It seems that only natural disasters happen suddenly. Man-made ones begin small. The EU is adopting policies that secretly allow the police to hack into personal computers anywhere, at any time, for any reason – all without any judicial oversight, which would be the start of a man-made disaster.

According to the TimesOnline:

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

Make no mistake – this is the equivalent of the police knocking down your door and entering your house at any time.
Continued

Raising concerns about student privacy, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports that legislation renewing the Higher Education Act contains language that may bring video surveillance or biometric testing into the homes of students participating in distance learning.

The paragraph is actually about clamping down on cheating. It says that an institution that offers an online program must prove that an enrolled student is the same person who does the work.

Already, the language is spurring some colleges to try technologies that authenticate online test-takers by reading their fingerprints, watching them via Web cameras, or recording their keystrokes.

Slippery Slope?
How do professors know that students handing in assignments or tests in person are who they say they are? It’s only a small step to require biometric recognition for all students handing in materials. Think how much better our ability to track people with video would be if there were databases containing reference shots of people from college onward.

This issue needs a reality check from the public. Are you comfortable with the requirement to identify students as they do academic work outside the classroom? Would you be willing to contact your Congressional rep to express concern?

Tip of the hat to Brandon Lovested, who pointed this out by email.

The Massachusetts House entertained debate of H-4822, which would force third-party ad networks that track visitor behavior between sites to allow visitors to opt out of receiving customized ads. The Cape Code Times provides details.

Internet giants such as AOL and Google were represented by the Network Advertising Initiative. Attorney Justin Weiss argued that the bill was unnecessary because the FTC has been reviewing this same issue. Further, he raised the jurisdictional issue that it would be impractical to conform all the world’s websites to the laws of individual states.

Continued

Earlier, UsefulArts reported on the PRO-IP legislation passed in the House this past May that seeks to create an Intellectual Property czar as a direct report to the President. Corporate America is pushing for an IP Czar to coordinate among many federal agencies and departments, such as State Department, Justice Department and the Patent & Trademark Office.

Senator Leahy (D-VT) is crafting legislation that will likely include a call for an IP Czar, and Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and George Voinovich (R-OH) have introduced a bill that explicitly calls for a copyright czar. Not to be left out, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is has a bill intended to address counterfeit goods using customs agents. Hatch estimates counterfeit goods cost the U.S. economy 750,000 jobs and $250 billion annually.
Continued

The still-controversial Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (or PRO-IP) Act has passed the House of Representatives by a 410-10 margin.

The proposed legislation would allow the government to seize personal property, such as computers, that are allegedly used in copyright infringement. In addition, it creates a new position within the Executive Office of the President responsible for advising on intellectual property matters – known colorfully as the “IP Czar.” The IP Czar’s duties are currently performed by the U.S. Trade Representative, which makes this position somewhat redundant.

The original bill called for exorbitant fines for infringement, effectively destroying companies and people who may have simply made a mistake and had no malice or intentional desire to infringe.

But here’s the twist: the Bush Administration is against the PRO-IP act. The Department of Justice claims the position is unnecessary, and would infringe upon their traditional role of prosecuting such cases.

Continued

California Representative Howard Berman, whose Congressional district is near Hollywood, claims the PRO-IP Act is on track to be enacted by the end of this year. In addition to his prognosis, Berman notes, “I don’t think there’s a lot of controversy.” No more than the 1765 Stamp Act, surely.

First among the greatest flaws in this legislation is the lack of due process (do you see a theme in this Congress?) by using civil asset forfeiture for alleged infringement.

From cNet:

Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have opposed the Pro-IP Act, saying it makes little sense to seize a family computer allegedly used to download music on a peer-to-peer network and that the legislation amounts to protecting the entertainment industry’s business model at the expense of technology.

Continued

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (R) introduced a bill (S. 2661) on February 25, 2008, known as the “Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008” (APCPA). The proposed legislation seeks to fight trademark infringement and phishing schemes. However, some believe the proposal goes too far.

Complaints include: 

• Creating unnecessary bureaucracy
• Presuming guilt and therefore denying the fundamental right to due process
• Not requiring the complainant to provide proof
• Outlawing anonymous domain registration
• Criminalizing what was once handled in civil proceedings

Continued

The ill-conceived and draconian PRO-IP Act got some of its feathers clipped by the elimination of a requirement known as Section 104 of the proposed bill to treat compilations of music as a separate violations. Had this been allowed to stand, the fines would have been multiplied many times, because they’d be determined based upon the sum of the violations and not by treating the incident as the violation itself.

For example, if someone sold a compilation of copyrighted tracks from multiple sources for which they did not have the rights, the fines would sum over the number of tracks at $150,000 each.  A ten-track CD would require a fine of $1.5 million. If it was a publication that got hold of a host of materials, from text to pictures, the fines could be astronomical. As it stands now, violations will be determined on a per-incident basis, rather than a sum of individual violations.

Continued

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sent a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter regarding a portion of the Draft Judiciary Committee Report of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which has the potential to kill EFF’s Patent Busting Project.

The draft inserts language which would prohibit third parties from requesting ex-parte reexamination of issued patents. This would effectively end the EFF’s four-year effort to have software patents reconsidered if they can be shown to be based on prior art.

Continued

The stick is back, and so is using the federal government as hired muscle.

Media lobbyists are trying to get Congress to pass the PRO IP Act of 2007 (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property), which creates the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, or “WHIPER.”

This new agency will police U.S. intellectual property laws around the world. Not content with deploying military troops to other countries, apparently the feds now want to send in lawyers.
Continued