The Digital Britain Report aims to be a guidepath for how Britain can sustain its position as a leading digital economy and society.
Check out the BBC news for details:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8103351.stm
The Digital Britain Report could be downloaded from the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_09digitalbritain.pdf
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
FaceBook information be grounds for school suspension?
This is the news article from USA.
The internet often seems like a world of its own, separated from the realities and rules of everyday life. Yet the internet world and reality are beginning to increasingly collide. School districts across the country have begun to punish students for the material that they publish online. Schools are correct for punishing students for online activities like character defamation of teachers and posting pictures of themselves engaging in illegal activities. Schools must teach students the hard way that wrong actions should be punished no matter where they occur.
Boundary
In 2007, a girl was suspended and placed into a lower level class after creating a Facebook group that declared that her teacher was "the worst person ever." The school viewed the group as a personal attack against the teacher and labeled it as cyber-bullying despite the lack of threats or profanity used on the group’s page. The student sued the school claiming that she was expressing her freedom of speech and that she created the group off school property and not during school hours.
This raises the issue, what is the extent of a school system’s control over student free speech? Currently, there are no Supreme Court cases declaring the boundaries of schools’ control over free speech on the internet, which historically speaking is a relatively new form of communication and expression.
A school’s ability to limit their students’ freedom of speech should be very restricted. Students have a right to express their feelings about the school, and the school should not interfere or punish the students for such expression. It is not possible for a school to have a vast and omnipotent control of what students post on the internet about themselves or others, and rightly so.
The boundaries of school control should be limited to and only to that of the school. There is no reason for schools to attempt to regulate what is clearly out of their scope of practice unless material posted online poses a direct threat to students or occurs on school property.
A school does not have jurisdiction about what goes on outside of school. Schools are not agents of the law. If a teacher does not like what someone posts online, they should go through legal channels to easily solve an often all too over complicated problem. Allow for the legal system to do what it does best which at the same time removes the biased and unbalanced enforcement of school policies and the issue of where the school’s boundaries of enforcement lie.
Article from http://rmtide.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=481&Itemid=1
The internet often seems like a world of its own, separated from the realities and rules of everyday life. Yet the internet world and reality are beginning to increasingly collide. School districts across the country have begun to punish students for the material that they publish online. Schools are correct for punishing students for online activities like character defamation of teachers and posting pictures of themselves engaging in illegal activities. Schools must teach students the hard way that wrong actions should be punished no matter where they occur.
Boundary
In 2007, a girl was suspended and placed into a lower level class after creating a Facebook group that declared that her teacher was "the worst person ever." The school viewed the group as a personal attack against the teacher and labeled it as cyber-bullying despite the lack of threats or profanity used on the group’s page. The student sued the school claiming that she was expressing her freedom of speech and that she created the group off school property and not during school hours.
This raises the issue, what is the extent of a school system’s control over student free speech? Currently, there are no Supreme Court cases declaring the boundaries of schools’ control over free speech on the internet, which historically speaking is a relatively new form of communication and expression.
A school’s ability to limit their students’ freedom of speech should be very restricted. Students have a right to express their feelings about the school, and the school should not interfere or punish the students for such expression. It is not possible for a school to have a vast and omnipotent control of what students post on the internet about themselves or others, and rightly so.
The boundaries of school control should be limited to and only to that of the school. There is no reason for schools to attempt to regulate what is clearly out of their scope of practice unless material posted online poses a direct threat to students or occurs on school property.
A school does not have jurisdiction about what goes on outside of school. Schools are not agents of the law. If a teacher does not like what someone posts online, they should go through legal channels to easily solve an often all too over complicated problem. Allow for the legal system to do what it does best which at the same time removes the biased and unbalanced enforcement of school policies and the issue of where the school’s boundaries of enforcement lie.
Article from http://rmtide.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=481&Itemid=1
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Malaysia Call For Law To Censor Pornograhic Websites
8 May-The Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation called on the government to draft a law to censor pornographic websites. Its vice-chairman, Tan Sri Lee lam Thye said the law was not to prevent Internet technology from entering the country, but more on preventing the inflow of pornographic materials from becoming more rampant. (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=413209)
It would be interesting to see how the Malaysia government impose law to tackle the issue of pornographic as to prevent the inflow of pornographic materials from world wide web requires extreme measures. Would they put a burden on the ISP or the private individuals?
If the main concern is on the teenagers, shouldn't the parents/guardians be responsible for the parental control?
I would suggest that there are 2 main issues that need to be prioritised:
i) public access to adult sites such as cyber cafe;
ii) child pornographic
I have seen people gaining access to cyber cafe and this should be curbed. On the other hand, child pornographic should never been allowed. The UK has done a great job in tackling child pornographic whereby many were arrested and charged for distributing and browsing the child pornographic and it would be great if the Malaysia government could do the same.
It would be interesting to see how the Malaysia government impose law to tackle the issue of pornographic as to prevent the inflow of pornographic materials from world wide web requires extreme measures. Would they put a burden on the ISP or the private individuals?
If the main concern is on the teenagers, shouldn't the parents/guardians be responsible for the parental control?
I would suggest that there are 2 main issues that need to be prioritised:
i) public access to adult sites such as cyber cafe;
ii) child pornographic
I have seen people gaining access to cyber cafe and this should be curbed. On the other hand, child pornographic should never been allowed. The UK has done a great job in tackling child pornographic whereby many were arrested and charged for distributing and browsing the child pornographic and it would be great if the Malaysia government could do the same.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Domain Name Registration Scams/Hoax email to solicit business from .com owners
Have you received "FINAL NOTICE" email from "Domain Solutions Central"? Here's yet another version of the same sleazy attempt to con domain name owners by using the information available from the public domain name registrars. If you own a website, and particular, a domain name, you will probably soon receive an email that looks like the one below. We've substituted generic phrases for the names you'll see, but other than that, this is what you will see.
Here's how their scam works: The owner of a domain name receives an email like the one below, from Domain Solutions Central
The subject of the email "This is your final notice of domain listing" clearly implies that your domain registration has expired and been purchased by someone else and you are about to lose your domain name.
Here is what the scam email looks like:
Domain Solutions Central130 Church Street Suite 280New York, NY 10007
Web: www.domainsolutionscentral.com
Email: support@domainsolutionscentral.com
Toll Free: 1-800-270-5944
Phone: 1-212-671-1191
_______________________________FINAL NOTICE ______________________
ATT:
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT
<>
<>
Notice Tracking Number: 7180003
Please be advised that the above noted domain name has now become available for registration.
Consequently the possibility of a conflicting domain registration may occur.
________________________________________
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES LEGAL CODE ________________________________________
TITLE 15, Sec 1125. False descriptions, and dilution of Trademarks and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Be advised: Protecting a domain name registrant or trademark owner from confusing and/or conflicting domain name registrations is not the responsibility of the domain and trademark registration processes. In the event of a registration of the above noted domain by a third party, the UDRP may be applied under the following conditions.
Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. - For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the domain name registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the domain name has been registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement or your web site or location or of a product or service of a web site or location.
In addition to remedies provided for by the URDP, section 4a (1)(2)(3) & b (1)(2)(3)(4) existing registrants, trademark and service mark owners are provided by DUC on domain names that are identical with new ccTLD, TLD extentions, or domain names that are confusingly similar to their own.
You are required to advise the Domain Solutions Central of your intent to license this name on or before the expiration of this notice.
Note: you may disregard this notice. If you disregard this notice or fail to reply:
(a) The licensing rights of this domain name may be assigned to any other applicant,
(b) DUC and or any ICANN accredited registrar will not be liable for loss of domain name license, identical or confusingly similar use of your company's domain name; or interruption of business activity or business losses.
________________________________________
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
________________________________________
If you fail to reply to DSC this domain may be registered by any third party without further notice. You must advise us of your intent to (a) secure this domain name or (b) to leave this domain name for Public Registration.
________________________________________
Call 1-800-270-5944
Notice Tracking Number: 7180003
________________________________________
The information in this letter contains confidential and/or legally privileged information from the notification processing department of the DSC. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. Email
Here's how their scam works: The owner of a domain name receives an email like the one below, from Domain Solutions Central
The subject of the email "This is your final notice of domain listing" clearly implies that your domain registration has expired and been purchased by someone else and you are about to lose your domain name.
Here is what the scam email looks like:
Domain Solutions Central130 Church Street Suite 280New York, NY 10007
Web: www.domainsolutionscentral.com
Email: support@domainsolutionscentral.com
Toll Free: 1-800-270-5944
Phone: 1-212-671-1191
_______________________________FINAL NOTICE ______________________
ATT:
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT
<>
<>
Notice Tracking Number: 7180003
Please be advised that the above noted domain name has now become available for registration.
Consequently the possibility of a conflicting domain registration may occur.
________________________________________
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES LEGAL CODE ________________________________________
TITLE 15, Sec 1125. False descriptions, and dilution of Trademarks and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Be advised: Protecting a domain name registrant or trademark owner from confusing and/or conflicting domain name registrations is not the responsibility of the domain and trademark registration processes. In the event of a registration of the above noted domain by a third party, the UDRP may be applied under the following conditions.
Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith. - For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the domain name registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the domain name has been registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement or your web site or location or of a product or service of a web site or location.
In addition to remedies provided for by the URDP, section 4a (1)(2)(3) & b (1)(2)(3)(4) existing registrants, trademark and service mark owners are provided by DUC on domain names that are identical with new ccTLD, TLD extentions, or domain names that are confusingly similar to their own.
You are required to advise the Domain Solutions Central of your intent to license this name on or before the expiration of this notice.
Note: you may disregard this notice. If you disregard this notice or fail to reply:
(a) The licensing rights of this domain name may be assigned to any other applicant,
(b) DUC and or any ICANN accredited registrar will not be liable for loss of domain name license, identical or confusingly similar use of your company's domain name; or interruption of business activity or business losses.
________________________________________
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
________________________________________
If you fail to reply to DSC this domain may be registered by any third party without further notice. You must advise us of your intent to (a) secure this domain name or (b) to leave this domain name for Public Registration.
________________________________________
Call 1-800-270-5944
Notice Tracking Number: 7180003
________________________________________
The information in this letter contains confidential and/or legally privileged information from the notification processing department of the DSC. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. Email
Friday, June 5, 2009
Minister warns illegal filesharers they face 'technical measures'
Three strikes and you're off the internet is too draconian, Andy Burnham tells music industry
The Guardian, Friday 5 June 2009 00.01 BST
Article history
The government will acquire powers to apply "technical measures" to crack down on persistent illegal filesharers on the internet, the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said today.
The government's response to problem filesharing of music and video is due to be unveiled in the Digital Britain report later this month.
Today Burnham said any solution was likely to involve a requirement that internet service providers (ISPs) notify users caught stealing digital content.
Speaking at a Music Week conference about monetising digital music, Burnham said that while a great deal could be done with voluntary measures, the government was willing to back these up with force. He said: "There will be many who don't think a simple notification would be effective and we will reserve the powers to apply technical measures for persistent offenders. Applying these measures will be a serious business, and not one we take lightly, but it is right that they are in place."
Burnham would not give details about specific measures before publication of the Digital Britain report or discuss what legal action could be taken against filesharers, but dismissed the previously floated idea of "three strikes and you're out" – in which users would have their connection cut if they continued downloading illegally – as draconian.
He said any new legislation would be overseen by Ofcom, a proposal which dismayed some music industry figures who doubt the regulator's ability to make an impact.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the British Phonographic Industry, welcomed the promise of legislation, but said it must go further than forcing ISPs to send educational letters and had to be backed up by measures to steer persistent illegal filesharers towards legitimate online services.
"That type of graduated response solution needs to be put in place now, not in a few years' time. The long-term harm that will be done to the UK's outstanding creative industries – and the new jobs they create – will be enormous if Government puts off hard decisions now," he said. "This is no time to fiddle while Rome burns."
Feargal Sharkey, the chief executive of UK Music, said: "The government threw down the gauntlet to the music industry on this 12 months ago. We have done everything in our power to tackle the problem head-on so we can make sure we protect artists and keep producing amazing music. Now we are incredibly keen to see the government in the Digital Britain report reciprocate their side of the bargain."
Charles Caldas, the chief executive officer of Merlin, a licensing body for the independent music sector, was concerned that legislation could pose more problems than it solved. "I haven't met an indie label that wants to see its customers prosecuted," he said. "Yes, we need to protect artists but first there has to be a compelling commercial offer for users." A system of educating users and encouraging them to move towards an efficient legal model would be more effective, he said.
Burnham urged the music industry not to cling to "the old order", comparing the current turmoil to the "severe wreckage" in Westminster. "There is, at the moment, a head-on crash between the old and the new worlds," he said. "That change will bring a world where people are more empowered and where abuses of power are not tolerated."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
P2P rights vs Copyright- compromise between individual privacy and property rights
The Pirate Bay trial
Recently, I came across the article about the Pirate Bay trial which led me to further reading through wikipedia. The Defendants, who are the pioneers of the Pirate Bay, are all found criminally and civilly liable for infringement of copyrights in Sweden. This signifies the change of the view in judiciary towards the peer-to-peer file sharing tools in the cyberspace.
What is peer-to-peer? It simply derives from the concept of real space regarding sharing of information. Example: A owns a music CD, then A borrows his music CD to B to share the music—is it wrong to do so? Strictly, yes. It would be an infringement of copyright to do so. However, in real world, the activities of sharing is difficult and impractical to be traced. It is just not a social norm to sue and prosecute a civilian for such infringement cause the potential negative effects would be destructive to the recording companies, hence, not economically viable. Now, if peer to peer sharing is allowed in real world, why is it not allowed in cyberspace? If I can invite friends to my house to share the movie I bought, why am I not allow to do so in the cyberspace? Should the consumer/internet users be blamed for copyright infringement? Or instead, the recording companies should have invested their profits on prevention of duplicating their products?
Pirate Bay provides a platform for the internet users to share their files. They do not initiate the transfer of copyrighted materials. In 2003, the U.S. court has held that the service providers bore no legal liability for copyright infringement occurring on those networks (http://news.cnet.com/Landmark-P2P-ruling-back-in-court/2100-1027_3-5152269.html). If the service provider could be punished for transfer of materials in the internet, this would essentially means that all the activities of the internet users would be closely watched and scrunitised. We do not need our daily activities to be under close surveillance in real world and so do our activities in cyberspace. We are progressing to a better life with freedom of individuals and this decision would change the future development of the cyberspace to the reverse.
picture from Wikipedia showing the crowds in front of the Court
The Pirate Bay trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recently, I came across the article about the Pirate Bay trial which led me to further reading through wikipedia. The Defendants, who are the pioneers of the Pirate Bay, are all found criminally and civilly liable for infringement of copyrights in Sweden. This signifies the change of the view in judiciary towards the peer-to-peer file sharing tools in the cyberspace.
What is peer-to-peer? It simply derives from the concept of real space regarding sharing of information. Example: A owns a music CD, then A borrows his music CD to B to share the music—is it wrong to do so? Strictly, yes. It would be an infringement of copyright to do so. However, in real world, the activities of sharing is difficult and impractical to be traced. It is just not a social norm to sue and prosecute a civilian for such infringement cause the potential negative effects would be destructive to the recording companies, hence, not economically viable. Now, if peer to peer sharing is allowed in real world, why is it not allowed in cyberspace? If I can invite friends to my house to share the movie I bought, why am I not allow to do so in the cyberspace? Should the consumer/internet users be blamed for copyright infringement? Or instead, the recording companies should have invested their profits on prevention of duplicating their products?
Pirate Bay provides a platform for the internet users to share their files. They do not initiate the transfer of copyrighted materials. In 2003, the U.S. court has held that the service providers bore no legal liability for copyright infringement occurring on those networks (http://news.cnet.com/Landmark-P2P-ruling-back-in-court/2100-1027_3-5152269.html). If the service provider could be punished for transfer of materials in the internet, this would essentially means that all the activities of the internet users would be closely watched and scrunitised. We do not need our daily activities to be under close surveillance in real world and so do our activities in cyberspace. We are progressing to a better life with freedom of individuals and this decision would change the future development of the cyberspace to the reverse.
picture from Wikipedia showing the crowds in front of the Court
The Pirate Bay trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
