LibertyVoice

Security expert Bruce Schneier wrote an article for CNN entitled “Spy cameras won’t make us safer” that’s worth reading.
His basic premise is:
Pervasive security cameras don’t substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study [...]

European law allows countries to ban the promotion of online gambling sites based abroad, according to an advisor to the EU’s highest court.

With yesterday's leak of a Dutch government document revealing the positions on ACTA transparency of many of the negotiating partners, it is worth taking stock of the current positions on the issue:

Remaining European Union countries with positions unknown: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.

Remaining ACTA countries with positions unknown: Mexico, Morocco, Switzerland.

If anyone has further updated information, feel free to email or post in the comments.

A spokesperson for the European Commission Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht has sought to address concerns about three strikes within ACTA.  According to De Gucht's spokesperson: "ee are not supporting and will not accept that an eventual ACTA agreement creates an obligation to disconnect people from the internet because of illegal downloads."

This has got to be one of the most abstruse Downfall tributes yet dubbed!!

Update: YouTube responded to the letter from EFF and the National Coalition Against Censorship by doing just what we asked. They state: “We have re-reviewed your videos and have reinstated them with an age gate.” This is good news, and YouTube is to be commended for correcting its error. Amy Greenfield’s channel now has her videos.

Still, the fact that it took two nationally known groups to bring this matter to YouTube’s attention is troubling. It demonstrates that YouTube still has work to do to create a viable appeals process. In addition, as we noted below, YouTube should still change its policy to expressly allow artistic works that contain nudity, and give individual artists the same freedom it reserves for professional television and film.

Previous Post: Today EFF and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) wrote to YouTube, asking the video hosting giant to reconsider its removal of the work of internationally recognized video artist Amy Greenfield.

Amy Greenfield received notice from YouTube that her works, which contain some artistic nudity, did not conform with YouTube’s “community standards.” Under YouTube’s policies, “films and television shows may contain [full nudity]; however, videos originating from the YouTube user community must abide by the YouTube Community Guidelines and are not permitted to include such content.” (emphasis in original). The Community Guidelines purport to allow nudity with “some educational, documentary and scientific content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic,” but does not recognize the value of nudity in art.

When video artists present works that have clear artistic, political or educational merit, YouTube should allow the artist to post the material with at least the same freedom as major studio films and television. If a user community video is flagged as inappropriate, YouTube should at least have an appeals process to allow an artist to explain the artistic merit. While we understand YouTube’s desire to keep pornography off its servers, it must also understand that not all nude art is pornographic.

When the operators of The Pirate Bay were sentenced to prison last year Google quickly distanced itself from the site. Nearly a year later, three of Google’s employees have just received suspended jail sentences in Italy for failing to prevent a video from being uploaded to Google Video, placing them in a similar position as most torrent site admins.

The Department of Defense has released more than 800 heavily-redacted pages of intelligence oversight reports, detailing activities that its Inspector General has “reason to believe are unlawful.” The reports are the latest in an ongoing document release by more than a half-dozen intelligence agencies in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by EFF in July 2009.

The reports, submitted to the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) by various Department of Defense components, cover the period from 2001 through 2008. The IOB’s role within the Executive Office of the President is to ensure that each component of the intelligence community works within the Constitution and all applicable laws. As such, the Inspector General of each intelligence agency is required to submit periodic reports to the IOB, which in turn is required to forward to the Attorney General any report identifying an intelligence activity that violates the law. Intelligence oversight reporting is rarely disclosed to the public.

This new release, from various Defense components including the Army and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comes in four parts, see here. Much of the reported improper activity consisted of intelligence gathering on so-called “U.S. Persons,” including citizens, permanent residents and U.S.-based organizations. Although Defense agencies are generally prohibited from collecting such information (except as part of foreign intelligence or counter-intelligence activity), it is apparent from the unredacted reports released to EFF that some DoD components have had chronic difficulty complying with that prohibition.

Some specific items of interest include:

Part 1

• Pg 98: A report that the Joint Forces Command, working with the FBI, improperly collected and disseminated intelligence on Planned Parenthood and a white supremacist group called the National Alliance, as part of preparations for the 2002 Olympics.
• Pg 122-137: A NORAD intelligence briefing improperly included intelligence on an anti-war group called Alaskans for Peace and Justice in 2005.
• Pg 257-258: A 2006 report that NORAD had procedural problems relating to collecting information on U.S. Persons.

Part 3

• Pg 53-54: A report from 2003 of a closed investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other sites in Iraq.
• Pg 60: A report from 2006 of improper intelligence (in the TALON program) on an anti-recruiting group.
• Pg 112: A report from 2007 of an Army Reserve officer routinely collecting data on U.S. Persons exercising their free speech rights.

Part 4

• Pg 19: A 2008 report that Army Signals Intelligence in Louisiana intercepted civilian cell phone conversations.
• Pg 65: A 2008 report that Army Cyber Counterintelligence officers attended the Black Hat hacker conference without disclosing their Army affiliation and without prior authorization to do so.
• Pg 173: A report that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) set up a “honey pot” computer system to identify foreign threats in May 2006. In October 2007, AFOSI realized that the honey pot system might have been in violation of a sealed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order that required a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant for such activity. AFOSI was not privy to the FISC order and only knew of it from public media reporting. The operation was suspended. Amazingly, when the Air Force asked the Justice Department to see the FISC order at issue, DOJ’s National Security Division denied the Air Force’s request.

According to the release schedule ordered by a federal judge last December, we expect to receive additional IOB reports from the CIA, National Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense later this month. We will post the documents to our website as we receive them.

The Government has ruled out changing English law to allow people who have developed pleural plaques as a result of exposure to asbestos to claim compensation from negligent employers and their insurers.

The European Commission wants to create a new, pan-European contract law that would run in parallel to national laws and would be aimed at increasing cross border trade within the EU. It has also vowed to press ahead with controversial consumer law plans.