iLawyer

Exploring the essence of the internet and technology.

[ilawyer2017-blog]

The government just admitted it will use smart home devices for spying | Trevor Timm

Many consumers are wholly unaware that the smart devices making their home more custom and responsive are making data that can be hacked or collected

Is surveillance the sacrifice we make for the integration of technology into our lives? 

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Does anyone care about airing their dirty washing in public anymore?

Way back before the age of the internet and social media, family feuds stayed within the family, the inebriated escapades of the everyday person remained un-photographed and unless you were on the television or radio, your opinions were generally a private matter too. Yet, as the internet and its various manifestations have developed, our once private lives have become intertwined in this online evolution. Our online “friends” and followers know our whereabouts, our shopping habits, and even what we had for breakfast this morning. Further, with a general governmental fear of hindering growth and innovation, the intimacies of our personal lives are slipping through our fingers as easily, and as unstoppably as water.

Our ever-growing desire to be connected to others and within our own lives means that privacy has been tossed aside. There appears to be a (generally conscious) trade-off between privacy and convenience, even worse, an exchange of privacy for social gratification and status. Most profess high regards for online privacy protection, but few practice it. As such, we leave behind a trail of cyber breadcrumbs, which if put back together do not make a steaming multigrain bloomer, but a detailed (and oft embarrassing) imprint of our inner being. The internet has provided us with an anonymous platform which may, and has been used for both good and evil. However, paradoxically, while we have the ability to appear unknown, even as we operate incognito, we are accumulating data which paves the way to our deepest most hidden selves.

But does anybody really care? That is, do they care enough to actually do something about it? Would they stop posting pictures and statuses? Would they avoid cookie wielding websites? Would they live in a world where they are not invited to the party because they do not have the means of viewing the invitation? With privacy hungry platforms so intensely woven into all aspects of our lives, for many, simply opting out is a difficult and deeply inconvenient sacrifice to make. It would mean breaking from the flock. Further, in doing this, it would likely add disruption to our lives. Contacting your old university friend from Australia would no longer be so easy. With cookies littered all about the internet, and growing in number, online shopping would be a minefield. 

Moreover, there is exists a general attitude that those who do not subscribe to the online environment are simply old and incapable, or a hermit, and those who go the bare minimum route are regarded as creepers. Even social attitude is slowly and sneakily pushing us to increasing divulge private information. 

So, does anyone care about airing their dirty washing in public anymore? Many do not, and many do, but few in the latter camp are actually willing to do something about it regardless of growing public awareness. Our eagerness to click “I accept” legally signs away aspects our privacy and very few of us actually care enough act out against it.  

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Should distributed denial of service attacks as a form of protest be legal?

Firstly, let us understand what a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack is. According to the Tech Terms online dictionary, it is “an effort to make one or more computer systems unavailable” accordingly, the attack “tells all coordinated systems to send a stream of requests to a specific server at the same time”. The attack is fairly easy to execute as it does not require any authorisation of the targeted site and works equally well on each site regardless of its security level. It requires the use of multiple computers to perform the attack. Imagine lots of tiny arrows being fired into the feet of a giant. It may slow down or even stop the giant temporarily, but it is an annoyance, rather than a critical attack.

In 2013, the infamous hacking collective Anonymous put forward a petition on a White House webpage claiming that DDoS attacks are a legitimate means of protest and that they are merely the online equivalent of non-violent sit-ins. Anonymous themselves stated that “with the advance in internet technology, comes new grounds for protesting”.* The group describes attacks as a means of online disruption which aims to “slow or halt a service.. for a short time.”*

So, does this relatively new form of protest have groundings in law? Under UK law, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.3 explicitly prohibits any acts which impair, hinders or prevents access to any computer or and software held therein. Unfortunately for Anonymous, this is the sole purpose of DDoS attacks.

How then do DDoSs stand up in relation to human rights, namely our right to protest? The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11(1) describes some conditions of our freedom to assemble and associate. One of the foremost requirements is to act peacefully within this context. DDoS attacks appear to prima facie be peaceful and non-violent. They cause no direct harm and the intent is merely to momentarily disrupt. The simplicity, ease, and correlation with offline real-world protests make DDoS attacks somewhat appealing.

However, Article 11(2) lists the exceptions to the right. Here there exists a number of potential barriers to DDoS attacks. For instance, if the attacks were aimed at government organisations, the oh so fondly used (and sometimes abused) ’national security’ exception is likely to be wielded. Moreover, with the internet and technology becoming more and more enshrined in our daily lives, it would become easier to mould the exceptions to block the legality of DDoS attacks.

Should DDoS attacks be considered a legal form of protest? The difference with DDOSs is that when compared with the protests of the 20th century, rather than simply blocking a road, or a field, the protesters here are potentially halting a huge, overarching multinational system which is likely to cause a domino effect. This will therefore eventually undoubtedly run in line with many of the exceptions of Article 11(2) of the Convention. So the answer is no… not yet.

*Obtained from https://www.cnet.com/news/silicon-valleys-diversity-efforts-get-mired-in-scandal/

[ilawyer2017-blog]

The Fight Over Free Speech Online

When private companies take down Web pages, it isn’t a First Amendment violation, but it does enrage many on the right.

We are having our rights slowly picked away, so where do we draw the line, and who draws it? 

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Digital piracy is a significant problem for the creative industries. Still, while there have been many academic studies showing that piracy hurts sales, there h

France may be on to something with its ‘three strikes’ law. But will it really have an impact?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

YouTubers prevail in copyright lawsuit brought by "pickup artist"

“Pickup artist” YouTube channel MattHossZone (previously) has lost his copyright case against a reaction video posted by YouTube channel h3h3Productions. The closely-watched case is a big victory for fair use commentary on video platforms.

https://boingboing.net/2017/08/24/youtubers-prevail-in-copyright.html

[wilwheaton]

This is glorious.

[ilawyer2017-blog]

The balance (is somewhat (on the way to being (hopefully))) restored.

#session5 #fairuse #copyright #exceptions #Youtube #WilWheaton #law #copyrightexceptions

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Laws that choke creativity

Lawrence Lessig, the Net’s most celebrated lawyer, cites John Philip Sousa, celestial copyrights and the "ASCAP cartel" in his argument for reviving our creative culture.

How copyright curbs creation and innovation

#session4 #copyright #copyrightlaw #creation #internetinnovation #balance #lessig #lawrencelessig #tedtalk

[ilawyer2017-blog]

No exhaustion beyond software: Katfriend translates German decision on audiobooks

The IPKat blog reports on copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective.

No exhaustion here

#nodistributioninaudiobooks #exhaustion #IP #Intellectualproperty #software #distributionright #SoftwareDirectvie #IPKat #session3

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Internet regulation: is it time to rein in the tech giants?

Fake news and Isis propaganda have raised concern about the internet’s power. But with cyberspace controlled by a handful of giant, monopolistic firms, can governments ever hope to curb them?

#session2 #regulationtime? #isitpossible? #internetregulation

[ilawyer2017-blog]

The Internet: Past, Present and Future

We look back on the 1980s box computers with their clunky keyboards and scratchy dial-up tune with awkwardness and sniggers. Yet this is the birthplace of the internet, the world-wide web, and all we know of the online world, which today links us all, providing great masses of information at the click of a button (or a quick command directed at Siri).

With innocence and wonder, driven by the innate human need to connect to those similar to us, the internet crawled out of an amniotic sack of bright green code and telephone lines. It provided a free and unregulated realm full of forums, gaming opportunities, and ways to make friends through means previously unknown to the world. Yet, as we look back unappreciatively with an iPhone in one hand, a laptop in our laps and Alexa tending to our needs and requests, the internet’s beginning appears lowly and primitive in a world where technology runs fervently through the veins of society.

Growing up and even being born into the world of the iPhone and tablet, one takes for granted the combined technological endeavours across the globe. We must remember the internet’s early beginnings with reverence, not embarrassed comparison with the technology we know today.

The internet is now a vastly different place. Online intentions are no longer solely based on purity and intellectual curiosity. Alas, the internet as we know it has evolved into a new creature. On the outside this entity is bright, colourful and accessible, yet explore a little deeper and find that this creature has a dark deceptive underbelly. The internet is being used, nay, exploited by criminals from all walks of depravity taking advantage of our most used and loved platform. This abuse of the once untainted internet has lead to regulation, surveillance and mass debate on if, how and whether the internet can truly have laws placed upon and within it. Regardless of this, the internet’s greatness persists. It has allowed for advances in personal and collective connectivity, as well as developments across subject areas including academic, commercial, medical and much much more.

This discussion conjures up thoughts to the next generation of technological users. Will they look at Snapchat and Instagram with sniggering disdain? Will they consider our precious smartphones laughable and obsolete? Will they develop law which adequately tackles cybercrime and security without sacrificing online freedom? 

The internet has developed and expanded greatly from its conception, and it will no doubt continue to do so. We must respect the past creations which provided us with a platform full of wealth and potential, and we must gain a deeper understanding in the way the present relies on the past, and the future on the present.

Remember, your mother may not know how to tag you on Facebook, but it is her generation which provided the means by which social media even exists.

Yours sincerely,

The iLawyer

#session1 #originalcontent 

[ilawyer2017-blog]

Credit where credit is due

Picture credit for my background: https://jpreusstech104.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/what-ive-learned-in-technology-104/ 

Picture credit for my profile picture: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Adjutant_23-46