed list of legal threats against the site and the following disclaimer:

“Only torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the tracker. Any complaints from copyright and/or lobby organizations will be ridiculed and published at the site.”

The Sunde arrest comes at the end of a turbulent week for file-sharing sites.

Torrentz, a file-sharing site based in the United Kingdom, was forced offline briefly by the City of London Police and Intellectual Property Office.
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...601-zru6l.html





UK Police Close Filesharing Search Engine File FileCrop

Visitors to FileCrop will now get a message from the police, telling them the site is under investigation
Thomas Brewster

The City of London Police has continued its crackdown on sites making illegal downloads of copyrighted material, taking down filesharing search engine FileCrop.

Anyone visiting the website will now be greeted with a notice from the London force’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU).

Filesharing crackdown continues

“This site is being investigated for online copyright infringement,” the notice read, according to TorrentFreak. “You have tried to access a website that is under criminal investigation.”

From a typical Virgin Media broadband connection, visitors to FileCrop will be told: “Sorry, the web page you have requested is not available through Virgin Media.

“Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement.”

FileCrop, which advertised itself as the search engine for searched files, let users easily find content hosted by RapidShare, Mediafire and Megaupload.

PIPCU has been taking various actions to take on copyright infringement, shutting down various websites over recent months.

Meanwhile, industry bodies have come together to form the Voluntary Copyright Alert Programme (VCAP), which will see letters sent to anyone believed to be downloading illegal content.

Four letters will be sent to suspected downloaders, each warning recipients about the damage their illegal actions were doing to the creative industries. Yet they will not be threatened with sanctions.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news...ut-down-146210





Torrentz.eu Domain Unsuspended and Back in Action
Ernesto

A day after the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK got the domain name of Torrentz.eu suspended, the leading torrent search engine is back in action. The site's Polish registrar restored the domain name's DNS entries after Torrentz' legal team pointed out that the suspension was unlawful.

With millions of visitors per day Torrentz is one of the largest torrent sites on the Internet.

Yesterday many of its regular users were in for a surprise though, after their favorite search engine suddenly became unreachable.

It turned out that the site’s domain name registrar, the Poland-based company Nazwa, had suspended the Torrentz.eu domain. This drastic step was taken after they received a letter from the UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.

In recent months City of London Police have targeted dozens of domains through their registrars. Some complied, but others refused to take action without a court order, which is appropriate in these cases.

At first Nazwa placed themselves in the first group, as they were quick to suspend the torrentz.eu domain. However, it appears that the company was willing to listen to reason since their initial decision has now been reversed.

This morning Torrentz.eu’s old DNS entries were put back in place, replacing the ns1.blocked.netart.pl and ns2.blocked.netart.pl ones.

The Torrentz team informs TorrentFreak that their lawyer contacted the registrar yesterday afternoon. In a long letter the lawyer explained that the domain can’t simply be held hostage based on a third-party request.

Among other things, this argument is based on an earlier decision by ICANN’s Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy panel which concluded that a court order is required to take such drastic action.

While the registrar has not yet replied to the letter, the fact that the old DNS entries have been restored suggests that they admit that the suspension was in error.

The Torrentz team is happy with the outcome thus far and will continue operating from the .eu domain. The site should be accessible again worldwide, at least to those who have the latest DNS information.

The UK’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit informs TorrentFreak that the recent efforts to ask registrars to suspend domain names is part of “Operation Creative.” The websites targeted by the police are identified by copyright holders, and then verified by police officers.

Update: Responding to the inquiry we sent yesterday, the police sent the following statement explaining how websites are identified and what actions are taken in response. As with the previous initiatives, such as the pirate site advertising blocklist, these fall under “Operation Creative.”

“As part of Operation Creative, rights holders in the creative industries identify and report copyright infringing websites to PIPCU, providing a detailed package of evidence indicating how the site is involved in illegal copyright infringement. Officers from PIPCU then evaluate the websites and verify whether they are infringing copyright. At the first instance of a website being confirmed as providing copyright infringing content, the site owner is contacted by officers at PIPCU and offered the opportunity to engage with the police, to correct their behaviour and to begin to operate legitimately.”

“If a website fails to comply and engage with the police, then a variety of other tactical options may be used including; contacting the domain registrar informing them of the criminality and seeking suspension of the site and disrupting advertising revenue through the use of an Infringing Website List (IWL) available to those involved in the sale and trading of digital advertising.”
http://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-eu-...action-140527/





Federal Court Pulls Plug on Porn Copyright Shakedown Scam

Judge: ‘lawsuit a quintessential example of Prenda Law’s modus operandi’
Paul McNamara

Deciding a case we wrote about here a year ago, a federal appeals court today has for the first time has put the kibosh on a shakedown scheme aimed at pornography downloaders and practiced by AF Holdings, an arm of notorious copyright troll Prenda Law.

Circuit Judge David Tatel, writing for United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, called the lawsuit "a quintessential example of Prenda Law's modus operandi" in reversing a lower court ruling that would have forced a half-dozen ISPs to identify account holders associated with 1,058 IP addresses.

From an Electronic Frontier Foundation press release:

The case is one of hundreds around the country that follow the same pattern. A copyright troll looks for IP addresses that may have been used to download films (often adult films) via BitTorrent, files a single lawsuit against thousands of "John Doe" defendants based on those IP addresses, then seeks to subpoena the ISPs for the contact information of the account holders associated with those IP addresses. The troll then uses that information to contact the account holders and threatens expensive litigation if they do not settle promptly. Faced with the prospect of hiring an attorney and litigating the issue, often in a distant court, most subscribers-including those who may have done nothing wrong-will choose to settle rather than fight.

"Once a troll gets the names it's looking for, then it already has what it needs to put its shakedown scheme in motion," EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz said. "For the defendants, it will come down to risking being named in a lawsuit over a pornographic movie, or settling for less than the cost of hiring an attorney. As a matter of law and basic fairness, a copyright plaintiff needs to show that its case is on solid ground before putting hundreds of Internet users into that kind of bind."


The appeals court decision makes clear that AF Holdings is on anything but solid ground.

According to the decision, AF Holdings has never actually brought a copyright case to trial, yet is reported to have "earned" $15 million over three years using the scheme. The court based its reversal, however, on the troll's inability to demonstrate that more than a handful of 1,058 individuals it sought to identify even lived in the District of Columbia.

From the opinion: "Cox, AT&T, and Bright House each stated that they had no subscribers at all in the District of Columbia; indeed, they do not even offer service here. ... Here, we think it quite obvious that AF Holdings could not possibly have had a good faith belief that it could successfully sue the overwhelming majority of the 1,058 John Doe defendants in this district."

The court also ruled that seeking the identities as part of a single lawsuit was impermissible because there was no reason to believe that the targets acted in concert. "... Given its decision to instead name and seek discovery regarding a vast number of defendants who downloaded the film weeks and even months apart-defendants who could not possibly remain joined in this litigation-one can easily infer that its purpose was to attain information that was not, and could not be, relevant to this particular suit. Such use of the discovery procedures is prohibited."

EFF calls the decision "a crushing blow for copyright trolls."

Not to mention a great relief to about 1,000 porn downloaders.
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...shakedown-scam





‘Unbeatable’ Cinavia Anti-Piracy Technology Cracked by DVD-Ranger
Ernesto

Cinavia's anti-piracy technology has been a thorn in the side of many file-sharers, who are unable to pay pirated files on their DVD-players without being interrupted by a warning message. In a breakthrough development, software vendor DVD-Ranger has cracked the protection, including for popular movies downloaded from pirate sites.

Cinavia’s anti-piracy technology relies on a unique type of watermarking that allows it to remain present in pirated movies despite re-recording, transcoding, compression, or other type of transfer.

This means that camcordings of Cinavia-protected first-run movies, Blu-ray and DVDrips can be easily detected.

Support for the technology has been mandatory for all hardware and software Blu-ray players since 2012, which causes headaches for many pirates every day. Pirated movies protected by Cinavia work at first, but after a few minutes playback is halted and a warning notice appears on the screen instead.

“Audio outputs temporarily muted. Do not adjust the playback volume. The content being played is protected by Cinavia™ and is not authorized for playback on this device,” one of the notices reads.

Cinavia has been hailed as an unbeatable anti-piracy technology and up until today it was impossible to crack through a simple software solution. However, after several years DVD-Ranger has now solved the puzzle.

The company informs TorrentFreak that their Cinavia removing solution is now able to remove the play restrictions from pirated downloads in various video formats, something that was previously impossible.

“We have improved DVD-Ranger for use with torrent files. Now DVD-Ranger CinEx HD can remove Cinavia from downloaded torrent video files such as avi, mkv, mp4, mov and others,” DVD-Ranger’s Ingo Förster explains.

“The new module first scans the audio and then removes the Cinavia protection on the first pass. The contained video and subtitles will be handled pass-through, meaning that only the selected audio track will be re-encoded,” he adds.

On their website the software specifically targets BitTorrent pirates, many of whom have run into Cinavia protection in recent years. With DVD-Ranger’s “CinEx HD Advanced” software this is no longer a problem, although freedom doesn’t come cheap at $69.99 per license.

Förster and his colleague at DVD-Ranger have been working in the DVD-copying business for over a decade. For them, it was mostly the challenge that made them decide to break the Cinavia technology.

“Me and my partner are working both in science jobs and we were in contact with digital watermarks many years before Cinavia was born, so we know many things about digital watermarking. After we saw how many problems the major players such as DVDFab and Slysoft had with Cinavia, we started our own development,” Förster says.

Technically, Cinavia is not copy protection so the German based developer doesn’t believe they are breaking any laws. The files can be copied with and without a watermark, and their software only removes these “play” restrictions.

“In our country it is only forbidden to develop and sell software that circumvents copy protection. The law doesn’t mention digital watermarks. So is it legal? Definitely,” Förster notes.

In any case, DVD-Ranger’s breakthrough is likely to cause concern at Verance, the company where Cinavia is developed. Perhaps it’s the start of a new watermarking arms race?
http://torrentfreak.com/dvd-ranger-c...system-140524/





The Energy Saved By Ditching DVDs Could Power 200,000 Homes
Jason Koebler

If you still buy DVDs, you're killing the environment.

Maybe that's a little extreme, but the environmental benefits of streaming a movie (or downloading it) rather than purchasing a DVD are staggering, according to a new US government study by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

If all DVDs purchased in 2011 were streamed instead, the energy savings would have been enough to meet the electricity demands of roughly 200,000 households. It would have cut roughly 2 billion kilograms of carbon emissions.

If, like me, you're thinking, "who buys DVDs anymore, anyways," the answer is "a lot of people."

Despite the advent of hi-res streaming sites and hi-res digital downloads, Americans still spent $7.78 billion on physical DVDs and Blu-Ray discs last year; they only spent $4.35 billion on digital versions of movies and subscription streaming services such as Netflix. Of course, both are trending in the expected ways: Physical media sales dropped 8 percent in 2013, and digital movie sales were up roughly 47 percent. But people are still buying a lot of DVDs, roughly 1.2 billion last year.

It's admittedly nice to own physical media and place it in on a shelf in your living room, but streaming is better environmentally from almost every perspective. DVDs have to be manufactured (often overseas), shipped, held in a storefront (or an Amazon warehouse), picked up in a car, and then played, most commonly, on a DVD player or game console, which use more energy than a laptop or a Roku (or whatever your streaming appliance of choice is). DVDs stay in the home for roughly five years, according to the study, before they are thrown into a landfill somewhere.

According to the study, published in Environmental Research Letters, even when you take into account cloud storage, data servers, the streaming device, streaming uses much less energy than purchasing a DVD.

"Data center energy use—both operational and embodied within the IT equipment—account for less than 1 percent of the total video streaming energy use," the study said.

Most of the energy use comes from actually getting the video to you—the internet connection itself—and the device you're streaming with.

Watching one hour of streaming video requires roughly 8 megajoules of energy, compared to 12 megajoules for watching a DVD. Unless you're an electrical engineer, those numbers aren't going to mean a whole lot to you, 8 is a third less than 12, and that's what we're striving for.

If you're absolutely tied to physical media, there is one way you can keep watching DVDs without feeling bad: You can buy them on Amazon, or you can rent them through Netflix's mail-service. Just like you may have been surprised to find out that cloud storage uses only a minimal amount of energy, you might also be surprised to learn that manufacture and shipment of the DVD accounts for a similarly small amount of the overall energy used to get that copy of Twilight (and it was that or Despicable Me 2 sold to a staggering 5 million Americans last year) onto your screen.

This study, which, remember, was funded and carried out by the US government, has a lot of potential implications, particularly with regards to net neutrality and, perhaps, preventing manufacturers from making streaming devices that use a lot of energy ("policy makers should focus on the efficiency of end-user devices and network transmission energy to curb energy use from future increases in video streaming," Shehabi notes).

Shehabi also suggests that "if more complex video platforms gain popularity in the marketplace (i.e., ultra high-definition or 3D video), streaming video may require greater data transfer rates while the change in manufacturing and transport of physical media would be minimal."

Meanwhile, there's that little debate going on in Washington right now about whether internet service providers should be allowed to discriminate against certain types of web traffic, with high quality streaming sites such as Netflix being the main target. What easier way to keep streaming environmentally friendly than by limiting the quality at which the video comes in?
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the...r-200000-homes





The FCC May Consider a Stricter Definition of Broadband in the Netflix Age
Brian Fung

What is high-speed Internet? Believe it or not, there is a technical definition. Currently, it's set at 4 megabits per second. Anything less, and in the government's view, you're not actually getting broadband-level speeds.

For years, that definition of broadband worked reasonably well. But these days, 4 Mbps may not get you very much anymore. The rise of streaming music and video means that all the things we do online now require a lot more bandwidth compared to even five years ago. So the Federal Communications Commission is beginning to consider whether to raise the definition of broadband — a change that might have big implications for the way we regulate Internet providers.

The FCC soon intends to solicit public comments on whether broadband should be redefined as 10 Mbps and up, or even as high as 25 Mbps and up, according to an agency official who asked not to be named because the draft request was not yet public. The new threshold would likely increase the number of people in the United States that statistically lack broadband, which in 2012 amounted to 6 percent of the population.

Depending on the responses, the FCC may decide that broadband must be defined as being at least 10 Mbps, or even 25 Mbps. That's because many of today's Internet services use a lot of data -- and 4 Mbps is hardly enough to meet those needs. An HD-quality Netflix stream, for instance, requires at least a 5 Mbps connection. And in today's typical home, one family member may be streaming a movie while others are making a high-quality Skype call or downloading files from Dropbox, which only adds to the bandwidth requirements.

The notice of inquiry will be circulated internally at the commission Friday, said the official, in preparation for a future public release. In addition to asking whether the old broadband definition is still adequate for today's typical usage patterns, it'll ask the public whether the FCC should adopt a tiered set of definitions to account for varying speeds in different regions or during different times of day.

If the FCC does put a more stringent definition on what is considered broadband, it could indirectly affect other ongoing policy debates. The FCC has the authority to regulate Internet providers if it believes that the rollout of Internet infrastructure is being impeded. Under a higher standard for broadband, the commission could argue that an ISP isn't working fast enough to upgrade its networks, and intervene.

Update: An FCC official confirmed that the inquiry also covers upload speeds in addition to download speeds. In the 10 Mbps scenario, which the commission defines as a "high-use" case involving HD streaming, HD calling and downloads from the cloud, the commission posits a minimum upload speed of 2.9 Mbps — up from the current standard of 1 Mbps.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-netflix-age/





Congressman Bankrolled by ISPs Tries to Halt Internet Regulation

AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable give to anti-FCC lawmaker.
Jon Brodkin

US Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) on Wednesday filed legislation that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from attempting to regulate broadband Internet service as a public utility.

It probably won't surprise you that Internet service providers have enthusiastically given money to this congressman. As we reported in our May 16 story "Bankrolled by broadband donors, lawmakers lobby FCC on net neutrality," Latta received $51,000 from cable company interests in the two-year period ending December 2013.

Latta was one of "28 House members who lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to drop net neutrality," with those lawmakers having "received more than twice the amount in campaign contributions from the broadband sector than the average for all House members," our story noted.

A member of Congress since 2007, Latta received $32,500 from political action committees (PACs) representing AT&T and individuals who work for AT&T in his career, according to OpenSecrets' list of his top contributors. He received an additional $29,500 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and $21,000 from Time Warner Cable-linked interests. Verizon PACs and individuals gave him $16,000, the American Cable Association gave him $15,000, CenturyLink PACs gave him $11,400, and Comcast PACs gave him $11,000.

Not content with lobbying the FCC, Latta this week by filing a bill (PDF) with the title, "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to limit the authority of the Federal Communications Commission over providers of broadband Internet access service."

Latta described his legislation as an attempt to "keep [the] Internet open and accessible."

His facts are slightly off in a press release. The announcement says Latta's legislation would "ensure the Internet remains open and free from government interference by limiting the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to regulate broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. The legislation comes after the FCC released a proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II as a telecommunications service rather than an information service."

In fact, the FCC's proposal does not propose reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. (Title II or "common carrier" services, such as the traditional phone network, can be regulated as public utilities.)

Network neutrality advocates have asked the FCC to reclassify broadband as Title II, saying it would let the commission outlaw Internet "fast lanes" in which Web services pay ISPs for priority access to consumers. The FCC has proposed using different authority (Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act) to regulate broadband while allowing such fast lanes, but it asked the public for comment on whether it should use Title II instead. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has so far not proposed reclassifying broadband, but he said he is open to doing so if the FCC's net neutrality proposal "turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule."

Latta appears to think that the FCC has decided to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service. “In light of the FCC initiating yet another attempt to regulate the Internet, upending long-standing precedent and imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21st Century broadband marketplace, Congress must take action to put an end to this misguided regulatory proposal,” Latta said in his announcement. "The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction. My legislation will provide all participants in the Internet ecosystem the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity, and consumer choice."

Latta didn't get any co-sponsors for the bill, suggesting it's little more than a symbolic gesture. After being introduced Wednesday, the legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. A Latta spokesperson told Ars, "We will be working with Committee on next steps."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...et-regulation/





Report: Verizon FiOS Claimed Public Utility Status to Get Government Perks

Still, Verizon campaigns against utility-style regulation that it benefits from.
Jon Brodkin

Verizon and the rest of the country's biggest Internet service providers joined forces this month to argue that so-called "common carrier" regulations for utilities shouldn't be applied to broadband. Such rules would force the ISPs to innovate less and spend less money than they do today on network upgrades, they argue.

Yet Verizon obtains a variety of perks from the government for its FiOS Internet service by using public utility rules to its advantage, a new report drawing on public documents says.

This isn’t a new practice and it isn’t illegal, but it could become part of the debate over network neutrality rules and the transition from heavily regulated landline phone networks to Internet-based voice service.

“It's the secret that's been hiding in plain sight,” said Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge and an expert on the FCC and telecommunications. “At the exact moment that these guys are complaining about how awful Title II is, they are trying to enjoy all the privileges of Title II on the regulated side.”

“There's nothing illegal about it,” Feld, who wasn’t involved in writing the report, told Ars. However, “as a political point this is very useful.”

The FCC classifies broadband (such as FiOS) as an information service under Title I of the Communications Act, resulting in less strict rules than the ones applied to common carrier services (such as the traditional phone system) under Title II. But since both services are delivered over the same wire, Verizon FiOS is able to reap the benefits of utility regulation without the downsides.

Verizon checks its privileges, finds them quite nice

The US has long applied common carrier status to the telephone network, providing justification for universal service obligations that guarantee affordable phone service to all Americans and other rules that promote competition and consumer choice. In exchange, phone companies are granted certain kinds of legal immunity, easements over private property and public rights of way, pole attachment rights, access to the phone number system, and the right to interconnect with other networks.

The report by telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick says the following:

FiOS Rides over a “Title II”, Common Carriage, Telecommunications Network.

• Verizon’s FiOS TV, phone, Internet and broadband service products ride over a Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network.
• This FTTP network, as stated in the Verizon New York City FiOS TV franchise, is categorized as a “Title II”, common carriage, telecommunications service, as opposed to a ‘Title VI” (cable TV service) or a “Title I” (“information” service). These “Titles” refer to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and they are critical as to whether and how the services are regulated.
• This classification of FTTP as a Title II service appears to be in every Verizon FiOS TV cable franchise nationwide.
• “FiOS” is not the fiber optic wire; it is a brand name of a Verizon product that uses the FTTP networks.
• Verizon invokes its powers as a telephone corporation under the NY Transportation Corporations Law to install fiber optic wire over private property, or use the public rights-of-way.

Kushnick points to a New Jersey franchise agreement which states, "The construction of Verizon NJ’s fiber-to-the-premises FTTP network (the FTTP network) is being performed under the authority of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and under the appropriate state telecommunications authority granted to Verizon NJ."

"Verizon New York City’s current cable franchise, as well as the franchises for other Verizon franchises in other states, from DC to New Jersey—all detail that at the core of Verizon’s cable, Internet, and broadband networks is a 'Title II', common carriage, telecommunications service," Kushnick wrote. "And it appears this was done for two reasons—it gets all of the powers of the utility, including the rights-of-way that are part of the telecommunications utility service, but it also may charge the copper-based POTS [plain old telephone service] utility customers for the development and deployment of FiOS."

Verizon's New York division also obtained tax benefits, although it still lost money. "Over the last five years, Verizon NY showed over $11 billion in losses, about $2.1 billion annually, with an income tax benefit of $1 billion that is used by Verizon Communications, the parent holding company, to offset its tax liabilities," Kushnick wrote. "This also means Verizon New York paid no taxes, even though the company had $7.2 billion in revenues in 2010, the last year the information was available."

Verizon Communications itself has been profitable, and yet "New York’s residential POTS customers, who use the aging copper wires, [are] paying rate increases for the development and deployment of FiOS—a cable, phone, broadband and Internet service," Kushnick wrote.

The Verge has a good analysis of the report.

“We will ask the FCC to open the networks”

Kushnick wrote the report for the Public Utility Law Project of New York. The group will lobby the FCC to take action, he told Ars.

“The companies' affiliates have acted together and have taken control of the customer-funded wires and networks, which are Title II, in multiple ways that allow the company to control both the end-user connection—speed, access, and use of the Internet—as well as the competitor side of attaching to the wire and delivering services to the end users,” Kushnick wrote in an e-mail. “We will be asking for the FCC to open the networks to all forms of competition because customers paid for it and they are Title II, and because the affiliate companies have created a bottleneck that controls the wires and blocks competitors.”

Verizon and the FCC did not provide responses to Ars’ requests for comment.

Feld noted that it's common for transmission paths to include multiple services governed by different sets of regulations.

"You have a bunch of different services that go over the same wire," he said. "This is true for wireless also. When you buy your wireless mobile device, what you're buying is a Title II service for voice, probably a Title II service for the text, although the FCC has never really classified it one way or the other... and the data part is Title I."

"The wireless carriers are all big on using this Title II stuff when it comes to things like getting the FCC to preempt states on tower siting and... the use of phone numbers and mandatory interconnections with landline [networks] and all that good stuff," he said.

Cable companies like Comcast are "offering you a cable service, Title VI, over the line that also brings you broadband, which is Title I, and their phone service which is unclassified because it's Voice over IP (VoIP)."

Verizon's phone services are even more complicated. Although traditional landlines typically ride over copper networks, Verizon can also provide Title II phone services over fiber. In these cases, Verizon says that "phone service is still provided by our conventional switched network, not over the Internet. We’re simply changing the infrastructure over which their service is delivered from copper to our more reliable, all-fiber network."

That fiber network also carries traffic for VoIP, which the FCC has never classified as either Title I or Title II. With AT&T and Verizon asking the FCC for permission to shut off the Public Switched Telephone Network by 2020, the regulatory status of VoIP is going to come under increased scrutiny.

One question for the phone transition is whether phone companies get to "keep all the good stuff about being a phone provider... while not having any of the attendant responsibilities that come with it," Feld said.

The potential of the FCC classifying broadband as a common carrier service is also being widely debated, because it could let the FCC impose stronger net neutrality rules on ISPs. As we mentioned, ISPs have railed against this possibility.

Verizon's use of Title II to its advantage "highlights that these providers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths," Feld said. "They say, 'oh you can't do Title II for broadband because that would be heavy-handed, burdensome regulation and would destroy investment.' You're over here at the FCC saying, 'you can't treat this as Title II' and you're in New Jersey saying, 'you must treat it as Title II.'"

The treatment of cellular voice calls (or "Commercial Mobile Radio Service") as Title II (albeit with fewer regulations than landline phone service) proves the regulations aren't an investment killer, he said.

"It is nonsense to say that Title II is this terrible, horrible thing that kills investment," Feld said. "As the wireless industry never gets tired of telling me, there's nothing more dynamic and [full of] investment wonderfulness than wireless, where they spend billions of dollars on licenses alone in order to provide a Title II service."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...egulations/#p3





Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Opens His Mouth and Inserts His Foot -- Who Will Invest in Internet Infrastructure?

If ISPs have insufficient incentive to invest in infrastructure, who will? Google? Telcos? Government (at all levels)? Premises owners?
Larry Press

At a recent conference, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts rationalized charging Netflix to deliver content by comparing Comcast to the Post Office, saying that Netflix pays to mail DVDs to its customers but now expects to be able to deliver the same content over the internet for free. He forgot to mention that the Post Office does not charge recipients for those DVDs.

The issue is infrastructure investment and it is in our collective interest for that investment to be made. Comcast could invest in the infrastructure needed to insure rapid delivery of Netflix and other's traffic and pass that cost on to the paying customers at a fair rate of return on the investment. But, they make more money by refusing to upgrade their infrastructure, thereby slowing delivery of content and making their customers dissatisfied with content providers like Netflix. If there were competition in the ISP market, customers would switch to the ISP that provided the best price/performance, but since there is not competition, Comcast is able to reap monopoly profits. If they happen to have a competitor in a given location, perhaps AT&T, they together reap oligopoly profits.

What is the solution? One hope is for Google Fiber to provide meaningful investment and competition, which might work in the short run, but one has to wonder about the long run -- cities with Google Fiber would still be oligopolies.

Another hope is Verizon and other phone companies competing agressively, but it seems the cable and phone companies have reached a gentleman's non-competition agreement with phone companies focusing on mobile connectivity and cable companies on fixed connectivity.

If the ISPs will not make the necessary investments, government (at all levels) must make wholesale infrastructure investments and apply regulation as we do with roads and utilities. There is also a role for home and building owners investing in the last "100 meter" infrastructure as we do with water, gas and sewers.
http://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/05/c...opens-his.html





Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Microsoft Say Government has No Right to Suppress Data Request Disclosures
Hayley Tsukayama

Court documents unsealed Friday show Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft are arguing that government gag orders that stop them from disclosing the number of national security requests they receive violate the companies' First Amendment right to free speech.

Leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that revealed how the government uses tech firms in its surveillance efforts have damaged their bottom lines and public reputations -- particularly overseas. The companies have begun to push back against some government orders to stay silent.

The gag orders, called "national security letters," compel Web and telecommunication companies to share information with the government while simultaneously prohibiting them from speaking about the request. Since the Snowden leaks, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and Microsoft have fought to include more information about national security requests in regular reports they release on how much data the government requests from their servers.

In the court documents, filed in April with the 9th Circuit Court in California, the tech giants argue that the government is infringing on their First Amendment rights -- a form of prior restraint. The government has argued that companies have no First Amendment right to share information gained from participation in a secret government investigation, according to the filing.

The case is now on appeal.

The companies do not want to disclose any information that would place specific investigations in jeopardy, the filings note. But they do "wish to publish more detailed aggregate statistics about the volume, scope and type of [national security letters] that the government uses to demand information about their users," and reject the arguments the government has made to justify the gag orders. Many companies have already reached one-time agreements with the government to include broad ranges of how many letters they receive -- such as "0-999" -- in individual reports. They would like to continue this practice without asking for permission each time.

Speech about secret government investigations, the companies say, "is not within any traditionally unprotected category." The companies say there's no precedent for the extent to which the government's gag orders suppress free speech.

"The government attempts to sidestep the serious First Amendment issues raised in this case by arguing that there is no First Amendment right to disclose information gained from participation in a secret government investigation," the companies said. "That is incorrect."

Since the Patriot Act expanded the FBI's ability to use national security letters, privacy advocates and government watchdogs say there has been a marked rise in the use of these letters, though more companies have begun to challenge them in light of the Snowden leaks. On Thursday, Microsoft announced that it had successfully fought a national security letter from the FBI, according to unsealed documents from a different case in Seattle, though the government was able to get the information it wanted by other means.

In a statement, Yahoo said it plans to continue pursuing this issue. "The U.S. Government should allow Yahoo and other tech companies to disclose more about the volume, scope and type of National Security Letters (NSLs) they receive."

Google also said it would continue pushing for greater transparency from the government. "People have the right to know when and how governments request their information," a Google spokeswoman said. "We hope the court recognizes how damaging it can be when laws prevent companies from being open about government actions that can infringe on civil liberties.”

The FBI referred the matter to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment; neither did Microsoft and Facebook.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-disclosures/





Google Will Take Requests to Scrub Embarrassing Search Results. But it Won’t Help U.S. Users.
Hayley Tsukayama

Google launched a Web form Friday that allows European customers to ask for aspects of their digital histories to be expunged from the search engine -- but only in Europe.

This is Google's first response to a decision by Europe's highest court ordering the tech giant to review requests from users who say that articles linked from Google searches besmirch their reputations. The ruling, handed down earlier this month, chafed Google and several other search engine operators, who called it a form of censorship that forces them to make judgment calls about what should or shouldn't be on the Web.

"The court's ruling requires Google to make difficult judgments about an individual's right to be forgotten and the public's right to know," Google said in a statement.

Someone submitting a request to Google must include a list of the links to be removed, a justification for the information's removal and a photo ID.

The company will note when certain search information has been removed from results, similar to what it does when people search for things that have been subject to intellectual property claims. European customers searching for delisted information will see a note at the bottom of their results letting them know that something has been removed.

Google said it has already received thousands of requests to have information removed, but it has not released any details on how long it may take to review those requests. The company said it has also established an advisory committee to review the process. Members of that review panel, the company said, will include experts on European data laws and Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales -- who has decried the decision, as the BBC reported. It will be co-chaired by Google chairman Eric Schmidt and the company's chief legal officer, David Drummond.

According to Reuters, the man who brought the original case against Google, Mario Costeja, has said he's satisfied with the steps that Google's taken. "I want to congratulate Google because they have taken a decision that humanizes a tool that can now be considered perfect," he told the news agency in a Friday report.





Technology Companies Are Pressing Congress to Bolster Privacy Protections
Elena Schneider

A law that allows the government to read email and cloud-stored data over six months old without a search warrant is under attack from technology companies, trade associations and lobbying groups, which are pressing Congress to tighten privacy protections. Federal investigators have used the law to view content hosted by third-party providers for civil and criminal lawsuits, in some cases without giving notice to the individual being investigated.

Nearly 30 years after Congress passed the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which government officials have interpreted to cover newer technologies, cloud computing companies are scrambling to reassure their customers, and some clients are taking their business to other countries.

Ben Young, the general counsel for Peer 1, a web hosting company based in Vancouver, British Columbia, said his customers were keeping their business out of the United States because the country “has a serious branding problem.”

“We’ve enjoyed a competitive advantage in Canada,” he said, “because the public perception in the business community is that American law enforcement has more access to data than in other parts of the world.”

Places such as Germany, Iceland and Switzerland are trading on a reputation of stronger protections for companies, but such safeguards are not universally tighter than those in the United States. “Some countries are stricter on privacy, and some of them are not,” said Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology advocacy group.

Privacy has been an increasing concern since Edward J. Snowden’s revelations last year about bulk data collection by the National Security Agency, but an overhaul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act has failed to break into the national conversation. “Because it’s not sexy,” said Katie McAuliffe, the executive director for digital liberty at Americans for Tax Reform.

The United States’ image problem has caused “real, tangible harm” for businesses, said Christian Dawson, the chief operating officer at ServInt, a web hosting company based in Reston, Va. “It’s very easy for providers outside the country to say, ‘Hey, move your business offshore into an area that cares more about your privacy.’ They don’t have better laws necessarily. They have a better marketing department.”

Silicon Valley giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google say they will no longer hand over their customers’ data without a search warrant. But smaller web hosting and cloud computing companies may be outmuscled by law enforcement officials as they try to protect their customers, said Ron Yokubaitis, the co-chief executive of Data Foundry, a data center company based in Texas. “Mostly, they are going to comply because they don’t know their rights or can’t spend the money to resist,” he said.

A coalition of technology companies, trade associations and lobbying groups, called Digital Due Process, is pushing Congress to bolster privacy rules. Bipartisan bills in the House and the Senate have brought together a hodgepodge of supporters, including liberals and Tea Party favorites.

Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, co-sponsored the Senate bill. He said in a recent interview that “like most Americans,” he was shocked to find that the 1986 statute was on the books.

“Almost every American thinks that it is frightening that we have a law that suggests that the government has the right to read your email after only 180 days,” Mr. Lee said. “It’s an easy issue in which to achieve bipartisan compromise and consensus.”

The bill would require a search warrant for access to electronic communications, with exceptions for some emergency situations. It would also require the government to notify individuals within 10 days that their information was being investigated. However, it does not address rules for location data, like GPS information from an individual’s cellphone.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill a year ago, but it has since stalled. One reason is resistance from federal investigating agencies that use subpoenas to gain access to electronic communications in civil cases, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“The S.E.C. cannot get a search warrant, so a bill that requires a warrant to obtain emails from an I.S.P. would undermine the S.E.C.’s ability to protect American investors and hold wrongdoers accountable,” said Andrew Ceresney, the director of the Division of Enforcement at the S.E.C., referring to Internet service providers. Instead, the S.E.C. would have to rely on an individual’s voluntary disclosure of digital content.

But some legal experts, and at least one appeals court, do not find that argument compelling. “The courts say that email on a server somewhere is like email in your virtual home,” said Orin S. Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “We wouldn’t say the S.E.C. should have the power to tell your landlord to break into your apartment and get evidence. The same rule should apply.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled in 2010 that part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was unconstitutional. Since the decision, most major technology companies have required a search warrant for customers’ content.

“They are an administrative agency that is holding up this process because they are demanding unconstitutional new powers,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the S.E.C.

Texas has taken the matter into its own hands. Last summer, Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed a bill that will force law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant to view any electronic communications in the state, essentially the same measure that waits on Capitol Hill.

But the S.E.C. has indicated that it is open to negotiations. The agency’s chairwoman, Mary Jo White, “supports a number of other ways to address privacy interests and still allow the S.E.C. and other civil law enforcement agencies to gather critical email evidence from ISPs,” Mr. Ceresney said.

Representative Kevin Yoder, Republican of Kansas and a co-sponsor of the House bill, said that provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act were “frankly much worse” than the N.S.A.’s domestic surveillance program. While the N.S.A. program involves the collection of phone-calling information known as metadata, the privacy act allows law enforcement officials to actually read emails, “and in many cases Americans don’t know it’s happening to them,” Mr. Yoder said.

For cloud computing companies, something is better than nothing when it comes to changes to the law.

“We need a meaningful response from the government,” Mr. Young of Peer 1 said. “It doesn’t have to be sweeping, and it doesn’t have to fix everything overnight. The United States’ status as a leader in Internet innovation is being seriously threatened.”

Mr. Dawson of ServInt just expanded the company’s operations to Amsterdam, and he said the firm was more likely to grow there, “which is a shame.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/us...ivacy-law.html





School Spyware in Coursebooks

Skimming an entirely unrelated article, I stumbled upon this gem:

Recently, a number of schools have started using a program called CourseSmart, which uses e-book analytics to alert teachers if their students are studying the night before tests, rather than taking a long-haul approach to learning. In addition to test scores, the CourseSmart algorithm assigns each student an “engagement index” which can determine not just if a student is studying, but also if they’re studying properly. In theory, a person could receive a “satisfactory” C grade in a particular class, only to fail on “engagement

This immediately reminded me of Neal Stephenson’s 1992 novel, Snow Crash where a government employee’s reading behavior has been thoroughly warped into simulacrum by a lifetime of overbearing surveillance:

Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00 P.M., she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this:

- Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.
- 10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.
- 14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.
- Exactly 15.62 min.: Smartass. Needs attitude counseling.
- 15.63-16 min.: Asswipe. Not to be trusted.
- 16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.
- More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).

Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary.


Dystopian panotical horrors were supposed to be cautionary tales – not specifications for new projects…

As one Hacker News commenter put it : in the future, you don’t read books; books read you !
http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/ind...in-coursebooks





Is Your Antivirus Tracking You? You’d Be Surprised At What It Sends
Chris Hoffman

Your antivirus software is watching you. A recent study shows that popular antivirus applications like Avast assign your computer a unique identifier and send a list of all web addresses you visit to the manufacturer. If the antivirus finds a suspicious document, it will send the document to the antivirus company. Yes, your antivirus company might have a list of web pages you’ve visited along with your sensitive personal documents!

AV-Comparatives’ Data Transmission Report

We’re getting this information from AV-Comparative’s Data transmission in Internet security products report, released on May 8, 2014. AV-Comparatives is an antivirus testing and comparison organization.

The study was performed by analyzing antivirus products running in a virtual machine to see what they sent to the antivirus company, reading each antivirus product’s end user license agreement (EULA), and sending a detailed questionnaire to each antivirus company so they could explain what their products do.

The study says “We gave higher weighting to our own measurements and the EULA (as we understand it) than to the replies to our questionnaire.” In other words, some antivirus companies responded with incorrect answers that contradicted what their products actually did!

We encourage you to check the study and consult the table on page 3 for yourself. You’ll be able to see exactly what your current antivirus product does. The study includes antivirus products by AhnLab, Avast, AVG, AVIRA, Bitdefender, BullGuard, Emsisoft, eScan, ESET, Fortinet, F-Secure, G DATA, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee, Microsoft, Panda, Sophos, Symantec, Trend Micro, Vipre, and Webroot.

A Unique Identifier And Web Addresses You Visit

All of the antivirus products in question — aside from products by eScan and Fortinet — assign your system a unique identification number and transmit this number.

Many products also transmit a list of visited URLs, or web addresses — both malicious and non-malicious ones. All of the products aside from AhnLab, Emsisoft, and Vipre transmit these URLs to the company. It’s unclear which types of addresses each product transmits. Some products may only transmit a malicious address you find to the company, while some products may transmit all addresses you visit to the company. Tied to a unique identifier, this means an antivirus company could have access to your browsing history.

Some products also transmit your computer’s name, local IP address, language, running processes, and Windows user name to the antivirus company.

Non-Executable Files, Including Documents

When an antivirus finds a “suspicious” file, it wants to send that file to the antivirus manufacturer so it can be examined for malware. The antivirus company can analyze the file and produce a virus definition to defend against the malware. This doesn’t just apply to executable files. Your antivirus may also send your personal documents to the antivirus company. For example, if you have a business document in Word format and the antivirus thinks the document is suspicious, it may send that document to the antivirus company. This means your antivirus company may be getting its hands on your sensitive documents.

Avast, Fortinet, Kaspersky Lab, Symantec, and Vipre all will transmit documents and other non-executable files. AVG, ESET, McAfee, Microsoft, Sophos, Trend Micro, and Webroot all won’t tell us if they transmit documents. It’s probably best to assume these products transmit documents, too. AVG, McAfee, Trend Micro, and Webroot won’t even allow you to opt out of sending these non-executable files.

Why All the Data Collection?

Antivirus companies want all the data they can get. However, we users don’t have an easy way of knowing and choosing what types of data we share with the antivirus company. The idea that the web pages we visit and our personal documents could be getting sent in the background is scary. We didn’t even think of this and didn’t have the option to make an informed decision. If this data is sent unencrypted, it’s also possible for people on the same local network — or intelligence agencies like the NSA tapping the internet backbone — to capture this information.

According to the study, antivirus companies at least say they aren’t linking this information together to track you:

“Vendors tell us that the data gathered and transmitted by each product does not go to a single collection centre; rather, specific elements are transmitted separately to different isolated end points, without any connection between them. Thus e.g. licence-management data is sent separately from product-usage statistics. They say that as there is no connection between these systems, the data collected by one cannot be linked with the data collected by another. Consequently the privacy of the user should be safeguarded. “

The Most Privacy-Conscious Antiviruses

AhnLab sends the least amount of data according to this test. It won’t send URLs you visit, personal documents, or even executable files and other personal information to the antivirus company. It will transmit information about the antivirus product, a unique identifier for your computer, your operating system version, and hashes of files. A hash will let the antivirus company detect whether the file matches another file they know about, but it won’t actually let them view any of the contents.

Emsisoft also comes out looking good. They send a bit more information when you encounter malicious files — for example, they’ll send suspicious executable files to the antivirus company — but they’ll never send a list of websites you visit or your documents over the Internet

Both of these products are paid antivirus products. They’re the only antiviruses in the study that don’t send the most sensitive types of data to an antivirus company.

There’s no one free antivirus product that stands out from all the others in offering the best privacy features. Your best bet is consulting the table for more information when choosing an antivirus product. Along with checking antivirus test results, this information can help you make an informed decision.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/antivir...rprised-sends/





TrueCrypt Site Claims Product is Not Secure, Recommends Microsoft.
Juha Saarinen

Open source disk encryption utility TrueCrypt appears to have closed down today, with no explanation from its developers beyond unverified messages on the project's source code site that claim the application is no longer secure.

TrueCrypt's SourceForge page currently warns users against using the program, saying it is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues.

The page goes on to recommend uses to switch to the built in Microsoft Bitlocker in newer versions of Windows.

The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014 after Microsoft terminated support of Windows XP. Windows 8/7/Vista and later offer integrated support for encrypted disks and virtual disk images. Such integrated support is also available on other platforms. You should migrate any data encrypted by TrueCrypt to encrypted disks or virtual disk images supported on your platform.

BitLocker is a full-disk encryption utility that does not contain a backdoor for government access, according to Microsoft.

Furthermore, the source code for the Windows version of the new TrueCrypt 7.2 version at the Github repository contains a similar warning message.

The sudden shutdown of TrueCrypt - which was developed anonymously by unknown developers - has left security experts and user of the program baffled, suspecting the website message is an elaborate hoax or possibly even a hack.

Cryptography lecturer Matthew Green at John Hopkins University in Maryland believes the SourceForge page is authentic.

I think it unlikely that an unknown hacker (a) identified the Truecrypt devs, (b) stole their signing key, (c) hacked their site.

— Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green) May 28, 2014


Green has been unable to contact TrueCrypt developers to verify what actually happened.

Nadim Kobeissi, developer of encrypted messaging app CryptoCat tweeted that the immediate lesson from the TrueCrypt debacle is that you can't trust software made by unknown people.

TrueCrypt was first released in 2004, and supported all popular operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, Apple OS X, *BSD and Linux distributions.

It rose to fame this year as it was revealed that former United States National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden used TrueCrypt to encrypt hard drives and USB memory sticks.

The application was partly security audited this year, with no backdoors discovered.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/386787...ypt-users.aspx





Brokers Use ‘Billions’ of Data Points to Profile Americans
Craig Timberg

Are you a financially strapped working mother who smokes? A Jewish retiree with a fondness for Caribbean cruises? Or a Spanish-speaking professional with allergies, a dog and a collection of Elvis memorabilia?

All this information and much, much more is being quietly collected, analyzed and distributed by the nation’s burgeoning data-broker industry, which uses billions of individual data points to produce detailed portraits of virtually every American consumer, the Federal Trade Commission reported Tuesday.

The FTC report provided an unusually detailed account of the system of commercial surveillance that draws on government records, shopping habits and social-media postings to help marketers hone their advertising pitches. Officials said the intimacy of these profiles would unnerve some consumers who have little ability to track what’s being collected or how it’s used — or even to correct false information. The FTC called for legislation to bring transparency to the multibillion-dollar industry and give consumers some control over how their data is used.

Data brokers’ portraits feature traditional demographics such as age, race and income, as well as political leanings, religious affiliations, Social Security numbers, gun-ownership records, favored movie genres and gambling preferences (casino or state lottery?). Interest in health issues — such as diabetes, HIV infection and depression — can be tracked as well.

With potentially thousands of fields, data brokers segment consumers into dozens of categories such as “Bible Lifestyle,” “Affluent Baby Boomer” or “Biker/Hell’s Angels,” the report said. One category, called “Rural Everlasting,” describes older people with “low educational attainment and low net worths.” Another, “Urban Scramble,” includes concentrations of Latinos and African Americans with low incomes. One company had a field to track buyers of “Novelty Elvis” items.

“The extent of consumer profiling today means that data brokers often know as much — or even more — about us than our family and friends,” FTC Chairman Edith Ramirez said in a statement. “It’s time to bring transparency and accountability to bear on this industry on behalf of consumers, many of whom are unaware that data brokers even exist.”

The brokers gather the information from public records and private sources, such as advertising networks that follow a consumer’s online activities, traditional media companies that record a subscriber’s billing history or the loyalty programs that track a shopper’s purchases at a grocery store.

The individual profiles are largely sold to marketers, determining what ads and offers consumers see online, or to banks that use the data to verify the identity of customers. Laws prohibit using such information to set insurance rates, make job offers or measure creditworthiness, although the FTC expressed concern about potential abuses.

FTC officials, who based their report on documents gathered by issuing subpoenas to nine data brokers in December 2012, found “a fundamental lack of transparency” in the industry but no evidence of illegal activity. Ramirez said the FTC does not know how many data brokers exist.

The profiles they produce could affect what products are offered to consumers and how well consumers are treated by customer service, officials said. A “financially challenged” couple, for example, might see ads for subprime loans while their affluent friends are offered premium credit cards and vacation options. Some consumers might face long waits when they call companies with complaints, while others receive speedy, responsive service.

The collection of data about health-related issues also concerned the FTC. Brokers had categories for people interested in weight loss or high cholesterol. One tracked whether consumers preferred brand-name drugs or looked for medical information online.

Stuart P. Ingis, general counsel for the Direct Marketing Association, which represents nearly 2,000 companies that collect and distribute consumer data, said the industry helps prevent consumer fraud and improves the effectiveness of online advertising — the main revenue source for free services, such as e-mail and social-networking sites.

He said the FTC’s inability to find documented abuse of personal information suggests that data brokers should continue operating through self-regulation rather than new government intervention. “You’d think if there was a real problem, they’d be able to talk about something other than potential” abuses, Ingis said.

The report included several legislative proposals intended to help Americans learn what data has been gathered about them and to correct errors. Consumers would be able to opt out of data-gathering about themselves.

Ingis said that the FTC’s proposals, such as a requirement for a centralized portal for consumers who want to know what information data brokers collect about them, are unnecessary and cumbersome. “I’m not sure that there’s a problem that requires a law here,” he said.

The Software & Information Industry Association, whose members in some cases collect and share personal data, endorsed the FTC’s call for greater transparency but warned that new legislation would struggle to keep up with the pace of innovation online. “It just gets very challenging because of the dynamic nature of data,” said David LeDuc, senior director of public policy for the group.

But FTC commissioner Julie Brill urged Congress to act, and said Americans should learn more about how their data is being collected and used. “Consumers can’t manage this process by themselves,” she said. “It’s too big. It’s too complex. There are too many moving parts.”

Data-broker firms typically have no direct dealings with the public, relying on third-party sources or trading information with one another. Of the nine companies subpoenaed by the FTC — Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future — seven share information with one another, the FTC report said.

Among the most striking findings in the reports, officials said, was the extent that data brokers connect the online and offline behaviors of consumers. This process, called “onboarding,” allows markets to load offline information — from magazine subscriptions, store loyalty cards or government records — into cookies that digital advertisers use to target consumers for pitches. Cookies, which are a small bit of computerized code stored in a computer’s Web browser, allow advertisers to feature a single product across many Internet services.

The issue of data collection has generated increasing attention in recent years — and especially since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed how intelligence agencies vaccum up information collected by the private sector. The White House issued a report on the collection and use of Big Data on May 1.

Sens. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) proposed legislation in February that largely tracks with the FTC’s goal of greater transparency for the data-broker industry.

Yet privacy advocates see little hope of action on Capitol Hill. “There’s no political pressure on Congress, really, to act. The data-broker lobby is incredibly powerful,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

He noted that political campaigns routinely use information collected by data brokers to tailor their election and fund-raising messages to targeted groups. “They’re not going to vote against their political self-interest,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement: “This report’s intentions are good, but waiting for Congress to pass new regulations isn’t going to help protect Americans’ privacy rights anytime soon. The FTC needs to start using its existing authority to root out bad practices now.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...d19_story.html





PirateBox FAQ

What is the PirateBox?
PirateBox is an anonymous offline mobile file-sharing and communications system built with free software and inexpensive off-the-shelf hardware. You can use it to transform any space into a free and open offline communications and file sharing network.

How does it work?
PirateBox creates offline wireless networks designed for anonymous file sharing, chat, media streaming, and community building. When users join the PirateBox wireless network and open a web browser, they are automatically redirected to the PirateBox welcome page. Users can anonymously chat, post images or comments on the bulletin board, watch or listen to streaming media, or upload and download files inside their web browser.

Is it safe?
PirateBox is designed to be private and secure. No logins are required and no user data is logged. Users remain anonymous – the system is purposely not connected to the Internet in order to subvert tracking and preserve user privacy.

Can I make my own PirateBox?
Absolutely! PirateBox is is free (as in freedom) because it is registered under the GNU GPLv3. This license grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works according to the principles of copyleft. PirateBox can be built for as little as US$35. Our current target hardware is the TP-Link Tl-MR3020 and TP-Link TL-MR3040. For detailed instructions, visit the PirateBox OpenWrt DIY page.

Where can I read more about the PirateBox?
Visit the PirateBox Press page for a listing of and links to more than 175 stories about PirateBox.

Where can I find more photos of the PirateBox?
Check out the PirateBox Gallery.

Where can I find more videos of the PirateBox?
Check out these PirateBox Videos.

Why did you build the PirateBox?
PirateBox solves a technical/social problem by providing people in the same physical space with an easy way to anonymously communicate and exchange files. This obviously has larger cultural and political implications and thus the PirateBox also serves as an artistic provocation. See this ars technica article and this New Scientist article for more info.

Why is it called the PirateBox?
PirateBox is inspired by the free culture and pirate radio movements. The name is a playful remixing of the title of the world’s most resilient BitTorrent site, The Pirate Bay.

Does the PirateBox promote stealing?
No. The PirateBox is designed to facilitate communication and sharing between friends and local community members.

What are some ways the PirateBox has been used?
Along with file sharing and community building, the PirateBox has been used by musicians to distribute their music at festivals and gigs, by teachers to distribute and collect digital materials from students, by emergency response workers and volunteers to distribute local first aid information and community updates, by librarians and writers to collect, store, and distribute electronic texts, by conference organizers to distribute conference materials and to provide local wireless commenting during presentations, and by CryptoParty workshop leaders to securely share cryptographic keys.

Does the PirateBox Do Wireless Mesh Networking?
The holy grail of offline networking is wireless mesh and we've been experimenting with it for the PirateBox. We have successfully deployed and connected small arrays of PirateBoxes using the B.A.T.M.A.N. protocol and synchronizing them with Forban. This is really just an experimental feature at this point. However, we know there is keen PirateBox community interest in mesh networking and it is definitely something we're planning to continue developing.

Who helps build the PirateBox?
PirateBox was created by David Darts and the lead developer is Matthias Strubel. Aaron Williamson from the Software Freedom Law Center provided advice on the project and Christiane Ruetten originally ported PirateBox to OpenWrt. The project is actively supported by developers and testers all over the world.

Do you know of any other projects similar to PirateBox?
Yes, check out Aram Bartholl's fantastic Dead Drops. There are also several forks of the project, including Jason Griffey’s LibraryBox, the Bibliobox, the LibroBox and the CoWBox (CoWorking Box).

Where can I discuss the PirateBox?
Visit the PirateBox Forum to discuss the PirateBox, share your builds, and receive support.
http://piratebox.de/faq?DokuWiki=1dc...a16745a83336a4





Half-Million Users on Hungarian P2P File Sharing Site
Christian Keszthelyi

Although file sharing beyond certain limits can be illegal, Hungary-based peer-to-peer (p2p) website nCore has more than 580,000 users and numbers are on the increase.

The site includes the latest movies, albums, TV series, games and books. Since the system is based on a p2p basis, and the actual files are not stored on the site but on the individual computers of the half million users, the police are unable to take action.

The site has even started a public page on a social network sites and collected 26,000 followers in just few days. Site founders and main administrators, claoking themselves with anonymity, claim they opened the public group to let the users know about recent changes.

The admins say they have insisted on staying anonymous for the sake of retaining their privacy and not because they are afraid of legal action. They rejected speculation that they want to annoy the authorities by going public, or would like to gain greater popularity in order to profit from selling online advertisements.
http://www.bbj.hu/business/half-mill...ing-site_80234

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

May 24th, May 17th, May 10th, May 3rd

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)