Lime Wire tells Congress its P2P software is safe now

In response to the reopening of an investigation into inadvertent file sharing with peer-to-peer software, an executive for Lime Wire told Congress in a letter on Friday that the new version of the program is "the most secure file-sharing software available." ~ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10232079-93.html

The fact that Lime Wire would even put the words "secure" and "Lime Wire" in the same document is quite troubling. P2P file sharing applications are inherently insecure because they are peer to peer! Although companies can put significant effort into ensuring the security of the application the fundamental problem is that when users are exchanging files, sharing and downloading, they expose themselves to risk.

I am not going to blame Lime Wire for the problems occurring, most people using P2P File Sharing applications do not take the proper security measures on their computer. We had some idiots installing it on government contractor computers and they have security clearances so I can't imagine what the average Joe is doing. Legally does Lime Wire have the obligation to make its application completely safe? I would argue that they do not as it is implied by using a P2P service you are agreeing to take on some degree of risk and should exercise proper protection measures such as running the application in a SandBox. I was unable to find any substantial law suits where Lime Wire was sued because of damage to someones computer through their application. I guess their Terms of Service agreement is quite well written ;).

It will be interesting to see how the government responds of if any sanctions are placed on the company. I hope they didn't upset too many people otherwise they will be the next Napster. To be truthful, the government should have better things to do then worry about holding hearings on P2P technology. We should be holding hearings on the legality of sharing music in the first place not on whether the applications people use to share it are safe.

Craigslist CEO: Crooks who use site will be caught

"INNEAPOLIS — The CEO of Craigslist has a message for people who try to use the popular Internet advertising site to commit crimes: You're going to get caught. ~ http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci_12204740?nclick_check=1"

This is quite an interesting statement for the CEO of an internet company to make. After the killing in Boston which was connected to Craigslist, CEO Buckmaster stated "extremely unsafe venue for criminal activity because you're virtually guaranteeing that you're going to get caught." He also states "That's been the case with nearly every serious violent crime that's been connected with the site," Buckmaster said in a telephone interview from San Francisco, where Craigslist is based. "There's an electronic trail leading to yourself. So don't use Craigslist for crime unless you want to go to jail."

Now let's assume Craigs list does have good logging systems and keeps track of who visits what pages and whatnot. Why would you, as a company, attempt to deter people with blanket threats like this. The problem is, and maybe Mr. Buckmaster does know this, that there are always ways to hide your identity online. Anonymous VPN services such as FindNot and chained proxies make finding a determined individual quite difficult. By stating people are going to get caught if they do something illegal on Craig's list almost starts a cold war. If someone of intelligence is going to do something on Craig's list now they are going to go out of their way to hide their identity. The law is on their side but the law can also be slow. Unless something significant takes place, getting grand juries to subpoena ISP's to find out the person was on a proxy seems fruitless.

This is a unique topic because I don't know if there was a "right" thing to say either way. The only way Craig's List is ever going to become really more secure is by collecting more information on users and putting in place some sort of verification mechanism. It might be advantageous to try such a mechanism on certain "risky" parts of the website like the sex classifieds. Craig's List has recently made an effort to moderate these "personal" ads more; however, it does not seem likely that individual review will have much of an effect.

I give the staff at Craig's list a big shout out for actually trying to fix this problem. I am looking forward to their next step and to see how it will affect the users of the website. Is it time to require credit card authorization? (I'm only joking - I hope not)

Let me know what you think.

Students Lose, Fair Use Wins in Suit Targeting Anti-Plagiarism Tool

The Wired Campus published an article discussing the defeat students have recently "uffered another defeat in their legal fight against the company that runs a plagiarism-detection tool popular among professors."

This topic is one that is troublesome to me because I am not sure exactly where I stand on the issue. A federal appeals court ruled that the service did not violate the copyright of students even though it stores digital copies of their essays. The important question for me is who actually owns a paper when it is passed in. In High School I would assume you retain ownership because you are legally bound to attend school and hence ownership of your work should remain in your hand. At college I believe the line is a bit finer. University's Student Code of Conduct do not clearly spell out who has the legal copyright for the work. Is there some sort of mutual use doctrine because you are passing it as as paper for a grade?

The courts are claiming that the company is protected under the fair use doctrine; however, to me it seems like they are stretching that policy to it's limits. This company is profiting off providing a service feeding off of students. It can be compared to Google making money off Google Books (writer's works), but the difference is that Google gives authors the right to opt-out.

Just because the court sees that this new use is of "substantial public benefit" does not necessarily make it right. If that was the case should we provide some sort of "fair use" for trademarks that are of substantial public benefit, such as medicines? Granted, these two are completely different topics; nevertheless, it seems the government is looking at it from the side of "we should be aiding universities and schools finding students cheat" rather than what is truly right or wrong given the fundamentals of our country.

I plan to stay as an observer on this case but would love to see some sort of resolutions between the service and the students whose papers are on the site.

NCAA: Facebook Control Freaks?

Moseley is a North Carolina State student who had the temerity, the sheer mind-numbing gall, to set up a Facebook page which, he hoped, would encourage a high school player named John Wall to come to his school. ~ http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10218928-71.html

The NCAA today seems to have power over every aspect of their athletes(captives) lives. Article after article comes out about how athletes are being penalized because of actions occurring on the internet, oftentimes far out of their control. Most recently, Taylor Moseley, who attends North Carolina State set up a Facebook page to encourage a high school player named John Wall to come to his school.

So far from my judgment this does not sound too illegal, in fact just seems like he's doing a good job marketing his school...

The school took his marketing campaign very serious and sent him a cease and desist letter... This is a public university and they sent him a cease and desist letter for making a page on Facebook. Something does not seem right. Schools more recently have become ever-more zealous. I could not even see how this would be legal at a private university.

Citizens of this country have a constitutional right to express themselves, be it on Facebook, in their house, or on public property and schools should not encroach on that right. The NCAA and NC State should be focusing on something more troubling like the massive amount of gifts given indirectly to people who are influential in the decision of up and coming stars.

It seems that schools and other organizations do not believe people have a fundamental protected right to free speech on the internet despite numerous cases illustrating and reinforcing this right. I hope he obtains a good lawyer and shows the NCAA and his school that college students are not idiots and they know their rights.

Piracy: A Threat to National Security?

The United States Government considered piracy a potential threat to the countries national security...

The six-page summary of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations provides little specific detail about the current state of negotiations, but the release represents a change in policy at the USTR, which had argued in the past that information on the trade pact was "properly classified in the interest of national security." ~ http://www.pcworld.com/article/162716/us_trade_office_releases_information_on_secret_piracy_pact.html

After reading this article I am quite perturbed. It is hard for me to comprehend how the United States Government can hint that counterfeiting is a threat to our national security. The next thing we know something trivial is going to be a threat to our national security and we will be wasting a few million a year writing up secret documents and policies on how to deal with them.

Although I do fully acknowledge that counterfeiting is a serious problem, I do not believe it warranted being "properly classified in the interest of national security." It just makes me wonder what else is classified that shouldn't be... Since 9/11 it seems the courts have let the executive branch do whatever it likes in saying something is classified and hardly steps in anymore. This can have a chilling effect on information flow across the globe.

Twitter: Libel Forum

Twitter is seemingly causing problems again:

Love's Online Spat Sparks First Twitter Libel Suit

Courtney Love's angry "tweets" against her former fashion designer, Dawn Simorangkir, have landed her in court. According to a libel claim lodged by Simorangkir in Los Angeles Superior Court last Thursday, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain has carried out "an obsessive and delusional crusade" of malicious libel against her on Twitter, adding insult on MySpace and other websites. [Independent]

There is an inherent problem with this lawsuit, and that is opinion. To many, Twitter is a forum of opinions not facts. It is a way to distribute what is occurring in your life and what you are thinking. By attaching your name to it, you are indicating that you, as an individual, are stating (or thinking) this. Twitter does not imply nor require that the tweets you publish be true because readers should be intelligent enough to understand that these tweets are matters of opinion. Sure, there are facts posted all the time, but the underlying idea behind twitter is that it is inherently opinionated because of its user generated origin. No user should take the opinion (tweet) of another to be fact without doing appropriate secondary research and confirmation.

When it comes to libel I believe there is a significant difference between crafting a website and publishing material about someone from an authoritative standpoint or perspective versus posting it in an opinion dominated forum. In the end this lawsuit will come down to if the defendant can prove that the statements made are true or solely matter of opinion. Truth is always an absolute defense in cases of libel.

Laws regarding libel (and potentially slander) should be adapted and crafted to more explicitly outline how they are to be applied and interpreted, especially revolving around online websites and opinion-based services such as Twitter.

Censoring Internet: Right or Wrong

A recent article caught my attention:

Australian Internet Blacklist Prompts Concern

A whistle-blower organization claims a secret list of Web sites that Australian authorities are proposing to ban includes such innocuous destinations as a dentist's office. Australia's government denied that the list — published by renegade Web site Wikileaks.org — was the same as a blacklist run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA. However, a manager at the dentist's office said the ACMA had confirmed her site's inclusion on the ban list. [SiliconValley.com]

Is it the government's duty to dictate what individuals can and cannot access on the internet? The Australian government believes it is. The problem is that this censorship creates a slipper-slope. Laws should be enacted to protect people and punish those who do wrong; however, they should be constructed in a fashion that does not those in power to abuse those who are subordinated. There is no transparency to determine adding a website to the banned list. A website could be added, and I would argue some were, without careful consideration at the material at hand. Websites were banned from public access were neither carefully evaluated nor representative of public opinion.

A more appropriate method to regulate access to these troubling websites would be simply punishing those who go to them. Let the people be the arbiters of what is right and wrong, in a public forum built to bring justice. Law should be built to keep the power in the people's hand, not a group of a few individuals with access to this almighty list. A compromise to this process would to have a have a “trial” on a website and let the people determine if this website should be banned from public access or not. The trial should be public and accessible to anyone. The government made people weary by enacting this type of control behind their back.

In conclusion, it is important for this blunder to be an example to the world and countries who are consider enacting policies similar to Australia. There is a tradeoff between preventing individuals from wrongdoing and infringing on their personal freedoms. I believe Australia crossed this line.