NEW BLOG HOST FOR CLARINETTE

IF YOU ENJOYED THIS BLOG,
come and join me at the new address, where the content of this blog has been transferred :

http://clarinettesblog.wordpress.com/
This is mostly for my legal thoughts

For Online safety tips, join the techmums blog:
http://techmums.wordpress.com/

For more fun and sharing my other hubby, cooking, come and share your recipies at:
http://clarinettecook.wordpress.com/

Hope you'll enjoy.
Would appreciate if you'd share your views and ideas.

SEE YOU SOON

@Clarinette02






 

A debill was passed last night

The Bill was passed, washed up, rushed through, last night. So many wrote to their MPs; so many protested; so many of us lawyers tried to attract public attention to the danger of such regulation for our democracy. We tried to show how 'impractical' this law could be. What dangers it could present for our privacy. How it was against the European Convention of Human Rights. How it was stupid to spend money to encourage internet access to reduce the digital divide while now the money will be spent on disconnecting access, discouraging public Wifi and public internet access.
Nothing worked, unfortunately.
Were we wrong maybe?
We shall ask each of our MPs who disregarded our warnings to explain to us what they know that we don't.
Dear Members of Parliament, do let us know what you know that we don't.
Do let us know what we can do to comply with the regulation.
Do let us know what we can do and what we can't. Can we listen to Spotify ? Can we look at YouTube? What can we 'upload' onto YouTube? Can I post my children's musical play on Facebook? Can I offer you an iPod with music downloaded from iTunes?
How can we secure our home networks? Will the government provide us with secure wireless devices? How can we lock our IP addresses to be sure no one would download infringing material using them on our behalf?
What should we reply when we receive a solicitor's letter threatening us of legal action? Should we pay the £500 or
Do we have any means of proving we did not download any infringing material? We first need the answers to the previous questions for that.
Do we know who will intercept our private communications and how personal data will be stored?
How the Deep Packet Inspection or filtering will operate to catch potential infringers? In other words, how the internet censorship will be organised?
And last but not least, you passed a law, we need to know if this law will ever reach its goal, will the heavy downloader using VPN and encryption be caught on the net?
With my best regards.
http://ow.ly/1vVII -- http://www.theyworkforthebpi.com/ --- http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/32.htm#hddr_2
http://www.technollama.co.uk/digital-economy-bill-passes
http://torrentfreak.com/digital-economy-bill-passes-file-sharing-end-soon-100608/?utm_source=direct-awe.sm&utm_medium=awe.sm-twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=twitterfeed&awesm=53MTD

What a week! A weak copyright!

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0

Unported License

The Counter 2010 Conference in Manchester where there was talk about Privacy issues around copyright regulations

;

The IpKat Google Adwards Trademarks Seminar in London

 ;

The Child Protection event at the House of Lords with Mark William Thomas

.

These three followed last week's Privacy International's 20th birthday celebration in London.

Together they resume my main areas of interest as a lawyer specialized in Internet and New Technologies from intellectual property and privacy angles.

Another angle was not highlighted as such, but was present all over the debates: that of consumer rights.

And yes I also have a personal connection with all of this, being a French citizen, living in England and married to an Australian - this puts me at the cross-roads of the debates:

France invented the graduated response;

Australia filtering and internet censorship;

United Kingdom the Three Strikes law.

I might add that I have many acquaintances in the US who follow the ACTA negotiations.

I have been involved in the past with child safety on the internet, working with European Research into Consumer Affairs (ERICA).

I was at some point in contact with Parry Aftab from WIred Safety to represent the organisation in UK. Child safety has long been, and remains, a major concern for me.

On the other hand I am convinced that the internet is one of the greatest media of communication, knowledge share and democracy and there are many other ands...

At the Counter 2010 Conference we listened to industry, EU representative and academic points of view on copyright protection with The UK Three Strikes law, the French HADOPI and ACTA. How can all these rights be reconciled and balance copyright holders' interests with the general public's privacy rights in the digital world? The fundamental right of internet access need not be discussed any more. Neither does the private individual's expectation of retaining control of personal information.

At the House of Lords we listened to the research results on internet child grooming and child pornography from academic and sanctioning points of view. The latter were presented by Julia Davidson, Professor of Criminology at Kingston University and Antonia Bifulco, Professor of Health and Social Care at Royal Holloway University. Elena Martellozzo from Middlesex University and criminologist Mark Taylor-Williams presented the research results of 18 months of police operations relating to internet abuse. Mark Taylor-Williams considered a number of child pornographic materials being transmitted through peer to peer networks such as LimeWire.

That brings the discussion to network surveillance and conflicts with envisaged copyright regulations. 

The key point that I spot here is : when should we, or should we not, monitor net communications?

Do we consider the situation of representatives of copyright holders in the music, film and software industries to be sufficiently in danger to justify a level of surveillance that will lead to a modification of peer to peer network communication as we know it today?

The French edition of the "ReadWriteWeb" online magazine has published its own theory that you might consider.

Many technical experts that I have  personally met - from Ralf Bendrath

 whom I met at the Privacy conference in Brussels to Chris Parsons

 who did a presentation at Counter Conference or the inventor of the World Wide Web itself, Tim Berners Lee

) consider that there is a high likelihood that illegal file sharers (and it's important at this point to mention that file sharing is NOT necessarily an illegal activity) will modify their behavior by using encryption technologies and Virtual Private Networks to escape the censorship of copyright protection.

What does that mean exactly?

Putting it In other words, the speed of technological evolution will not make it easy for regulation to keep pace. The heavy, tech savvy illegal downloaders will use the appropriate technology to escape the censors.

Why child protectors should be concerned?

Simply because this repression will not only generalise, but also encourage, the advance of encryption technologies which will not allow the monitoring of internet communication for the sake of child protection.

If copyright law enforcement advances then this involves further Deep Packet Inspection and this is where privacy advocates should be alarmed.

Why Privacy should be concerned?

Simply because Deep Packet Inspection or filtering of online communication will allow a 'deeper' look at packet transfer although we are re-assured that no one is actually looking at the content of the packets but instead simply scrutinizing the 'headings'.

I can't see what would stop the process once it has been legalized (engaged or generalised). There is a lack of transparency at the moment on the use of Deep Packet Inspection by ISPs and this can only get worse if the Three Strikes law and like measues are passed.

In our judicial systems, a balance of rights is essential. Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights, as 'guarantor' of Fundamental rights, has strict rules on the limitation of individual's privacy

. The storing and processing of personal data for the purpose of copyright protection constitutes an interference with the right to private life. The test of proportionality has to be applied in order to justify invasion of privacy and collection of data. 

From that point of view, there are three major obstacles for the adoption of the measures:

1-  there is no evidence that the action can achieve its purpose;

2-  the action is not necessary to accomplish the purpose;

3-  there are alternatives available for accomplishing the same purpose with a lesser cost in terms of individual privacy.

In parallel, the ISPs have expressed their limitations

:

1 - It would be technically impossible or unreasonably expensive to block peer to peer downloads even with the filtering technique.

2- There would be no totally secure network as anyone could hack the network or snoop an IP Address.

The ISPs are asked to be judge and jury.

How could we handle the balance of rights in a context in which it is unclear what should be considered a valid notice of take down. I refer here to two research results, one run by the Oxford University - the Liberty experience - and the "Multatuli Project" experience by "Bits of Freedom" on a larger scale

. In both cases material that was obviously out of copyright was posted by the researchers. However, in most cases the ISP followed the injunction to take down without any sort of verification. This bogus take down is against individual rights and freedom of speech.

I could also mention the controversial French HADOPI law

. The font characters used for the HADOPI logo have been registered and belong to Orange of France Telecom. Also, the brand 'HADOPI' itself  is copyright protected

. An irony that merits reflection.

Giving more voice to consumers

At the European meeting of the Family Online Safety Institute Conference in Paris where I was invited to speak on Privacy, we discussed net-citizenship. FOSI and other family organizations promote awareness of internet users from kids to parents and carers to the education system.

The EU Consumer group recently organised a meeting in Brussels which unfortunately I could not attend on ‘web 3.0:what's in it for consumers? Challenges and Opportunities for Consumers in the Future Internet.

I strongly believe internet is still at its early stages and users have not yet learned how to master it.

By analogy, the situation can be compared to that of drivers of automobiles. When first invented, few owners were on the road and they were able to deal with the relatively minor  issue of cross-roads. Once the automobile became a democratic means of transport the need of regulation arose. This regulation came in parallel with education.

I am not saying we necessarily need an internet driving license. The internet needs to find its own way of reaching a balance of rights that needs to be discussed democratically and not behind closed doors as was the case for the secret ACTA negotiations.

Today, it is unclear even for many academics what is copyright infringement and what is fair use.

This is an area of cross-roads of law and technology where many lawmakers and political representatives have no actual knowledge of the technical impact of the regulations. Prior to the vote of the HADOPI law in France, the members of parliament interviewed actually had very little knowledge and many false conceptions of peer to peer file sharing. They can't be blamed as many people are still not using all of the potential of the net. However this, plus the limited number of representatives engaging in the parliamentary debates, show the lack of real debate.

The lobby of the film and music industries is exercising a strong influence.  It is regrettable that the consumer point of view, as well as the individual artists’ rights themselves, are under-represented.

In my view, the threat to privacy and the principle of Net neutrality do not justify the rush to protection of the lobbyist.

The lawmakers need expert advice on the actual functioning of the internet and the legal consequences of the new regulations. Legal experts need to work in parallel with technical experts to measure the consequences of the measures of censorship and Deep Packet inspection or any other measures of traffic monitoring.  

While these measures can be justified on the basis of protection against personal harm, this has to be exceptional and under judicial scrutiny. However at this point I do not feel the economic interest of fairly wealthy organizations could justify such a restriction of fundamental rights of internet access and privacy.

All the more as  there is no evidence that the goal could not be achieved by other means. Even more as there is evidence that the measures are unable to achieve their aim as the file sharing will bypass the measures by the use of encryption technologies and Virtual Private Networks harmful for crime investigation. 

It could be added that the ISPs have expressed deep concern, technical as well as financial, about the implications of the Three Strikes Law.

Ultimately, if the graduated response was applied, it would impose a collective level of responsibility of the account holder, held liable for the use and abuse of its network by others.

The view of the French Association, 'La Quadrature du Net'  has been the limit of security of private individuals  to secure their networks

.

There are multitude hacking technologies to access networks for the sake of illegal downloads from accessing the network or using IP addresses. As mentioned by Orange Senior Legal Counsel the actual design of dynamic attribution of IP addresses is in total contradiction with the new measures.

While the policy has been reducing the digital divide and encouraging a more democratic access to the internet, copyright repression will take a reverse path creating a general fear among many parents to even allow access to the internet for fear of being cut off. What we need is better education, encouraging safer access to the net, adopting net-citizenship attitudes.

I remain confident that education and awareness are the key to many of these issues.

The American Law scholar, Lawrence Lessig, initiator of the Creative Commons whose videos have been silenced twice for including a few seconds of protected music, has used this to demonstrate the re-mix concept

. I agree with him that it cannot be expected from your users to respect copyright law while it remains unclear for the specialist what is actually being protected.

Are we certain that the ipod offered by the President of the United States to the British Queen with itunes downloaded files was or was not copyright infringement?

Coming back to the Google Adwords seminar, I share the view of my colleagues expressing concerns about the effect of the quasi-monopoly of one institution in the digital world. The Search Engine is the central key of internet knowledge. Being at the two first pages of the search result is determinant for many users.

Taking a more general view, it is unhealthy to have one organisation becoming dominant to this extent and aggregating so many private data.   

My very last argument is the climate of repression that such a measure could create: the escalation of attacks and ripostes. Many security experts believe the file sharer would simply resort to more sophisticated, less discernible means of file sharing.

The deterrent will only discourage small individual file sharer that hardly caused any harm to the industry.

 They might face many unscrupulous law firms that will threaten them with legal action to push users to settle to avoid court action. Already concern has been expressed about ACS:Law and now Tilly, Bailey & Irvine schemes to chase alleged file-sharers.

The professional downloader will only modify its behavior.

Some believe that this could actually create an organized 'mafia' of professional file sharing in parallel with child abuse related activities. Our society should remember the presumption of innocence principles where the rights of individuals are protected unless and until infringement has ben proven. Reversing the burden of proof is a dangerous path against democracy.

We risk to create a climate of war and anti-trust resulting by escalation of measures of surveillance always by-passed.

Instead we should promote, education, awareness and citizenship to find the right balance of netiquette and financial protection for copyright holders but not surveillance or internet cut off.

The hierarchy of rights should place privacy and child protection above copyright considerations

The Privacy Implications of Deep Packet Inspection Danielle Keats Citron

http://dpi.priv.gc.ca/index.php/essays/the-privacy-implications-of-deep-packet-inspection/

How Deep Packet Inspection Changed the Privacy Debate - Ronald W. Del Sestro Jr. and Jon Franket

http://www.bingham.com/Media.aspx?MediaId=7514

See Liliane Edwards on her blog PanGloss 'Filtering round up: French filtering, Ireland backs off, UK slide steps?'

http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2010/02/filtering-round-up-french-filtering.html

Telegraph UK 'Terrorism and Child Pornography used to justify surveillance society says academic'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7054432/Terrorism-and-child-pornography-used-to-justify-surveillance-society-says-academic.html

28th March 2010

Creative Common CC

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/">http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/2.0/uk/88x31.png" />
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text" property="dc:title" rel="dc:type">A week of balance or a weak balance? by http://creativecommons.org/ns#" property="cc:attributionName">Tara Taubman - clarinette02 is licensed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/

jeff Jarvis tought me iomega sucks

Not neglecting any advice, after having spend some time on the iomega Prestige this morning I think I've spoted the issue: the plugging into the Computer is look on the iomega hard drive and this might be the reason why it's 'drawning too much power' and why it gets disconnected. I had a similar issue whith a loose wire on my laptop.

If only iomega cared a little bit about their customers, they could have a look at it and save my data.

Thanks to Jeff Jarvis , after watching this video : http://www.icvclients.com/gazelles/network/

It sounds like the magical word would be iomega sucks, and yes it sucks. Though sucks it hasn't been my favorite vocabulary but what not to do to wake up iomega customer service that sucks!!!

Tip for a data recovery from Iomega Prestige Hard Drive

Here is copy of the chat I had yesterday with iomega customer service. I thought it would be interesting for everyone to get a test of how safe data can be.

Before, I wanted to give you few more detail:

1 - The Iomega Prestige 1Tb was purchased on August 2009 and has not been responding I guess since October-November 2009I

2- The vendor has recognised the disk failure and is happy to replace it but no recovery for to the saved data;

3 - I do understand HD can fail and you should have more than 2 backups, in my case, unfortunately, the two backups failed.

4 - What I do not understand is : why iomega didn't answered earlier, why they never even tried to have a look at the HD and try to repair it AND why can't I at least have a discounted price for recovery as a gesture.

5 - With so many digital documents to backup, just think of all these precious pictures collected for many years - we do need to trust as much as possible backup storages. How did I choose this model, simply from a friend's recommendation. You only know the value of a product and the customer support when something goes wrong. Thanks god, not every iomega products fail. Actually, talking with IT expert friends, It was pointed to me the case of iomega Zip drives:

Looking at the Wikipedia: 'In 2006, PC World rated the Zip drive as the 15th worst technology product of all time'

Further, "Iomega also produced a line of internal and external recordable CD drives under the Zip brand in the late 1990s, called the ZipCD 650... Early models of ZipCD drives were rebadged Philips drives, which were also so unreliable that a class action lawsuit succeeded." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iomega_Zip_drive

You can read more about the class action and its settlement here on iomega website:

http://www.iomega.com/rinaldi/

You will notice - see here: http://personal.riverusers.com/~s/action.htm - that the class action started in 1997 regarding purchases between January 1, 1995 and March 19, 2001 - The original settlement dates March 2001 and the revised version May 2002!!!

That means that between 1995 and 2001, customers suffered from a faulty product while iomega refused to take its responsibilities for a class action to be initiated.

Now, I hope sensitive materials such these hard drives could be appropriately tested before commercializing and receive a ranking of quality from an independent body in order to allow the customer to make a wise decision of purchase.

UPDATE: after opening the Hard Drive a small loose piece was find, Could it be repaired?

I let you read the copy of my chat with iomega.

Claudio: Hi, my name is Claudio. How can I help you?

clarinette: Hi, I have already emailed you - I believe last week - also been contacted by your colleagues on Twitter without success.

clarinette: The external hard drive is dead - after only few months - the vendor is happy to replace it.

clarinette: Of course, as you can imagine this only very partly resolve my issue:

clarinette: 1- I have all my data and backups to recover - HOW?

Claudio: unfortunately we do not provide data recovery directly. You can contact our data recovery partner at http://www.iomegadatarecovery.com or alternatively you could go through a local company who provides this service.

clarinette: 2- how to trust a second Iomega product if it's to loose precious files I've been happy to spend money to protect

Claudio: every electronic device can fail, that does not depend on the brand or the specific model actually

clarinette: ok, I have to move to them now. Shame you didn't answered my previous email.

clarinette: you think then that backing up on iomega devices are by definition 'hasardous' and no recovery to envisage?

Claudio: every hard drive of whatever brand or model can fail suddenly with apparently no reason, that's why we always recommend to have a backup of the data and the reason why we sell backup solutions

clarinette: If I go 'through a local company who provides this service. ' would that be charged on me or iomega?

Claudio: I am sorry; warranty does not cover data loss.

clarinette: ' every hard drive of whatever brand or model can fail suddenly with apparently no reason, that's why we always recommend to have a backup of the data and the reason why we sell backup solutions' and the customer should be the only one to suffer from the failure.

Claudio: I am very sorry to hear of the problems you have experienced with your Iomega product and empathize with your data loss. I recognize that your data is priceless to you which is why Iomega, along with the computer industry stresses the importance of having a backup location for your critical data. If the unfortunate situation arises where data was stored only in one location, we do offer a data recovery service for a fee. You are also welcome to check with other data recovery services of your choice if you wish to have this service performed.

Claudio: At Iomega we pride ourselves in providing outstanding customer service to our customers. With millions of drives sold, we believe we have an outstanding track record in providing a very high quality product and excellent customer service and support. Iomega cannot, however, guarantee that no one will ever lose a file. Iomega makes plain in every statement of our warranties for all Iomega product sales that data loss is explicitly NOT covered by our warranty.

Claudio: Data recovery services are very expensive to provide, and are not built into the cost structure for each Iomega product, and indeed, the computer industry in general does not make any guarantee that you will never lose a file or lose any data once you buy a computer. For example, if your computer crashes and you lose a file from your Dell or Gateway computer, you cannot recover for data loss. Data recovery is an extra service performed by trained specialists, after studying the specific details in a particular data loss situation.

clarinette: Would you have any idea of how much it would cost me for the recovery by your colleagues you mentioned?

Claudio: sorry, I cannot tell, that depends on the damage, the machineries they have to use and the time they have to spend, you can ask a free evaluation though

Claudio: you can find all the contacts at http://europe.iomegadatarecovery.com/datarecoveryfaq-contactus.html

clarinette: This is a different link, does it replace the previous one? I have already sent a request to the first.

Claudio: that's the same company, it's just the direct link to the contact page

clarinette: Last question: Would they charge me as a iomega client victim under warranty or careless of the rapid failure of iomega product?

Claudio: I'm sorry, they are our partner but I don't know exactly which is their policy, I still confirm that the price will basically depend on the damage

clarinette: Ok, I'm going to talk to them.

clarinette: I guess I should thank you for your assistance.

Claudio: thanks for your understanding

Claudio: do you have any other question at the moment?

clarinette: oh, last point, yes, Do I have to give pack the faulty HD to get a new one? or can't I keep it for eventual recovery as I have been deprived of HD the last few months and now urgently need a new HD?

Claudio: yes, sorry, the unit must be returned for the replacement, there's the possibility to have an advance shipment but this service costs 23.80 euros

clarinette: Therefore, you are not offering your customers any hope of help on data recovery. Thanks

Claudio: the replacement can be still provided after you have recovered your data

clarinette: on their page, your colleagues mention: if need to open, no warranty, if no warranty no replacement isn't it?

Claudio: if you contact our data recovery partner the warranty will not be voided, even if you contact a local company and the you provide a data recovery documentation we can still replace the unit

clarinette: If I wanted to use the replaced iomega HD, how many mirrored hard drive should I need to secure the backups?

Claudio: a backup is "two or more up-to-date copies of your important data located on different disks."

Claudio: this is by definition, so at least two copies of the data, but in different disks

clarinette: I had two copies: for most data: one on my Vista desktop and the other on the iomega. I could not believe both would fail and the iomega failed after only a short time - I guess 3 months!!!

Claudio: sorry, this is a very unfortunate situation, actually that doesn't happen so often

Communication with the RightNow Live service has been lost. Please wait while attempts are made to restore the connection. (retry 1 of 47)

Connection resumed.

The privacy of Mobile online networking

'Online as soon as it happens' is a relatively exhaustive paper on mobile social networking and its privacy implications with regard to the European data protection regulations. As a co-contributor, I suggest you have a look at it and encourage you to share its content:

"The report describes the social networking world and the mobile phone services allowing the users to experience the social networking sites (SNSs) on their handset, also illustrating the major risks and threats connected to their use. While many of the privacy issues originating from the web-based access to SNSs also apply to mobile social networks, there are also a number of unique risks and threats against mobile social networks. The report aims to provide a set of recommendations for raising the awareness of social networks users and in particular of social mobile users of the risks and the possible consequences related to their improper use.

Ref. code: ISBN-13 978-92-9204-036-9

Publication date: Feb 08, 2010"

http://bit.ly/9tjDxj social networking world and the mobile phone

Des yeux dans le bac a sable, paranoia ou realite. A la recherche d'un consentement avise

La lecture de l'article de Yann Leroux sur l'effet Bac a Sable de Facebook, m'inspire les commentaires suivants:

..Facebook est juste un bac à sable et les châteaux de sable que nous y construisons ne nous appartiennent pas”.
Internet une zone de non-droit?
Je rebondis. On aurait pu l’envisager mais nos dirigeants politiques ne l’entendent de cette oreille. Le droit transperce et tente d’organiser cette nouvelle frontiere.
L’humain a exploite la terre, la loi l’a organisee, L’humain a exploite la mer, la loi l’a organisee, puis le ciel puis l’espace puis l’irrel. Le monde digital n’a pas su d’avantage resister a la dicta­ture du droit.
Rien de nouveau sous le soleil, une nouvelle frontiere percee, de nouvelles regles a trouver, comme dans les autres spheres, la loi ne sera jamais par faite mais elle instituera un certain ordre dans la balance.
L’image que je propose est celle de nos routes avant la democratisation de l’automobile. Tant qu’il n’y a eu que des conducteurs privilegies, tout allait bien. C’est lorsqu’elle l’industrie a permis la democratisation de l’automobile que les routes ont connu le cahos jusqu’a ce qu’un code de la route soit etabli.

Cela dit, cette analogie du bac a sable me plait bien.
1– l’enfant y joue, apprend a manier les outils, y socialise,
2– il est sous la sur veillance des adultes, ses propres gardiens, mais aussi sous l’oeil d’autres adultes qui pouront le secourir en cas de besoin, jusqu’a ce que progressivement il puisse s’en affranchir.

Dans les reseaux sociaux, en revanche, on a encore besoin de trouver les regles qui s’adaptent. Quand je dis regles, je ne me refere pas necessairement a des lois etatiques car ca peut-etre aussi des accords concertes entre les parties avec plus de sou plesse, pouvant mieux s'adapter a l’evolution rapide des nouvelles technologies.
1– l’enfant ou le neo phite a acces a internet sans accompagnement ni preparation;
2– sur internet chacun peut pretendre etre qui il veut. Amis ou ennemis se confondent;
3– il n’y a pas que des chateaux de sable sur internet les aires de jeux sont confondus;
3– le bac a sable est un immense domaine qui rejoint les quatre coins du glob;
Le droit est immense, ses potentiels le sont aussi, tant en bien qu’en mal.
4– la portee de diffusion du message est incomparable a aucun autre media pre-existant,
5– la vitesse de propagation est quasi-instantanee;
6– le temps de reflexion n’est plus imposee;
7– le droit de l’oubli ou le droit de retractation est quasi-inexistant.
8 — le dommage cause peut-etre bien plus profond.

Je pense la au domage cause a la reputation, la pedophilie, le ‘cyber bullying’ qui a un effet devastateur et aggrave sur le net ou sur un plan plus materiel, le vol d'identite.

Pour revenir au point particulier du droit a l’intimite, je considere que le respect de l’individu et de la dignite humaine justifient que du moins, les plus vulnerables, les jeunes et les moins experimentes meme moins jeunes, beneficient d’une plus grande protection.
Je ne considere pas le ‘filtering’ ou la censure comme moyens efficaces de protection.
Le meilleur filtre est celui qui se trouve entre les deux oreilles, c’est le discernement et le jugement.
Pour cela, il faut pas ser par l’education.
Les internautes doivent savoir ce qui est fait de leurs informations collectees. Les directives europeennes sont tres claires sur ce point:(Eight Data Protection Principles). Selon qu’il sagit ou non d’une donnee privee sensible, il faut obtenir le consentement tacite ou expresse de l’usager pour collecter ses informations.
Le droit existe, nous ne perdons pas notre droit au respect de la vie privee simplement parce que nous sommes sur internet. Nous conservons notre droit de control sur la diffusion de notre infor­mation. Ce qui a evolue, c’est la dichotomie traditionnelle qui existait entre la sphere publique et la sphere privee. Il demeure le desir de maintenir privees des informations divulguees dans la sphere de l’internet.

Ce qui est poste sur internet y est pour la posterite, ce qui appartient a son auteur ce n’est pas simplement son copyright mais aussi son droit de controle sur sa diffusion.

Mieux que toute explication theorique, voici des cas concrets trouves parmis les tweets postes aujourdhui sur l'exploitation des informations revelees sur les SNSs -preuve que pendant qu'on joue dans le bac a sable les cameras surveillent : 1 - Privacy Violations by Facebook Employees http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/privacy_violati.html 2 - Mom Questioned for Posting Photo of Baby Smoking on Facebook - http://bit.ly/71pV6u 3- Do Facebook Application Settings Put Users At Risk? http://bit.ly/6lXO8u 4- Social Networking: Your Key to Easy Credit? http://www.cnbc.com/id/34843251/ 5- Man arrested under Terrorism Act for Doncaster airport Twitter joke http://tinyurl.com/y8t227t Des cas plus anciens et donc plus longuement debattus: 6 - Students' trial by Facebook http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/17/digitalmedia.highereducation Des etudiants sanctionnes pour des faits postes sur des photos publies dans Facebook. 7- Facebook Pics May Not Go Down Well With Your Insurance Provider! "The woman's insurance company cut her health benefits, claiming she was healthy after seeing pictures of her smiling in bikini at the beach. " http://www.medindia.net/news/Facebook-Pics-May-Not-Go-Down-Well-With-Your-Insurance-Provider-61302-1.htm CNBC: some organizations analyse consumer chatter over Twitter, FB and LinkedIn as part of their credit evaluation process. 5PC Advisor: 3% of UK employers review the public profiles of job candidates before making a hire, 20% of UK employers say they have rejected candidates based on what they have found, Pour ajouter au debat:Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online? http://bit.ly/6VKN8g Social Networks Keep Privacy in the Closet http://www.technologyreview.com/web/22781/?a=f The FBI collected more than 2,000 phone records in violation of ECPA. http://tinyurl.com/yes37z7 An open letter to Mark Zuckerberg -http://bit.ly/4T8qoj- Alexander van Elsas FBI Violated Electronic Communications Privacy Act http://bit.ly/8s8YeI A Hacker's Guide to Privacy on Social Networks http://bit.ly/7USdp9 Are we really a "nation of exhibitionists demanding privacy? " WPost article also asks question: who owns the data? http://bit.ly/4PFbx1

Why should we all pay for the Music Industry?

In the middle of all Tweets on DigitalBritain, HADOPI, Loppsi and other tentative of control and internet censorship from Spain (1) to France (2) or UK passing by the worst dictatorship scheme envisaged in Italy (3), 'une lueur d'espoir', a gleam of hope.

In Monday View: The copyright crackdownCharles Dunstone, CEO TalkTalk Group

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/opinion/article.html?in_article_id=497707

From the mouth of, or actually the pen of, Charles Dunstone, CEO TalkTalk Group, la parole Sage - the wise word, to make me so proud of being a TalkTalk customer:

Commenting the Digital Economy Bill supported by the UK Government, Charles Dunstone reinforce his opposition to the Bill by stating:

"The Digital Economy Bill is one of the few pieces of legislation the government is actively pushing through parliament before an election is called."

He won't tergiversate, for him, the bill is one of

"...the most dangerous and misguided legislation to have come before parliament in recent years.

...sets out to tackle online copyright infringement - frequently referred to as 'illegal peer-to-peer file- sharing' - in order to support Britain's creative industries.

There is no doubt that some people do use the internet to watch films and listen to music without paying. TalkTalk does not condone or encourage copyright infringement, but I believe that the government's proposals are disproportionate, impractical and deeply unprincipled".

Though not encouraging copyright infringement, he states:

"I believe that the government's proposals are disproportionate, impractical and deeply unprincipled".

He crticizes the abusive presumption of fraud that weight on users.

"...the Bill effectively gives music labels and film studios the right to instruct internet service providers, such as TalkTalk, to cut off the internet connection of anyone that the labels and studios suspect of copyright infringement.

Consider this: if the police want to disconnect someone they suspect of viewing child pornography they have to apply to a court first and prove guilt. The Digital Economy Bill, in effect, casts people who download music without paying for it as a more urgent menace to society than people who view images of child abuse.

He then challenges the methods of censorship:

"We know many broadband customers caught up in this Orwellian nightmare will be innocent since the detection method cannot establish the individual who is file-sharing. It can only identify the connection, which many - including the unauthorised - can use."

Reminds the case of innocent customers abused by lawyers victim of hijacking of their broadband connection rescued by the consumer group Which?

I share his views on that and have been blogged earlier on the technical limits of such regulation. The remarks equally apply to the French HADOPI law.

Yes, file-sharers can easily avoid detection using Wi-Fi hijacking and a growing array of other tools and applications, it will be innocent broadband customers who suffer the consequences of this nightmare.

Yes, it is the music and film industry the real beneficiaries of these measures.

Yes, the cost of tackling the problem will be massive - maybe hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

Yes: who foots this bill? The music and film companies? Not a chance. You will pay for it - an extra £2 per month on your broadband bill, according toBT.

...the cost of copyright protection plus the socalled 'phone tax' will jointly add about £30 per year to broadband bills.

Demand modelling shows this could make internet access unaffordable for 600,000 hard-pressed families. So much for the government's claimed commitment to 'digital inclusion'.

And yes,

"The creative industries' arguments are phoney and the government's response will turn our digital economy into a disaster zone.

More than 31,000 people have registered their opposition to these absurd proposals by signing our petition on the Number 10 website. You can also sign at www.dontdisconnect.us."

P.S. : Dear FCC or kind members, I am not sponsored by TalkTalk.

(1) Spain passes anti-piracy law

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3if944e88734e00aa3358cfd1b6d614e92

http://red-sostenible.net/index.php/Página_Principal

(2) Helicopters at the ready

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15276706

(3) "Censure : les webTV en Italie, c’est fini"

http://bit.ly/8w8dIB

HADOPI manque de chance d'atteindre son but

En complement a l'article de Fabrice Epelboin qui a parfaitement anaylse et resume les informations que je lui avais fournies sur le conflits du droit d'auteur et la protection des donnees personnelles - DPI

Le Deep Packet Inspection : pour mieux vous (a)servir ?

http://fr.readwriteweb.com/2010/01/12/analyse/deep-packet-inspection-censure-filtrage/#comment-9515

Je reviens sur la position Europeenne sur les moyens d'investigation des telechargement illegaux. Le Working Party Article 29 (ou Groupe de travail Article 29 sur la protection des données WPA29) est une autorite consultative independante pour la protection donnees privees Instituee par la Directive 95/46/EC. Sa mission est definie par l'Article 30 de la Directive 95/46/EC et Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC. WPA29 rassemble les représentants de chaque autorité de protection des données des pays membre de l'Union européenne. (Meme si les avis du WPA29 sont consultatifs et ne s'imposent pas, les etats Europeens generalement les traitent comme tel).
http://www.cnpd.lu/fr/commission/cooperation_internationale/coop_art29/index.html
WPA29 a rendu un avis WP104 dans lequel il :
"...a constaté que certaines mesures destinées à assurer la protection efficace de matériel soumis à droit d’auteur contre un échange illicite présumé, prises à différents niveaux par les détenteurs de droits d’auteur, impliquaient le traitement de données à caractère personnel...."
Il conclut:
"Le groupe de travail considère donc nécessaire, dans ce contexte en pleine mutation, de rappeler les grands principes de la protection des données et leur champ d'application dans le cadre de la gestion des droits numériques et du respect du droit d’auteur."

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2005/wp104_fr.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2005/wp104_en.pdf

Ce n'est malheureusement pas une nouveaute que de tenter de bafouer les droits fondamentaux en conlit avec le droit de la propriete intellectuelle.
A l'issue d'un proces qui aura duree 10 ans opposant l'Eglise de la Scientologie a des FAI Hollandais (XS4ALL et Karin Spaink), la suprematie des droits fondamntaux sur les droits d'auteurs a ete reconnue.
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/scientologycase

Par ailluers, conformement au principe de la proportionalite (Convention Europeenne sur protection individuelle pour le traitement automatiques des donnees personnelles et la Directive 95/46), les gouvernements qui souhaitent imposer des limitations a la protection des donnees personnelles doivent demontrer au prealable que l'atteinte au respect de la protection des donnees personnelles est proportionnee au but recherche tout le long du processus de collect des donnees.

Instituer le DPI dont on ne sait quel organisme en prendra la charge ni sous quelle precaution, ne parait nullement proportionne a la defense des interets prives des maisons de disque.
Il est donc avere que le DPI ou autre methode de flicage n'est en rien un remede au probleme de telechargements illegaux.
Que les telechargements illegaux se feront par la voie du VPN et de l'encryptage. Par consequent, l'attention a la protection des donnees privees ne pourra se justifier, le but n'etant pas 'ATTEIGNABLE'.
Les trois elements indispensables du test de proportionalite font defauts: action indispensable, absence de moyens alternatifs, represente une contrainte injustifiee.