Anorexia site shut down

Websites promoting anorexia shut down in Spain: Microsoft

AFP - Tuesday, November 20 08:24 pm

In Madrid, a few websites were shutdown that promoted anorexia. This is the first time that a Spain company that houses websites has voluntarily shut down a website that promoted an eating disorder. Usually when a website is shutdown in Spain, there is a court order to do so.

There are a couple of issues related to this case. First off, was it right for the website host to shut down the websites? What is more important, free speech or the safety of the general public? If this were in the US, would the website be shut down, most likely not because of the weighting that free speech has on the US.

Honestly, I think what the Spanish government and what this company is doing is great. Free speech is important but there should always be a limit to it. If something causes great harm to the general public than it should not be permitted. It seems to me that this company is just enforcing what should be public policy.

Internet Gambling

Internet gambling dispute could cost U.S. billions

Associated Press

Article Launched: 11/20/2007 01:01:16 AM PST

According to this article, Antigua, the EU, and others are seeking sanctions of up to $100 billion dollars because of the internet gambling laws. Not allowing these countries to provide internet gambling to US citizens apparently violates the WTO agreement. The US government argues that WTO members should not believe that the US would enter into such an agreement knowing that it goes against the US' own laws. Some WTO memebers believe that the US is just trying to change the rules because they are losing the game. Antigua has suggested that if they do not get their settlement then they will become a safge harbor for pirated intellectual property. This would have an even more negative effect on the US economy than paying the sanction.

This WTO violation is news to me. I never new that allowing internet gambling was part of the WTO agreements. Why would the US sign such an agreement without stirring up some commotion and trying to remove this part of the agreement. It seems as though some one wasn't paying attention during that part of the meeting. Oh well, maybe the US will give in and legalize internet gambling.

Internet forum in Brazil grapples with responses to cybercrime

Associated Press

Article Launched: 11/14/2007 02:27:47 PM PST

A UN sponsored conference regarding cyber crime was held recently in Brazil. People from around the world gather talk about the many issues of cyber crime that affecting the globe. Some of the major topics that were discussed included child pornography, censorship of extremists, and combating terrorism.

It seemed as though everyone was on the same page for child pornography. It simply needs to be stopped. However, it is hard to stop because people are able to hide their identities on the web.

The UK wants to work with IT groups to silent extremists that are on the web. This however leads to the problem of censorship, and many people are against it.

Other members of the conference thought that it was more important to combat terrorism, especially in the form of cyber attacks. Because of our reliance on technology, it is possible for terrorist groups to gain access banks and even infrastructures like the train or water system where a ton of damage may be done. Countries need to further secure these systems to avoid these issues.

It is great that this conference took place, even though views differed. The web effects everybody all over the world and it is important for foreign powers to collaborate on issues related to the web.

Update on Yahoo Ordeal

Yahoo Settles With Chinese Families

Firm Gave Officials Dissidents' E-Mails

By Catherine Rampell

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 14, 2007; Page D04

This article clarifies a lot of issues regarding the Yahoo apology from last weeks blog entry. There were actually two Chinese descendants that were involved in this ordeal. They were both human rights activists and yahoo released information to the Chinese government about the email accounts of the two activists. The World Organization for Human Rights represented the families of these individuals in a suit against Yahoo. It seems as though the basis of the suit was for oppressing human rights activists. Yahoo admitted their wrong doings and settled the claim with the families.

From this case, and other similar ones, some lawmakers are proposing a new act. It would be called the Global Online Freedom Act, and one of its objectives would be to prohibit US companies from giving information about their customers to foreign governments. I believe that this act would be very beneficial in a number of ways including the limitation of suppressing voices and opinions. On the other hand though, this bill may limit the ability of US companies to operate in foreign countries because of the regulations that some foreign countries enforce regarding disclosure. Overall though, if this bill passes, I believe the benefits will outweigh any negative consequences.

Yahoo executive apologizes to US lawmakers over Chinese journalist incident

Yahoo executive apologizes to US lawmakers over Chinese journalist incident

Dow Jones Newswires.
Corey Boles
Nov. 2, 2007

So apparently Yahoo released some information to the Chinese government about a Chinese journalist. The information led to the imprisonment of the journalist for 10 years for divulging state secrets. This article does not go into specifics but it seems as though the information must have somehow been posted or sent through one of Yahoo's services. It also seems as though Yahoo new why the Chinese government was requesting the info and Yahoo still gave it to them. Needless to say, the US government was not happy with Yahoo.

This issue of cyber law is quite confusing and raises some serious questions. First of all, did Yahoo have the right to release the information at all or was there some type of privacy agreement that they would have violated for releasing the information? Also, does the Chinese government have the right to request the info (through a subpoena or some other means) if Yahoo partially operates in China and this posting or event in question occurred in China? If not, how was Yahoo pressured into giving up this information. Cyber law within a single country can be hard enough to govern; however, when multiple countries become involved it becomes even harder.

Whois

To break privacy deadlock, some seek to scrap Whois databases on domain name registrations

Associated Press

Article Launched: 10/29/2007 01:51:22 PM PDT

The Whois database is a free database that relays the information of the creater/owner of a domain name for a website. Many people use this database especially those that combat fraud and theft. Without this database, people that wanted to find out who the owner of a website is would most likely have to get a subpoena which would be costly and time consuming.

This database is getting a lot of speculation from privacy advocate groups. They believe that domain name owners should not have to disclose their information to the general public. This does make sense, however I don't believe it is necessary to eliminate this database in order to protect people that want to keep their information private. It is possible to register domain names through third parties who give you the option to keep your info private, for a price. I think this is a fine solution for the privacy problem.

File sharing Hindered by Comcast

Some file-sharing being hindered by Comcast
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/20/2007 01:36:21 AM PDT

So apparently Comcast is using a new technology that interferes with some high speed internet users from sharing files. This article brings up that Comcast, goes against "net neutrality", the equal treatment of internet traffic, which isn't enforced by the law, however some regulations regulations do support net neutrality.

So here's the big question: Is what Comcast is doing right or wrong? Well, it seems as though Comcast may have the right to do this. I beleive that in their terms of use, they have created a stipulation that allows them to monitor and control te level of traffic a customer uses. However, is the reason that they are doing this right?

It seems as though Comcast is simply doing this to save bandwidth. If this is the case then they should be treating all users of the service equally, and start kicking off obsessive World of Warcraft players too. Of course, Comcast could always argue that they are targeting filesharers, who mostly violate c9opyright laws. It doesn't seem as though Comcast is taking this arguement though.

Conduit for Cybercrime

Shadowy Russian Firm Seen as Conduit for Cybercrime

By Brian Krebs

washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A15

This article talks about a Russian based internet service provider called Russian Business Network that provides website hosting for to many cyber-criminals including phishers and child pornography posters. They provide these services at a much higher charge than normal service providers but they have a "bulletproof" system that makes it nearly impossible for an outsider to shut down these websites. The Russian government has not made any attempts to go after this business or shut down the sites. This business brings up a few interesting points regarding cyberlaw.

First off, since this business is located in Russia, other governments can not go after them. This is sort of a weird concept considering that it is affecting people all over the world. This raises a great question of whether or not we need an international agreement to set up an independent committee/ international cyber court to regulate the internet.

Another issue that this raises is whether or not the company is even performing an illegal act. They are simply providing a web hosting service, they are not the ones are doing the phishing and illegal acts. Certainly, if this company was in the US it would either be shut down or it would be forced to shut down the illegal sites, even though the business is most likely clean from violating the law.

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

By JOSHUA FREED

The Associated Press
Friday, October 5, 2007;

Wow, so this is a good one. A thirty year old woman was sued by six large record companies for a total of $220,000. They claimed that she had over 1000 songs that she downloaded through Kaaza and allowed others to upload. The real kick in the but though, the record companies were willing to settle out of court for a few grand. This woman however insisted that she did not download the songs or have a Kaaza account. This of course is unlikely, especially since they were able to link back to her IP address and find out what computer she was using. Furthermore, one of the record companies sent her a message saying that she was violating copyright law. Shortly after she replaced her hard drive, probably hoping that they would no longer be able to link back to her. Apparently it didn't work. Well, hopefully she learned her lesson and others can take this example into consideration. If you decide to download music illegally and violate copyright laws, be prepared to pay the price, and if you do get caught, don't fight the large record companies. Instead, settle outside of court and avoid a huge catastrophe like this one.

Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group

"Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group"
New York Times
September 27, 2007
by Adam Liptak

Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to make Verizon's network available for a text messaging program. The program is intended to be used to reach supporters of the organization through text messaging. Verizon backs up their decision saying that they don't want to accept these programs that promote issues that may be controversial in issue.

When I first saw the headline for this article the first thing that came to my mind was the First Amendment. I soon came to realize that this was not really a legal issue for this problem at all. Verizon Wireless is a private company and they have the right to reject people from using their services. In a sense then, Verizon is not suppressing the organization's voice.

The real issue though is if it is ethically right to reject the organization from the use of their services. I believe that this is more of a public policy issue than a legal issue.

Apple Defends iTunes in Berlin

So here's a little international commercial law news. Apparently, a commission that oversees music sales in Europe has called out Apple for charger higher prices for songs on iTunes in certain countries in Europe. Now this article doesn't go into much depth about why Apple was charging prices or even why it is wrong but there are a number of possible reasons. There could simply be a higher demand for digital music in certain countries and Apple may be using this to their advantage. Then again, their costs to sell the music in certain countries may be higher. What ever the reasoning is behind this situation, the overseeing commission is not happy.

Now I am not exactly a pro at European commercial law, but it seems to me that such price structuring should not be considered illegal. I mean even in the US, if apple wanted, they could charge different prices to people in different areas of the country. It can relate to the cost of living and of course supply and demand. So what is the problem in Europe? Is there some sort of trade code that doesn't allow price fluctuations from country to country for online purchases? I highly doubt that considering that the standard of living varies so greatly among the countries in the European Union. I guess I just don't really understand what the legal problem is here.

Facebook costs businesses dear

An article through BNA Highlights describes how businesses are losing tons of money from the loss of productivity due to the over use of social networking sites. An employment law firm based in the UK concluded that over 233 million hours of work are lost per month due to these social networking systems. The firm goes on to say that businesses should block the use of these sites during work hours in order to regain this loss productivity. While blocking access to these sites is perfectly legal for businesses to do, is it really the right thing to do? Can't this problem be solved in another way.

Apparently this firm doesn't see the opportunities that are available to fix this problem, and possibly increase productivity and innovation. If companies were to set up their own social networking sites they could adapt them to their own businesses. Ideas could be shared across the board in a more up to date and fun way. This could make employees come together and create large tight knit teams. This could even create a stronger connection between upper management and the staff.

Social networking sites for businesses may be hard to implement but I am really just trying to make a simple point. When a problem comes about especially from new technology or social interests, you should step back and see what positive things can come out of this problem before it is shut down.

In Your Facebook

It seems pretty obvious that some problems regarding privacy and freedom of speech have come from facebook related issues. Facebook can hurt students in a number of ways, including the loss of potential employers and negative legal actions from the posting of "inappropriate" pictures or remarks. Is this okay though? Is it acceptable for the authorities to hold these things against students. While it is very discomforting that this type of stuff happens, I believe that it is up to the students to ensure that any "inapropriate" items don't fall into the wrong hands by limiting the people that can access your account. While this may not be the best long-term answer for these issues, it is important for students to safeguard themselves. Hopefully, stronger privacy policies will be created for facebook and other similar sites.