Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Cyberbullying Legislation Announced

Cyberbullying legislation to be announced Wednesday

 | Nov 19th 2013 8:30 PM

In Nova Scotia, the family of Rehtaeh Parsons said she was mocked mercilessly after photos of her being allegedly sexually assaulted made the rounds of her peers. The 17-year-old committed suicide this spring.
Photo by: Facebook

The federal government is poised to announce new legislation Wednesday that will make it a crime to distribute intimate images without the consent of the person in those pictures.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney are set to announce the details Wednesday afternoon.

The problem of cyberbullying and the misuse of photos has attracted much attention across the country in the past year.

In Nova Scotia, the family of Rehtaeh Parsons said she was mocked mercilessly after photos of her being allegedly sexually assaulted made the rounds of her peers.

The 17-year-old committed suicide this spring. Police did not initially lay any charges in the case, but in August did charge two teens with creating and distributing child pornography.

In British Columbia, the high profile case of Amanda Todd has been in the headlines over the last year.

The Port Coquitlam, B.C., teen took her own life in October 2012.

She’d been tormented online for years after an unknown person had convinced her to expose herself on a webcam. That person blackmailed her, spreading the photos online.

Provinces have brought in a patchwork of legislation to combat cyberbullying.

But earlier this fall, MacKay promised the federal government would also bring in changes to the Criminal Code.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper signalled in the spring that the government would create a cyberbullying law.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Law / Cybercrime

Law/Cybercrime

wiredsafety.org

Cybercrime

Cybercrimes are really a misnomer. Every cybercrime has some physical environment. Criminal intrustions are launched from one or locations(initially, at least), money is stolen from an account that has a physical location, people are targeted and they reside and work somewhere in real life. All cybercrimes either start in the digital world (through an email telling you that you won $50 million in the Nigerian lottery), offline (with someone trying to sell you a stolen vehicle on an online ad site) or start, operate and end in cyberspace (conning you into sharing your banking information, login and passwords and stealing your IS and money).

By stepping back a bit you can spot the real life connections and won't have to look for new and sony cyberlaws. Most real life laws apply to cybercrimes and abuse. Just start by looking to the offline piece. The real issue isn't finding a law that applies. It's figuring out where law enforcement have jurisdiction and authority and how they can find out who is behind those crimes. Investigation is a serious challenge for police trying to patrol local neighbors. That's where WiredSafety's role as a cyber-neighborhood watch comes in. The more groups like ours can educate volunteers and the public to spot cybercrimes, scams and creeps and report them, the faster we will succeed.

Wired Cops

Law enforcement agencies and officers are facing more challenges than ever before. They are working with reduced budgets and expected to do more. In addition to street crimes and prevention programs, we now expect them to address bullying, cyberbullying, Facebook account takeovers and hacking. They have to figure out how to handle preteens who take topless pictures and text them to senior boys. Every day new technologies and devices bring new risks and challenges to the professionals charged with protecting communities. These are the new police responsibilities. When offline cops meet online crimes, we call them "cyberlawenforcement" officers. And, as part of its primary mission, WiredSafety is committed to making their jobs easier and being here to help when they need us.

Although many cybersafety groups look alike when you see us delivering quick sound bytes on TV or read our short quotes in magazines and newspapers, we are very different when you look more closely. Some are dedicated to providing curriculum for schools; others do industry summits or work on only one issue. WiredSafety does it all and more. We are dedicated to helping users of all ages avoid becoming victims of cybercrimes or abuse and empowering them to use the digital technologies in safer and more responsible ways. We work closely with leading industry members, government policymakers and law enforcement. WiredSafety provides training and briefings for members of law enforcement and helps them when new technologies are released. And our WiredCops division (limited to active and retired law enforcement officers) is being revamped to deliver more of what you need using easier to access technologies.

Need resources for school presentations? Hoping to learn more about cyberlaws and sexting, cyberbullying and cyberstalking? Not sure how to interpret a case of cyberharassment, or prepare a first responder checklist? Challenged by Facebook and need assistance with an investigation? Need to reach a network in an emergency after-hours? WiredSafety and our resources and assistance team for WiredCops can help. Be prepared to prove that you are an active member of law enforcement authorized to conduct the inquiry. Our law enforcement liaisons will respond as soon as we can. Interested in volunteering with us? We welcome your help!

Criminal Justice Professionals and Counsel

As judges and magistrates grapple with cyberabuse and cybercrimes, they sometimes reach out for our thoughts. Parry Aftab, WiredSafety's Executive Director, was one of the founders of cyberlaw in 1994 and often advises policymakers, and criminal justice professionals in the latest trends and what court rulings can be enforced by the use of digital technologies. The new take on "restorative justice" developed by Parry called "Clean Up the Mess You Made" can be very effective when considering alternative justice approaches. Probation and parole options can help ensure that users online are safer from further harassment and attacks. Reach out to Parry Aftab directly, using our contact Parry link. Our team of Legal Eagles keeps our legal advisories current to help you know what you need to know to do your job better and deliver on the promise of justice.

Law, Cybercrime and Cyberlaw

There ought'a be a law! And while many Internet users think there are no laws that cover online activity, they are wrong. There are laws - lots of them! And you can end up in jail for breaking them just as easily as for breaking the more traditional laws, so it's good to know what they are. Most laws that apply in the real world (offline), also apply online. The trick is knowing which ones apply to you based on where you are, where the criminal or harasser is and what service you are using. It may also depend on where your service provider's servers are located (which could be anywhere in the world). Just remember that there are at least three parties to all digital communications - you, the recipient/sender and the service provider. For example, Verizon Wireless has a copy of all text messages you send through their network. And if you send a text from an AT&T Wireless account to a Verizon Wireless subscriber, both have a copy.

And, with each different player comes a different possible set of laws.

Laws cover the 4Cs - Contact, Content, Commercialism and Conduct. They may prevent a website from dealing directly with preteens without parental permission. They prohibit the use of copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder (with a few exceptions). Depending on where the seller resides and where the buyer does, consumer protection laws may govern purchases, sales and services online. Intrusions, ID theft, destruction of real or virtual property, threats of serious bodily harm or death, cyberstalking and cyberharassment, fraud, scams are all crimes in most jurisdictions, just as they are offline.

The problem isn't whether or not a law applies, it's whether or not local law enforcement agencies understand how they apply and how to conduct a cyber-investigation. It's knowing where to report it and how to obtain justice. It's finding out who is behind an online persona or account. But, even with all these challenges, the more you understand the laws that protect you and can punish criminals online, the safer you will be.


Friday, July 26, 2013

Cyberbullying, Stalking and Harassment

Cyberbullying / Stalking & Harassment

wiredsafety.org

Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment

In the early days of cyberabuse, when WiredSafety's volunteers first offered help to victims of cyberstalking and cyber-harassment in 1995, cyberstalking and cyberharassment were defined differently. Now cyberstalking and cyberharassment are lumped together along with any way adults use digital technology to torment, harass, intentionally annoy or set their victims up for attacks by unwitting third parties (like hate groups and violent individuals). While this short article summarizes cyberharassment, WiredSafety has more resources and more experience than any other online group on the issue of cyberharassment, cyberstalking and cyberbullying (minor-to-minor). Visit our tutorials, take a class or two online with us, visit our help channel or refer your case to our WiredPatrol Internet Response Team for help form our specially-trained volunteers. The one thing you need to understand about cyberharassment is that you shouldn't have to live with it.

Why Don't We Call Adult Cyberharassment "Cyberbullying"? Parry Aftab reminds us that, with cyberbullying and harassment, what we need to know as adults we already learned in kindergarten. How does that work when the Internet was a twinkle in Vint Cerf's eye when most of us were young? It's not complicated. We all understand name-calling, being excluded or being threatened at some point in our young lives. Now imagine that we could retaliate against anyone who has wronged us, made us angry, jealous or unfairly-judged and not get caught. If we were invisible, what would be do or say to those we dislike or hold in contempt? How would we lash out against others, what would we do that we would never consider doing openly? That is cyberharassment, and when it involves spying, tracking and targeting our online activities, communications and friends, is "cyberstalking." But for all purposes, they are interchangeable terms. Several things motivate cyberharassment. These can range from boredom and the harasser seeking entertainment to personal vendettas, and include:

  1. Revenge
  2. Jealousy
  3. Righteousness
  4. Bigotry
  5. Fear
  6. Anger
  7. To get the attention of the target or others

Sometimes there is no motive at all, and the target was targeted merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It becomes a cybercrime of convenience. There are several things you can do to make you less vulnerable to cyberharassment. We will teach you those in our WiredCampus classes and here in our Resources Section. If you need help, drop by our Getting Help or Looking for Help pages.

Responding to Cyberharassment

"The US federal cyberstalking law is designed to prosecute people for using electronic means to repeatedly harass or threaten someone online," said Parry Aftab, who is also an attorney who specializes in Internet law. "It's right on point."

Cyberstalkers can hide their identities when contacting their victims students. Further, cyberharassment can cross over into physical assaults, Aftab said. Online harassment has led to fights, and in some cases, stabbings, murder and suicide. The Justice Department says cyber stalking presents unique challenges for school officials, law enforcement and victims because:

  • When targets can't identify anonymous stalkers, police may be hesitant to respond.
  • Authorities may minimize reports, assuming online partners will never meet.
  • Cyberstalkers can sometimes learn a target's true identity, location and routines while the target can't pinpoint them.
  • Cyberstalkers can use cyberspace to publicly compound a target's distress.

Aftab and the US Justice Department recommend advising a target of cyberstalking to take the following steps:

  1. Tell the person not to make contact again.
  2. Save all communications for evidence. Do not alter them in any way. Keep electronic copies, not just print-outs.
  3. Save any information that suggests a violent threat and contact law enforcement.
  4. If the harassment continues, contact the harasser's Internet service provider. The ISP is provided with instant messages. Most ISPs prohibit using their service for abusive purposes. An ISP can often intervene by directly contacting the stalker or closing his account.
  5. Keep a record of your contacts with ISP officials or law enforcement officials.
  6. When contacting police, provide specific details such as any tangible evidence you've collected. In cases of a serious threat, police can refer the matter to state or federal authorities for investigation. The stalker may be prosecuted in court.
  7. If the target is afraid to act, find help through other resources, such asWiredSafety.

Working with police

The quick answer is that if there is a hint of physical violence, public postings designed to point people to the victim's rel life location or contact information, or threats of any kind, it's essential that law enforcement is called right away. If the cyberbullying/cyberharassment involves cyberbullying/cyberstalking-by- proxy and hate groups or threats of death or serious bodily harm, you don't have time to waste. You need to turn this over to law enforcement or your school resource officer right away. The more information that can be gathered, the faster they can act. But the threat has to be treated as a credible threat until proven otherwise.

Make sure that no one adds new software or alters the computer in any way during an investigation. You'll need a live copy of the communication or post, not just a print-out. The coding that accompanies all cyber communications is the only way to know if the communication was spoofed or if someone has taken over someone else's account to send or post it. Some sites and service providers also have a school liaison representative who will help handle emergencies spotted by the school. The time to check on these things is long before you need them, not in a crisis.

Working with service providers

The leading social networks, virtual worlds, and gaming sites, as a requirement for their being awarded the WiredTrust Best Practice Seal, must draft and provide a copy of a law enforcement investigators guide to help law enforcement agencies understand how the network/site/online service provider works, what they collect, and how police can reach out to contact them when things go wrong.

Emergencies

Most networks and service providers have a law enforcement liaison to assist law enforcement with investigations and inquiries. Their first inquiry needs to ask that the data be preserved. The responsible sites usually will do this on a phone call or faxed letter. They then will need a subpoena and to serve that subpoena wherever and however the network or service provider requires. The sites may have phone numbers for after-hour use. Make sure your local police department has this information available to them when you need it. Again, forewarned is forearmed. Do it well in advance of the time you need it.

Defining the School Cyberbullying Problem

All schools, parents and students are struggling to address and contain the growing cyberbullying problem. While bullying itself is difficult to prevent, cyberbullying is much harder. It starts online and moves offline, or starts offline and moves online or starts and stays online. It happens during the school day on student-owned devices as well as school computers. It happens off-premises, after-hours and bleeds into the school day. As Parry Aftab has said repeatedly, and the volunteers at WiredSafety who handle cyberbullying cases and help victims and their families know, there is no silver bullet. There is no one answer. But there are many ways to attack the problem, piece by piece.

Schools have approached this in different ways. Many schools have adopted policies and rules that the parents and students have to sign before the students are permitted to use the Internet at school. Some are using filtering products. Others are sending notices to parents and setting policies for safe and acceptable use. Some are trying to regulate student activities after hours and off-premises. And, when they overstep their authority, schools are finding themselves named in lawsuits for infringing on a student's free speech or due process rights. Far too often, schools lose these lawsuits.

There is no "one size fits all" here. Solutions need to be customized to take into consideration the school's technology uses and staffing, curriculum, students' needs and behavior, parents' concerns, and community values. It is more a matter of awareness about the problem areas than the specific laws, which change often and vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction. All good lawyers know how to spot a potential legal problem. Good school administrators and educators, unfortunately, in these difficult times do, too. The new issues, such as cyberbullying and how far a school's authority can extend, and social networking websites, such as MySpace.com and Facebook.com (among others), create challenges to grapple with and emotional parental responses. Where do we start? We all need to remember that we are still learning, often the hard way. Children are very innovative in abusing the Internet and each other. Sometimes they do this intentionally. But almost as often, they hurt each other with miscommunications, poor digital literacy and hygiene skills.

Just when we think we understand the risks and have worked out solutions, they surprise us with their innovations. But, if parents, school administrators and school boards, teachers, school safety officers, students, guidance counselors and librarians and library-media specialists work together and keep the lines of communication open, we'll keep making progress. All we have to do is hold out until this new generation of Internet-savvy students become parents, teachers, and school administrators themselves.

Understanding Cyberbullying & Cyberharassment

What's the difference between "cyberbullying" and "cyberstalking and harassment"? Parry Aftab receives this question 100 times a week. They are the same thing (with a few minor tweaks) except that "cyberbullying" as a term is reserved for minors hurting other minors. Anything involving adults is called "cyberstalking and harassment" or just "cyberharassment." So, please don't visit our StopCyberbullying.org website (the most popular cyberbullying website in the world) and tell us that we somehow forgot that adults can be targeted online. Be know that. It's making sure you understand your terms.

The better you do, the easier it will be for you to communicate your problem. Cyberbullying = minors only. Cyberstalking=adults (or adults and minors). "Cyberharassment"= adults (or adults and minors)

For cyberbullying information and resources, visit our StopCyberbullying.org site. It has everything you need and will be updated as soon as we are finished with WiredSafety. Remember, if you need our help, check out Getting Help, or Looking for Help.

WiredSafety also formed the StopCyberbullying Coalition of leading NGO and industry organizations to join forces and fight cyberbullying.


Monday, July 22, 2013

United States v. Scarfo: FBI Case History and Documents

United States v. Scarfo, Criminal No. 00-404 (D.N.J.)

epic.org | Dec 5th 2000

A federal judge in Newark, New Jersey heard arguments on July 30, 2001 on a motion to disclose information concerning the FBI's surreptitious installation on a suspect's computer of a "key logger" that captured the suspect's PGP encryption passphrase. In the first known case of its kind, the defense is seeking discovery that would allow analysis of the technique, which has only been described publicly as "specialized computer software, firmware and/or hardware." The government is vigorously opposing disclosure.

On August 7, the court ordered the government to submit to the defense and the court a report "detailing how the key logger device functions" by August 31. On August 23, the government moved to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act and provide the defense with only an "unclassified summary" of the report. The defense filed an opposition to that request, which the court considered at a hearing on September 7.

On October 4, the court granted the government's motion for a protective order, denying discovery of classified information. The FBI subsequently provided the defense with an unclassified affidavit purporting to describe the functionality of the "key logger system." The then defense renewed its motion to suppress evidence.

In a decisionissued on December 26, 2001, the court upheld the legality of the FBI's use of the "key logger system" and denied the defense motion to suppress evidence obtained through the technique.

The government and Scarfo entered into a plea agreement on February 28, 2002. As a result, there will be no appellate consideration of the issues raised in the case.


The following documents are available in PDF format:

Affidavit in support of application(May 1999)

Order granting application(May 1999)

Application for postponement of notification of surreptitious entry(June 1999)

Order granting postponement of notification and authorizing surreptitious entry(June 1999)

Defense motion for discovery(June 2001)

Defense motion to suppress evidence seized by the government through the use of a keystroke recorder(June 2001)

Government brief in opposition to defendant's pre-trial motions(July 2001)

Defense supplemental brief(August 2001)

Government supplemental brief(August 2001)

Order requiring submission of report "detailing how the key logger device functions"(August 2001)

Government's Request for Modification of Court Order Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act(August 2001)

Third Circuit opinion lifting gag order imposed on attorneys(August 2001)

Defense Reply to Gov't Invocation of Classified Information Procedures Act(August 2001)

FBI affidavit re classification of "key logger system" (with cover letter)(September 2001)

Government motion for protective order denying discovery of classified information, and court order granting motion(October 2001)

Unclassified FBI affidavit concerning details of "key logger system"(October 2001)

Defense Supplemental Motion to Suppress Evidence (with supporting affidavit)(November 2001)

Government Brief Opposing Supplemental Motion to Suppress Evidence(December 2001)

Court Order Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence(December 2001)


The following coverage of the case is also available:

Scarfo case could test cyber-spying tactic, Philadelphia Inquirer (December 4, 2000)

FBI surreptitious black bag jobs circumvent encryption products

FBI Snatches Mob Boss' PGP Passphrase, cluebot.com (December 5, 2000)

FBI Hacks Alleged Mobster, Wired News (December 6, 2000)

Organized Crime Case Raises Privacy Issues, New York Times (July 30, 2001)

Judge to DOJ: Explain Spy Method, Wired News (July 30, 2001)

How Far Can FBI Spying Go?, Wired News (July 31, 2001)

Judge Says FBI Must Reveal Computer Snooping Technique, Reuters (August 7, 2001)

Judge wants FBI to detail secret cyber 'wiretap', Star-Ledger (August 8, 2001)

High-Tech FBI Tactics Raise Privacy Questions, Washington Post (August 14, 2001)

U.S. Refuses to Disclose PC Tracking, New York Times (August 25, 2001)

FBI device sets off alarms (editorial), USA Today (August 29, 2001)

Scarfo's high-tech case ends with plea, Philadelphia Inquirer (March 1, 2002)

Saturday, June 1, 2013

USPTO - WIPO Country Codes

Several fields in the patent database use WIPO-standard two-letter codes to represent country names. Searching for the full name of a country will not yield positive search results because only the two-letter country code exists in the data. You should use the codes in this table for your searches in country fields such as" Inventor Country" and "Assignee Country".

Country Codes/Names Ordered by Name

AL Albania 
DZ Algeria 
AD Andorra 
AO Angola 
AI Anguilla 
AG Antigua And Barbuda 
AE Arab Emirates 
AR Argentina 
AM Armenia 
AW Aruba 
AU Australia 
AT Austria 
AZ Azerbaijan 
BS The Bahamas 
BH Bahrain 
BD Bangladesh 
BB Barbados 
BY Belarus 
BE Belgium 
BZ Belize 
BM Bermuda 
BO Bolivia 
BA Bosnia And Herzegovina 
BW Botswana 
BR Brazil 
BN Brunei 
BG Bulgaria 
KH Cambodia 
CM Cameroon 
CA Canada 
KY Cayman Islands 
TD Chad 
CL Chile 
HK China,Hong Kong S.A.R. 
CN China P.Rep. 
CC Cocos Islands 
CO Colombia 
CD Congo, Democratic Republic Of 
CK Cook Islands 
CR Costa Rica 
HR Croatia 
CU Cuba 
CY Cyprus 
CZ Czech Republic 
CS Czechoslovakia 
DK Denmark 
DM Dominica 
DO Dominican Repl. 
EC Ecuador 
EG Egypt 
SV El Salvador 
EE Estonia 
ET Ethiopia 
FK Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 
FO Faroe Islands 
FJ Fiji 
FI Finland 
PF Fr. Polynesia 
GF French Guiana 
FR France 
GM Gambia 
GA Gabon 
GE Georgia (Republic Of) 
DE Germany 
GH Ghana 
GI Gibraltar 
GR Greece 
GL Greenland 
GD Grenada 
GP Guadeloupe 
GT Guatemala 
GN Guinea 
GY Guyana 
HT Haiti 
HN Honduras 
HU Hungary 
IS Iceland 
IN India 
ID Indonesia 
IR Iran 
IQ Iraq 
IE Ireland 
IL Israel 
IT Italy 
CI Ivory Coast 
JM Jamaica 
JP Japan 
JO Jordan 
KZ Kazakhstan 
KE Kenya 
KW Kuwait 
KG Kyrgyzstan 
LA Laos 
LV Latvia 
LB Lebanon 
LR Liberia 
LY Libya 
LI Liechtenstein 
LT Lithuania 
LU Luxembourg 
MO Macau 
MK Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Rep. 
MG Madagascar 
MW Malawi 
MY Malaysia 
ML Mali 
MT Malta 
MH Marshall Islands 
MQ Martinique 
MR Mauritania 
MU Mauritius 
MX Mexico 
MD Moldova, Republic Of 
MC Monaco 
MA Morocco 
MM Myanmar 
NA Namibia 
NP Nepal 
AN Neth. Antilles 
NL Netherlands 
NC New Caledonia 
PG New Guinea 
NZ New Zealand 
NI Nicaragua 
NE Niger 
NG Nigeria 
NF Norfolk Island 
KP North Korea 
NO Norway 
OM Oman 
PK Pakistan 
PA Panama 
PY Paraguay 
PE Peru 
PH Philippines 
PL Poland 
PT Portugal 
PW Palau 
QA Qatar 
RO Romania 
RU Russian Federation 
KN Saint Kitts And Nevis 
SM San Marino 
SA Saudi Arabia 
SN Senegal 
SL Sierra Leone 
SG Singapore 
SK Slovakia 
SI Slovenia 
SB Solomon Islands 
ZA South Africa 
KR South Korea 
ES Spain 
LK Sri Lanka 
LC St. Lucia 
VC St. Vincent/Grenadines 
SD Sudan 
SR Suriname 
SZ Swaziland 
SE Sweden 
CH Switzerland 
SY Syria 
TW Taiwan 
TZ Tanzania 
TH Thailand 
TT Trinidad/Tobago 
TN Tunisia 
TR Turkey 
TC Turks And Caicos Islands 
SU U.S.S.R. 
UG Uganda 
UA Ukraine 
GB United Kingdom 
UY Uruguay 
UZ Uzbekistan 
VU Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 
VA Vatican City State (Holy See) 
VE Venezuela 
VN Viet Nam 
VG Virgin (British) Islands 
YE Yemen 
YU Yugoslavia 
ZM Zambia 
ZW Zimbabwe
Country Codes/Names Ordered by Code 

AD Andorra 
AE Arab Emirates 
AG Antigua And Barbuda 
AI Anguilla 
AL Albania 
AM Armenia 
AN Neth. Antilles 
AO Angola 
AR Argentina 
AT Austria 
AU Australia 
AW Aruba 
AZ Azerbaijan 
BA Bosnia And Herzegovina 
BB Barbados 
BD Bangladesh 
BE Belgium 
BG Bulgaria 
BH Bahrain 
BM Bermuda 
BN Brunei 
BO Bolivia 
BR Brazil 
BS The Bahamas 
BW Botswana 
BY Belarus 
BZ Belize 
CA Canada 
CC Cocos Islands 
CD Congo, Democratic Republic Of 
CH Switzerland 
CI Ivory Coast 
CK Cook Islands 
CL Chile 
CM Cameroon 
CN China P.Rep. 
CO Colombia 
CR Costa Rica 
CS Czechoslovakia 
CU Cuba 
CY Cyprus 
CZ Czech Republic 
DE Germany 
DK Denmark 
DM Dominica 
DO Dominican Repl. 
DZ Algeria 
EC Ecuador 
EE Estonia 
EG Egypt 
ES Spain 
ET Ethiopia 
FI Finland 
FJ Fiji 
FK Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 
FO Faroe Islands 
FR France 
GA Gabon 
GB United Kingdom 
GD Grenada 
GE Georgia (Republic Of) 
GF French Guiana 
GH Ghana 
GI Gibraltar 
GL Greenland 
GM Gambia 
GN Guinea 
GP Guadeloupe 
GR Greece 
GT Guatemala 
GY Guyana 
HK China,Hong Kong S.A.R. 
HN Honduras 
HR Croatia 
HT Haiti 
HU Hungary 
ID Indonesia 
IE Ireland 
IL Israel 
IN India 
IQ Iraq 
IR Iran 
IS Iceland 
IT Italy 
JM Jamaica 
JO Jordan 
JP Japan 
KE Kenya 
KG Kyrgyzstan 
KH Cambodia 
KN Saint Kitts And Nevis 
KP North Korea 
KR South Korea 
KW Kuwait 
KY Cayman Islands 
KZ Kazakhstan 
LA Laos 
LB Lebanon 
LC St. Lucia 
LI Liechtenstein 
LK Sri Lanka 
LR Liberia 
LT Lithuania 
LU Luxembourg 
LV Latvia 
LY Libya 
MA Morocco 
MC Monaco 
MD Moldova, Republic Of 
MG Madagascar 
MH Marshall Islands 
MK Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Rep. 
ML Mali 
MM Myanmar 
MO Macau 
MQ Martinique 
MR Mauritania 
MT Malta 
MU Mauritius 
MW Malawi 
MX Mexico 
MY Malaysia 
NA Namibia 
NC New Caledonia 
NE Niger 
NF Norfolk Island 
NG Nigeria 
NI Nicaragua 
NL Netherlands 
NO Norway 
NP Nepal 
NZ New Zealand 
OM Oman 
PA Panama 
PE Peru 
PF Fr. Polynesia 
PG New Guinea 
PH Philippines 
PK Pakistan 
PL Poland 
PT Portugal 
PW Palau 
PY Paraguay 
QA Qatar 
RO Romania 
RU Russian Federation 
SA Saudi Arabia 
SB Solomon Islands 
SD Sudan 
SE Sweden 
SG Singapore 
SI Slovenia 
SK Slovakia 
SL Sierra Leone 
SM San Marino 
SN Senegal 
SR Suriname 
SU U.S.S.R. 
SV El Salvador 
SY Syria 
SZ Swaziland 
TC Turks And Caicos Islands 
TD Chad 
TH Thailand 
TN Tunisia 
TR Turkey 
TT Trinidad/Tobago 
TW Taiwan 
TZ Tanzania 
UA Ukraine 
UG Uganda 
UY Uruguay 
UZ Uzbekistan 
VA Vatican City State (Holy See) 
VC St. Vincent/Grenadines 
VE Venezuela 
VG Virgin (British) Islands 
VN Viet Nam 
VU Vanuatu (New Hebrides) 
YE Yemen 
YU Yugoslavia 
ZA South Africa 
ZM Zambia 
ZW Zimbabwe

The Legality and Origins of Warchalking

Adopting the old early 20th century hobo practice of using chalk marks to communicate with each other, modern day wi-fi enthusiasts warchalk their neighborhoods to let others know where publicly accessible wireless hotspots are located. The legal ramifications are unclear, but internet service providers and the government have taken notice and are not pleased.

Modern day technophiles are taking a cue from early 20th century hobos who rode the American rail system: using chalk markings to communicate with each other. Although hobos are more likely to converse via email and cell phones these days, hobos back then passed on useful information to fellow travelers via a series of codes and symbols. On the houses of police officers and judges they would draw pictographs that warned others to stay away; on those of doctors providing free medical care and kind old ladies who cooked hot meals in exchange for hearing a sob story or two were symbols that served as beacons for weary boxcar riders. These days, you are less likely to see chalk marks signifying "good campsite" or "ill-tempered man with gun lives nearby" than symbols identifying publicly accessible wi-fi hotspots, or in techno-speak, 802.11x wireless access points. The recent boom of wireless networking, both in the office and at home, coupled with lax security practices, has dramatically increased the number of access points where anyone with a wi-fi compatible laptop or PDA can jump online and surf the Web. Along with this increase have come complex and unforeseen legal issues regarding the right to share, often without consent, a person's wireless internet connection.

The name for the practice of finding wi-fi hotspots comes from the 1983 movie War Games where a teenage Matthew Broderick hacked into military computers at NORAD by wardialing random phone numbers using a modem. The terms nowadays are wardrivingwarwalking, and warflying-each variation reflecting the means of conveyance by which warchalkers search out, find, and mark down publicly accessible hotspots. These warchalkers, armed with laptops and wireless network cards, cruise city streets in hope of stumbling across open, insecure networks. Once they find a network, they use chalk to mark the location of the hotspot as well as the network type, name, and bandwidth. Despite being such a new phenomenon, the set of symbols has already become well-settled. What is not settled is the legality of warchalking. Several legal concerns have arisen with respect to the sharing, some would say stealing, of wireless network bandwidth.

First, there is the issue of authorized use: Can owners of wireless networks legally share their bandwidth with the public at large? Can people warchalk their own home or sidewalk, thus, notifying neighbors and passerbys of the existence of their network and inviting its use? Warchalking advocates stress that individuals should be able share their networks just as a homeowner should be allowed to share the water from their hose if they so choose. They claim that warchalking sidewalks is no more illegal than kids drawing hopscotch squares. Some cities have even implemented and warchalked their own wi-fi networks as a way to attract business and boost patronage of restaurants, cafes, and other public locations. Internet service providers, however, strongly oppose the rampant sharing of wi-fi networks. They point to the fact that the vast majority of their broadband customers, at least in the United States, pay a fixed monthly price for unlimited use. Since people do not pay measured, per unit rates for internet access as they do for other utilities such as gas, water, and electricity, service providers argue that when customers share their wireless networks, the providers lose out on revenue.

Second, there is the issue of unauthorized use: Are people legally permitted to warchalk someone else's network without them knowing, thus, encouraging others to surreptitiously use that network owner's bandwidth? The arguments on each side are similar to those in the case of authorized use, except here, there is the question of theft and the rights of the unaware owner. Service providers, in thinking about their bottom lines, often argue on behalf of unsuspecting and oftentimes technologically naïve network owners. They claim that by identifying other people's networks, warchalkers encourage the theft of valuable network bandwidth. Warchalkers respond that the bandwidth used is typically small compared to that available, that only in rare cases would an owner notice a performance decrease, and that even if owners did know, most would either gladly share their connections or simply take the few easy steps required to secure their networks. But providers point out that the majority of wi-fi hardware defaults to "open" so that wi-fi newbies have an easier time getting up and running. Rarely do owners bother or possess the know-how to secure their networks. Providers also emphasize that bandwidth is a valuable resource and that theft is theft. They claim that warchalking other people's houses amounts to an invasion of privacy and encourages the hacking of networks, comparing warchalkers to robbers letting other robbers know which houses are unlocked.

Finally, the U.S. government has criticized the practice of warchalking and labeled it a threat to national security. With the post 9/11 rise in awareness regarding potential vulnerabilities in homeland security, the Pentagon has come to view open wi-fi networks as a liability, a tool that terrorists could exploit to wreak havoc on unprotected networks and information systems. Warchalking, they argue, only serves to aggravate the problem by advertising those vulnerabilities. But warchalkers claim the government grossly overstates the threat and point to the myriad ways of securing networks that people and offices can take in order to close their networks from prying eyes.

As of this writing, none of these legal issues have been addressed by the courts or legislatures. There are no cases pending nor laws directed specifically at warchalkers. Only time will tell if the practice of warchalking survives.

Links:

Warchalking.org (http://www.warchalking.org/)
Warchalking.org Legality FAQ (http://www.warchalking.org/story/2002/9/22/223831/236)
Worldwide Wardrive (http://www.worldwidewardrive.org/)
News.com - Insecurity of Wi-Fi Networks (http://news.com.com/2009-1033-982324.html)
News.com - Growth of Public Wi-Fi Networks (http://news.com.com/2009-1033-982322.html)
Wardrive.net (http://www.wardrive.net/#WARDRIVING)
Airshare.org (http://www.airshare.org/learn/articles/features/warflying.cfm)
InternetWeek (http://www.internetwk.com/security02/INW20030109S0001)
InternetWeek (http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/INW20030123S0001)
Slack Action (http://www.slackaction.com/signroll.htm)
Wired (http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html)


Comcast and Verizon's Phony Free-Speech Claim

Comcast and Verizon’s Phony Free-Speech Claim

May 29th 2013 5:00 PM

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wrote this week that the First Amendment shields Comcast Corp. from Congress’s authority to ensure the free flow of information across the basic network connections it provides.

Kavanaugh’s assertion accompanied a ruling by the three-judge panel that reversed a Federal Communications Commission action against Comcast. Although the other two judges on the court did not endorse Kavanaugh’s First Amendment argument, it will come up again later this year -- in a case brought against the FCC by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)

The court should resist this reasoning, or risk trivializing the freedom of speech that the First Amendment truly protects.

This week’s case, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)v. FCC, concerned the 1992 Cable Act, enacted at a time when policy makers rightly worried that cable operators would favor the channels that they increasingly controlled. The statute directed the FCC to prevent cable companies from discriminating among programming providers if the effect of such discrimination is to “unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly.”

Comcast is both the largest high-speedInternet-access provider and the biggest American video distributor, and faces little competition within its territories for the wires it installs in American homes. At the same time, it owns a controlling interest in Golf Channel and NBC Sports Network, which Comcast distributes as part of its most popular “Expanded Basic” and “Digital Starter” bundles. Meanwhile, the company relegates Tennis Channel, a competitor, to its far-less-popular “Sports Tier,” which focuses on sports programming and requires subscribers to pay additional fees.

Other cable distributors mimic Comcast’s treatment of Tennis Channel, which claims that this prevents it from reaching the 40 million-subscriber threshold required to attract national advertising. The FCC agreed last year that Comcast’s activities amounted to unlawful discrimination.

Free Speech

In its appeal of the FCC’s ruling, Comcast wrapped itself in the mantle of the First Amendment, claiming that it is a speaker akin to the New York Times. The FCC’s order that Comcast carry specific content to a specific audience amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion, the company said. In his concurring opinion this week, Judge Kavanaugh was strongly sympathetic to this claim, saying “the FCC cannot tell Comcast how to exercise its editorial discretion about what networks to carry any more than the Government can tell Amazon or Politics and Prose or Barnes & Noble what books to sell; or tell the Wall Street Journal or Politico or the Drudge Report what columns to carry.”

Congress, though, has long distinguished basic information transmission facilities from newspapers; there is a sharp difference between a facility that allows someone else’s speech to be transmitted, and expression itself. Indeed, all of American communications policy is based on this premise.

In enacting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress was concerned that the operator of the single wire into a home would have the power and incentive to pick and choose among sources of speech and thereby constrain Americans’ access to information. No one watching a particular channel would think that Comcast, by virtue of transmitting it, was “speaking.” And even if Comcast is, in some blunt way, “speaking” through its choice of channels, the rules against discrimination aren’t meant to further the “message” of Tennis Channel. The government just wants fair competition.

In a separate case before the same court, Verizon is making a similar claim. According to the company, an FCC rule that keeps an Internet-access network provider from blocking its customers’ access to any content violates its First Amendment right to control the speech it transmits. The rule amounts to compelled speech, and is thus as unconstitutional as a law ordering a newspaper what to publish. Verizon claims the right to edit the Internet with absolute discretion.

Closed Market

Hundreds of millions of Americans entrust giant, private digital-network providers with their First Amendment-protected speech. These providers -- principally Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc. over wires, and Verizon and AT&T Inc. (T) in wireless -- have acted in parallel to exclude competition in their individual geographic and product marketplaces. At this point, it would be extraordinarily difficult for any new entrant to achieve the scale it would take to cut into the incumbents’ profits.

As a result, the country that invented the Internet is lagging behind other nations; only people in MexicoIsraelChileNew Zealandand Greece pay more than Americans for each megabit per second of Internet access, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Now, the same companies are claiming First Amendment immunity from any congressional oversight. Other enormous industries have seen the appeal of this argument: Last year, the pharmaceutical industry successfully argued that the First Amendment shielded it from prosecution for promoting off-label use of a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

For the Internet-access providers, this implausible argument must not stand: If business decisions were constitutionally protected speech, every government regulation would be presumptively unconstitutional. Surely the First Amendment wasn’t intended to be used as a shield to protect power in the marketplace.

(Susan Crawford, a contributor to Bloomberg View and a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, is the author of “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age.” The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Susan P. Crawford at scrawford@scrawford.net or@scrawford on Twitter

Comcast Defeats FCC Order

Comcast Defeats FCC Order on Distributing Tennis Channel

by Tom Schoenberg, mobile.bloomberg.com
May 28th 2013 12:02 PM

Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)’s decision to carry the Tennis Channel as premium programming was a business judgment that didn’t discriminate against programming owned by others, a U.S. appeals court ruled, overturning a regulator’s order to include the channel in lower-cost packages.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today unanimously rejected a Federal Communications Commission mandate to make the Tennis Channel more widely available on its cable systems, a demand the largest U.S. cable company said would force it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more for the programming.

“Without showing any benefit for Comcast from incurring the additional fees for assigning Tennis a more advantageous tier, the commission has not provided evidence that Comcast discriminated against Tennis on the basis of affiliation,” Circuit JudgeStephen Williams wrote.

Comcast sued the FCC after the regulator last year required it to distribute the Tennis Channel to the same number of subscribers who receive two sports networks owned by the cable company, the Golf Channel and the NBC Sports Network. The FCC also assessed a $375,000 penalty against Philadelphia-based Comcast.

Investors in the closely held Tennis Channel include Apollo Partners, Bain Capital Ventures, Battery Ventures, CCMP Capital Advisors, Columbia Capital, DND Capital Partners LLC and ex-players Andre Agassiand Pete Sampras, according to the channel’s website.

Comcast Comment

“Tennis Channel received exactly the carriage it bargained for and agreed to,”Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast, said in an e-mailed statement. She said the company was pleased with the court’s decision.

Neil Grace, an FCC spokesman, declined to comment on the decision.

The Tennis Channel, which intervened in the case, said it would seek additional review of the appeals court’s decision, according to Eric Abner, a spokesman for the channel.

“We believe that it is the obligation of the FCC to act in the public interest to ensure a diverse marketplace of voices, as mandated by Congress when it introduced the Cable Act,” Abner said in an e-mailed statement.

Bloomberg LP, the parent company ofBloomberg News, filed a brief in the case backing the FCC and the Tennis Channel.

The case is Comcast Cable Communications LLC v. Federal Communications Commission, 12-01337, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington attschoenberg@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha atmhytha@bloomberg.net