Authorities have identified seven child victims, including an infant whose molestation in April by a suburban Chicago man was transmitted live via an internet chat room to a co-conspirator who used the screen name "BigtDaddy619".
Four of those charged allegedly molested the children, making the resulting images available in the chat room called "Kiddypics & Kiddyvids," that facilitated trading of thousands of images and videos, the statement said.
Read the full story here. See one of the indictments here.
"if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue."
The case is Bunt v. Tilley  EWHC 407 (QB) (10 March 2006).
- Google is expanding its role in the publishing world from a search engine for books to a distributor making entire books available to read online.
The company launched a new program Friday that allows traditional book publishers in the United States and Britain to sell and set the price for access to full copies of their books, Google spokeswoman Megan Lamb said Monday. Consumers who purchase the access cannot save copies of the books or individual pages to their computers and can view them only through a Web browser.
"We are collaborating with publishers -- in response to demand from them -- to develop a suite of online tools that will enable publishers to experiment with new and innovative ways to generate more book revenue,'' Lamb said in an e-mail.
The new program is open only to U.S. and U.K. publishers at this point.
Several points remained unclear: whether Google would get a cut of the price paid for access to a book; whether customers who purchase access to books see advertising while they read the books; and whether independent authors will also one day sell full access to their books through the service.
Read the full article here.
- The internet has been a hotbed of innovation because it’s "dumb". The designers didn’t presuppose how the internet would be used and that has made it extremely flexible. But what we are running into now are scaling and security problems, and some people are asking: if we were building the internet from scratch, what would be the ideal clean-slate design?
Do you think the internet should be redesigned from scratch? What do you think the internet would look like? Do you think that such a redesign could ever realistically happen?
The opening two paragraphs of the opinion summarise the issue:
- The term "Lolita" conjures up images ranging from the literary depiction of the adolescent seduced by her stepfather in Vladimir Nabokov’s novel to erotic displays of young girls and child pornography. This case requires us to consider probable cause to search a computer for child pornography in the
context of an Internet website, known as "Lolitagurls.com," that admittedly displayed child pornography.
Micah Gourde appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress more than 100 images of child pornography seized from his home computer. Gourde claims that the affidavit in support of the search lacked sufficient indicia of probable cause because it contained no evidence that Gourde actually downloaded or possessed child pornography. We disagree. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate judge who issued the warrant made a "practical, common-sense decision" that there was a "fair probability" that child pornography would be found on Gourde’s computer. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). The Fourth Amendment requires no more.
Opponents of the Act contend that not only is it too broad and would therefore stifle free speech, but that advances in technology have made it obsolete. SiliconValley.com summarises the issues plaguing the Act.
Is the Act obsolete? Does the Act unduly infringe upon free speech? How can we protect children from offensive content that is available online?
Read more here (free subscription required). See also CNN.com.
Read the full report here.
- Hong Kong authorities said that they would set up a register of data-collection companies after details of 20,000 people who complained about the police were leaked on to the Internet. Roderick Woo, Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, said the companies would have to provide information on what kind of data they collect and why, and who will access to it. Woo said authorities were investigating the leaked data, including names, addresses and criminal records, which apparently came from the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). The IPCC had denied any link with the website that carried the information but local media quoted unnamed police source saying the council outsourced data processing. Read more here.
Should Australia implement a similar register of data collection companies?
appropriate role for governments and public institutions in providing Internet connectivity. He argues that government cannot adopt a hands-off approach, though it must recognize that its role differs in the urban and rural markets with the urban focus on the competitive environment, while the rural mandate concentrated on establishing connectivity.
Read Michael Geist's comments here.
Do you agree that "Given the Web's importance, government cannot adopt a hands-off approach, though it must recognize that its role differs in the urban and rural markets"?
Read the full story here.
Does this tell us anything about jurisdictional difficulties on the internet?
You can read the decision here.
- Australia's digital content industry was being outpaced by other countries according to a report released by Department of Communication Information Technology and the Arts. Read more here.
- The National Australia Bank was able to quickly shut down three sites in China that launched a phishing attack on it. Read the article here.
- A feature story on corporate blogging, including why you would and why you wouldn't have a corporate blog. See also the more sceptical view of David Holmes, the managing director of online media agency OneDigital.
- A Special Report on Open Source Software (not available online).
The website referred to is a blog titled Patriot Alliance Downunder. You can view the website at http://avoiceofdissent.blogspot.com/.
Does this website breach Australian state and/or federal law? Should a website with this sort of content be allowed to remain online? What does the fact that this website is still online tell you about internet content regulation in Australia?
- "Internet suicide pacts have occurred since at least the late 1990s and have been reported everywhere from Guam to the Netherlands. But in Japan, where the suicide rate is among the industrialized world's highest, officials are worried about a recent spate of such deaths."
Read the full article here.
Is it possible to stop the internet being used in this way?
- EFF is warning the public about a so-called anonymous email service located at Advicebox.com. Advicebox.com's tagline is "Anonymous email made easy" but this service does not provide real anonymity -- it's a trap for the unwary and should not be used by battered spouses, whistleblowers and others who need real protection. Read more here.
Who do you think will win? Can you think of any legal concerns users may have with an online office-productivity suite?
- "Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, currently serves up the following: Five billion pages a month. More than 120 languages. In excess of one million English-language articles. And a single nagging epistemological question: Can an article be judged as credible without knowing its author? Wikipedia says yes, but I am unconvinced."
Read the full article here.
What do you think? Can an article be judged as credible without knowing its author?
US internet search giant Google triggered an international race to build an online library when it announced plans in December 2004 to digitise books and documents from a handful of big libraries (see Google Book Search). US based internet and software giants Yahoo, Microsoft and Amazon have since announced separate plans while France, angry that private companies took the lead, has pushed for the creation of a public digital library.
Read more here.
What copyright issues need to be considered when creating a digital library?
This week this blog covered several important stories and raised a number of interesting issues:
- Google continued its attempts to capture the Chinese search engine market (as rumours circulated that China was contemplating creating its own internet), settled its lawsuit against Lane’s Gifts, and saw a new competitor, in Microsoft, enter the search engine business. This blog also asked these questions about Google: Can Google commit libel through its search engine results? What are the the potential privacy implications of Google’s Desktop Search software? Does Google’s image search constitute a breach of US copyright laws? We also saw inside the Googleplex.
- Russia was warned that its chances of joining the World Trade Organization this year will fade if the government pushes ahead with new legislation on intellectual property rights
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation started its fight against charging a fee for email, and the New York Times weighed in on the debate by posing the question "Are consumers going to start having to spend a lot more to surf the Web?.
- Privacy concerns about e-commerce surfaced this week with the news that customers of the online payments service iBill had had their personal information released onto the internet.
- Australia was found to be lagging behind other developed nations in terms of broadband internet speed, yet in Great Britain people spend more time on the internet than watching television.
- The Browser from Business 2.0 Magazine reported on a scary reminder of the bubble years, criticism of Microsoft's Origami, how an Intel demo turned into a shouting match, and how a Google acquisition could challenge Microsoft Word.
- Some of the complexities of e-voting were seen in litigation in North Carolina.
- As the US Department of Justice launched in inquiry into allegations of price fixing by top music labels on their charges for digital downloading, other options were being considered around the world. A new online music service aims to offer CDs for $US1 ($1.35) by letting members trade used physical discs and France considered whether to legalise peer-to-peer file-sharing through scheme that allowed internet users to download as much as they want as long they paid a small monthly fee. Meanwhile, it was reported that “radio podcasting is rapidly moving from the realm of hip and hype into serious media”.
- A report by Symantec found that cyber-criminals are focusing less on destroying data and increasingly on attacks designed to silently steal data for profit.
- eBay removed from its website an advertisement for a 1982 BMW that was advertised as once belonging to one of the gunmen in the Columbine High School killings, only to see the seller set up a personal website to solicit bids on the car at http://www.buykleboldsbmw.com/.
- A story involving threats made on a MySpace.com website provoked this question: Is the internet a safe place for children?
- Blackberry settled its patent infringement lawsuit filed by NTP
- Content regulation in China, a theme considered in this blog last week, resurfaced as Microsoft denied that it had any involvement in the arrest of a Chinese journalist on subversion charges. Some of the inherent difficulties in content regulation also made news this week.
- Tuesday’s Australian IT liftout reported on e-healthcare, Google’s profit projections and research by Seccom Networks that suggests up to a third of companies are having information taken from their computers by adware or spyware.
- Finally, these questions about blogs were asked: Why do people read blogs? When bloggers comment on issues, should they disclose any potential conflicts of interest? Who should profit from a blog?
As the report notes, "The breach has broad privacy implications for the victims. Until it was brought low by legal and financial difficulties, iBill was a top credit-card processor for adult entertainment websites."
To read about the details of this story, click here.
- The launch of a new Internet incubator is a scary reminder of the bubble years.
- Microsoft's Origami draws criticism.
- Intel demo turns into shouting match.
- Google acquisition could challenge Microsoft Word.
The question is asked following an article in The Times reporting that Google has been asked by Premiership footballer Ashley Cole's solicitors to explain why his name has been linked to the word “gay” in internet search results.
Read more here and here.
The Rocky Mountain News is now reporting that the seller has now set up a personal website to solicit bids on the car at http://www.buykleboldsbmw.com/.
Should the seller be allowed to create this website? Although you might find the nature of this website unpleasant, is there any legal justification for banning such a site or closing it down?
Does this fact surprise you? Are people spending too much time on the internet?
Are you concerned by the potential privacy implications of Google's Desktop software?
Some of the legal complexities relating to e-voting are currently being considered by the courts in North Carolina. If you are interested in e-voting and want to know what is being litigated in North Carolina, click here.
If you would like to know more news about e-voting in the US, visit Voters Unite.
Do you agree with the decision? How do you think the appeal will be decided? Do you agree with Cody's conclusion that, even if the decision is upheld on appeal, "the vitality of Web does not appear in jeopardy as a result of the district court’s decision"?
This report reminds us of the important role that intellectual property rights are playing in the promotion of free trade through free trade organisations and agreements, especially in bilateral agreements with the United States.
Do you agree that this material should have been removed from the eBay website? Is this censorship, or should eBay be able to decide what is sold through its website?
Read a summary of the report here. And this is how The Australian reported the story.
Would you share music in this way? Would such a system be legal in Australia?
Some of these issues are covered in this article from the New York Times, "Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign" (free subscription required).
- "There are conflicting reports as to whether China is considering creating an internal Internet structure that is not governed by ICANN. Reports in the China People's Daily suggested that China would create top level domains using Chinese characters as addresses. A lot of the non-English world wants to extend addresses to their own alphabets, something with which ICANN has been moving glacially slow.
Reports are that China is working with second-level domains, rather than .cn, .com, and .net as suggested by other reports.
A report in the Toronto Star by Professor Michael Geist suggests that whether top or second level domains are involved, the prospects of China being used as a model by other countries has the potential to up-end U.S. control of top level domain servers. China is a little different from most countries in that the population of Internet users is large enough that the Chinese government could, indeed, make the split work for that country. Critics believe if China successfully splits from the Internet as it is currently governed, the government there would be able to censor content even more than is possible under current circumstances.
Stories on this from CIO Today, the Toronto Star, and Xinhua."
- Would charging for email be just like a road toll?
- When will email cease to be free?
- Would charging for email introduce a two-tiered system?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has started an open letter to AOL in which it expresses its serious concern with AOL's adoption of Goodmail's CertifiedEmail, seeing it as a threat to a free and open internet. Read the letter and see if you agree with EFF's argument? What are some of the counter-arguments?
For some background and commentary, see Ben at LawFont.
- A United States Congressional Committee has accused Google (and other internet companies) of a "sickening and eveil" collaboration with the Chinese government and of being complicit in the jailing and torture of dissidents. This stems from Google's agreement with the Chinese government to block various politically sensitive terms from their new China specific site, Google.cn. Read more here.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called for internet companies to adopt a code of conduct when engaging with authoritarian regimes.
- While all the controversy dominates the media, Beijing News, a Beijing newspaper, indicates it may be academic as Google's new China specific site doies not have a license. Read more here.
Is the internet a safe place for children? What can the law do to help protect children when they go online? Or is simply something that parents need to monitor?
What do you think of the original French scheme? Is such a scheme a solution to the problem of illegal downloading? Should peer-to-peer file-sharing be legal? Why? Or why not?
- The federal government's committment to e-health, through HealthConnect, has been called into question by Queensland Health. Read about it here. What role can e-healthcare play in our health system? Is government adequately committed to e-health? Is e-health simply a waste of money? What legal issues would inherently surround e-health? (Think about privacy law?)
- Following on from Google's profit projections mentioned in this blog last week, Google's chief executive Eric Schmidt says he sees no limit to the search engine's ability to increase advertising revenue, allaying investor concerns about slowing growth. Read more here.
- Research by Seccom Networks suggests that up to a third of companies are having information taken from their computers by adware or spyware. The research apparently reveals that about only two in every 100 companies in Australia are able to identify any threat, mitigate it and collect forensic evidence so legal action can be taken. Read more here. What does this mean for Australian businesses? And what does it tell us about the difficulty in collecting forensic evidence in an electronic and digital environment?
What do you think? Can bloggers better fulfil these functions? Could the blog hasten the end of traditional media sources?
For further discussion see the Tech Law Prof Blog.
How should the major music labels respond to this trend?
However, the New York Times reports (free subscription required) that the relatively innocent site Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things had been blocked by SmartFilter on the basis that a site reviewer from SmartFilter had "spotted something fleshy" and incorrectly (or at the least unfairly) labelled the site with the Nudity characterisation.
As is noted in the article, "There is far too much content on the Internet for one company to review manually, so they have to cut corners. And they're going to fall further behind as the Web gets bigger."
Is there a solution to this problem? Should we just accept that it is impossible to provide effective content regulation for the internet? Should we even go so far to say that there should be no regulation of the internet?
What do you think? Who should profit?
- The big copyright story was the release of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs handing down its report on the inquiry into technological protection measures.
- The other copyright story was that Apple iTunes Music Store stated that it would not be releasing local download figures.
- Moving away from copyright, the blog considered whether email on the Internet should be free. Would charging for email be just like a road toll? When will email cease to be free? And would charging for email introduce a two-tiered system? Would a charging for email reduce our dependence on email?
- Phishing continues to be a threat to Australia, while some US states, like Virginia, are fighting back.
- Internet usage continues to grow, as does the google juggernaut.
- Despite the promises of Bill Gates, spam continues to be a problem, forcing companies and law firms to find ways of limiting spam.
- Threats, hackers and cyberviolence continue to provoke further regulation of the internet.
- Content regulation of the internet in China. This is a major legal, technological and political issue that will be considered throughout the semester and warrants more comment and attention.
I hope you found some of these links and issues interesting. Please post your comments to encourage more debate and discussion.
- South Korea is the world's most wired country, boasting the highest per capita rate of broadband Internet connections.
- The term cyberviolence encompasses anything from online insults to sexual harassment and cyberstalking.
- Prosecutors are beginning to respond to the threat posed by cyberviolence.
- Also responding is the government, who plans to introduce a bill that real-name authentication.
- Websites too are responding by actively seeking to filter comments.
There are four questions worthing considering here. First, is given the nature of the virtual environment of the internet is cyberviolence really a threat or danger? Second, are the respective responses of prosecutors, the government and individual websites warranted and proportionate to whatever threat or danger is posed? Will real-name authentication, which would have the effect of removing anonymous online speech in South Korea, be a threat to free speech? Do we, and should we, have a right to anonymous speech?
Is there anything wrong with a two tiered system? If users are prepared to pay for an email system that guarantees increased speed and authentication, why shouldn't just accept that it is their right to do so? It all comes back to the fundamental questions: should email be free, and why?
Do you agree or disagree? Is the handwritten note gaining currency?
Here are some other recent stories relating to content regulation in China:
- The Chinese government continues to prosecute people for subversion for online writings. For example, on Tuesday the AP reported that a Chinese journalist has been whose reports on rural poverty and unemployment riled local officials has been charged with subversion after posting essays on the internet.
- China is cracking down on spam and piracy.
- Much to the chagrin of the US government, various internet companies have agreed to China's censorship demands.
For a detailed study, see this report from the OpenNet Initiative: Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005.
Of course, the Chinese government defends its right to regulate the internet in the way it does.
There are really two issues here. First, how successful has China's regulation been? And second, assuming the Chinese government's attempts at regulation have been relative successful, should a government be able to regulate what its citizens can access through the internet? So basically, the first is a practical or technical question - does it work? - while the second is the moral or philosophical question on the role of government and the value of free speech? Any thoughts or different perspectives? Who would defend what China is doing?
A copy is available here:
This is more a straight IP issue, but has some impact on Internet distribution of content.
We need to think about why should email be free? Is it just because it always has been? Or are there other reasons? Note that for the moment at least, the plan is only charge to businesses. Will this last, or will all email users eventually have to pay a fee for each email they send? Would charging a fee for each email sent impact upon the use and adoption of email and the internet?
Here a few interesting articles from the section published today that touch upon issues we will cover later in the semester:
- "Apple quiet on local music sales" - Apples iTunes Music Store, one of the leading legal alternatives to the illegal downloading of music, has said it will not release local download figures. Why? Does this mean that Australian sales are disappointing to sales overseas?
- "Spam has bolted, despite Gates" - reminding us that two years Bill Gates promised that spam would be gone in two years.
- "Law firms block junk" - Clayton Utz has slashed the number of incoming emails by nearly 40 per cent by restricting spam.
- "Script kiddies cooking up fresh threats" - how amateur hackers are using new programs called rootkits to give the user untraceable control of the compromised computer.
There are also interesting and relevant articles that are not available online, so it was worth buying The Australian each Tuesday just to stay on top of what is happening.
The article is worth reading as it reinforces a number of things discussed last night - how information on the information is carried in packets, the historical origins of the internet, how the internet has evolved, as well as positing that perhaps it is the telecommunication companies that own the internet. What do you think? And if the telecommunication companies do impose what the article refers to as a toll, what would be the implications on internet usage? Also, what privacy issues may this raise?
A new "open access to knowledge" project hosted by the Queensland University of Technology aims to ensure that anyone can legally share knowledge across the world, whether they be an every day citizen or a top end researcher.
The QUT team, led by School of Law head, Professor Brian Fitzgerald is embarking on a $1.3 million, two year project to develop legal protocols for managing copyright issues in an open access environment.
For more information, see the press release or visit the project's homepage.
What do you think? Is this a valuable project? Should research be available under an open access protocol? What should such a protocol involve?
I hope you find this to be a good way of keeping up to date with a wide variety of issues and of contributing to the discussion of the issues we cover in this unit.
Thanks and I hope you enjoy the semester!
names in com.au and net.au.
auDA has determined that the fairest and most effective way of releasing
the geographic names will be by way of individual ballots.
auDA intends to launch the ballot process in June 2005.
For more information please refer to the announcement at
Critics have contended that this would threaten Australia's freedom of political communication, as well as freedom of the press and rational adults' right to have access to information. Electronic Frontiers Australia has made a submission to the Senate Committee inquiry.
Dr Philip Nitschke has also suggested that banning the spread of information on voluntary euthanasia over the Internet could boost the number of people who commit suicide. Read more here.
Should the internet be regulated in this way?
The report was the result of collaboration between project members, researchers and affiliates from the CRC CI, QUT (Law, IT/Security and BEE), University of Newcastle, Queensland Crown Law, Queensland Department of Public Works, Queensland Department of Main Roads, and Brisbane City Council.
The report can be accessed here. (You will need your QUT Access usernsame and password to open the file.) Although an overview of the report will be presented in class, if you are interested it may be useful to have a browse through the report before class.
In the United States, more and more parents are using internet filtering software, according to a report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Robert MacMillan of the Washington provides a summary here, and the full report is available here.
For a summary of the findings, click here.
In that case, one of the three appeal judges died while writing the decision. (He was dissenting). This case has special circumstances -- repeated use of website and bad conduct -- so even though it is from an important court, I am not sure if it will be followed in all circumstances.
A total of 572 people across Japan paid via Yahoo for auctioned items such as liquid-crystal televisions and digital cameras but did not receive the goods, said Noboru Mizuno, who leads the group.
To read more, click here.
"Amazon.com Inc. has one potentially big advantage over its rival online retailers: It knows things about you that you may not know yourself.
"Though plenty of companies have detailed systems for tracking customer habits, critics and boosters alike say Amazon is the trailblazer, having collected information longer and used it more proactively. It even received a patent recently on technology aimed at tracking information about the people for whom its customers buy gifts."
Read more here.
To read more, click here.
Do you think it this sort of attempt will work? What issues/problems could arise?
Read about the case at CNN Money or at Findlaw. Fore more background information about the case including a list of some of the strange alliances that have developed between organizations wanting to either save or kill Groskster, click here.
If you are interested, the briefs (detailed written submissions) filed before the Supreme Court are available here.
What do you think of the argument that these sorts of lawsuits might have discouraged past inventions like copy machines, videocassette recorders and iPod portable music players - all of which can be used to make illegal duplications of copyrighted documents, movies and songs?
Read more here.
Should Yahoo be protected by the First Amendment?
- "Phishing thieves try a spot of pharming" (on phishing, which was the focus of the last seminar);
- "Spam, virus threats on the rise" (based on Symantec's biannual Internet Security Threat Report);
- "Online trading boom" (e-commerce);
- "Forum poster sued for libel" (an article on a UK case which dispels the myth that forum posters can remain anonymous).
Comment on any of the articles that interest you ...
Read more here.
- "Searcher twists name rules" (on domain names);
- "Sour notes for online music players" (on downloading music);
- "Feds' ID rules cut costs of e-trading" (on e-trading);
- "Libel threat to web news sites" (on internet jurisdiction).
Comment on any of the articles that interest you ...
By Sam Varghese
September 10, 2003
In what appears to be a scam of a different kind, an email is doing the rounds offering people 10 percent of the money deposited in their bank accounts by outsiders.
The email starts off:
"Looking for a perspective (sic) and well-paid job in Australia?
1. If you are looking for a perspective and well-paid work in Australia (of more than 1000 $ aud in a week guaranteed).
2. If you are a Australian resident (Obligatory condition).
3. If you are over 18 (Obligatory condition)."
A link with the text "Check up our site for the further information" follows, advising the readers to "Click here (once)".
Clicking on this link take one to a webpage located at advinc-ma.netfirms.com which provides the following advice:
"My name is Andrew Colobanoff. I am an advertising manager of the A.I.C company. Our website address www.aicau.net
(Reader Derek Jenkins added a word of warning about the aicau site: "It contains malicious VB scripting that creates a trojan (Win32/Aicau.Downloader) EXE called c:\2.exe. It was only discovered on September 9 and I suspect that most users' antivirus packages would not offer protection from it at this stage," he wrote.)
"The company deals with many overseas partners, but for the time being we have offices only in Russia and in the USA.
"At the moment we receive a lot of orders from Australia and New Zealand. So we are looking for agents in Australia for distant work.
"Our clients stipulate that they pay for our services only in Australian banks such as ANZ, National, and Westpac.
"Our offices will be opened in the country only in 2-3 months. Meanwhile, in order to start working with the clients in Australia we need to have accounts in the above-mentioned banks.
"If you live in Australia and you are ready to become our agent you should do the following:
"1. Open an account in one of the above-mentioned banks
"2. Send us the bank account data
"3. After receiving money (you'll get $2000-3000 monthly) you are to take 10% commission and send us the rest by WesternUnion
"With time you'll be able to open more accounts...
"Frequently-asked questions (FAQ's):
"1. Do I have to pay the money order tax?
"No, you don't, all the taxes are included.
"2. How long do you intend to cooperate with me?
"We are going to cooperate with our agents until we open an office in Australia. Provided we are satisfied with your work, we might suggest you signing a full-time job contract.
"3. Are you not afraid of entrusting me your money?
"As far as we know your bank account data, we can easily find you. We need honest and reliable people who have unlimited access to internet. You'll get a chance to earn some money, it can be both a good perquisite, and a favorable collaboration with us. The internet business is developing rapidly and has good prospects. It will bring you considerable profits, besides it can provide you with a place in our company. If you are ready to cooperate, you should open an account in one of the above-mentioned banks and inform us of its data."
Reader Robert Coleman, who received the email and did a bit of sleuthing, said: "The basic modus operandi appears to be, money is not transferred out of the bank, but across to another account within the bank. Who would think to look within the bank for the proceeds of a robbery? It is then taken out of the country via Western Union. Neat and simple. This is based just on the websites I saw and a bit of supposition, but it fits pretty well."
Another reader, Daniel McNamara, wrote in that he had received a different piece of spam that creates the same trojan. McNamara was curious and did a bit of investigation which makes for compelling reading.
An email query to Colobanoff as to where the money was coming from received no reply.
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/10/1062902087603.html
You may have heard the term “phishing” in the news lately.
In case you haven't, it's not just “fishing” misspelled. It actually refers to unsolicited email that looks like it's from a trusted institution — but in reality is an attempt to lure people into providing personal or sensitive account information on phony web sites. The information collected is later used to commit fraud.
Citi Cards holds your security in the highest regard. For that reason, we're working diligently with law enforcement, industry organizations, and governments overseas to shut down these scams permanently.
But there are a few simple things you can do as well to protect yourself:
* Look for your “personal header” on all emails.
For your protection, effective immediately look for your first name, last name and the last 4 digits of your account number in an “email security zone” at the top of email we send you. Be suspicious of emails claiming to be from us that do not include this information.
* Never type account information into a pop-up window.
Don't type account information into a pop-up window, even if it looks legitimate. We never request account information through pop-up windows.
* Don't respond to emails asking you to verify information.
We'll never send you an email asking you to verify information. If we have an issue with your records, we'll contact you another way.
* Be suspicious of grammatical or spelling errors.
These are usually indications of a fraudulent message.
If you happen to receive a suspicious-looking email claiming to be from Citi Cards, please forward it to firstname.lastname@example.org. We have agents on staff around the clock monitoring these reports and acting on them immediately.
If you'd like more information on phishing, please visit our “Security and You” module. Or, you can contact one of our Internet Security Specialists at 1-888-285-9696.
Once the bad guys get your account details, how do they get your money?
To read the opinion of the court, click here.
For more information, click here.
Read more here.
For more, click here. What do you think?
"This is a case of free expression," Brian McLeod Rogers, a Toronto lawyer representing the media coalition, told the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday.
The 52-member coalition includes CNN, The New York Times, Time magazine, The Times of London, Google and Yahoo, as well as Canadian media such as The Globe and Mail, CanWest Publications Inc., CTV and CBC.
Read more here.
"The proliferation of eBay and PayPal phishes means that the legitimate e-mail that powers eBay transactions are increasingly being eliminated by junk e-mail filters. At the same time, some sellers say that buyers are becoming wary because of the constant threats from phishing, which is straining eBay's relationship with customers and may be driving down auction prices."
Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/technology/07ebay.html?ex=1110862800&en=e1f51fd0875ae424&ei=5070 This article is relevant to a couple of topics we wil look at this semester.
"Australian recording labels are suing Kazaa's owners, accusing the company of contributing to widespread copyright infringements by letting Kazaa users download up to 3 billion files each month, freely exchanging songs, music and television programs without paying royalties."
Contiuned at: http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/f/1310/3-4-2005/20050304070011_42.html
Decision at http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/021137p.html
By GARY RIVLIN, New York Times
Many longtime sellers and Wall Street analysts, long bullish on eBay, now say they are uncertain about the company's ability to sustain its torrid rate of growth.
Read more at: http://practice.findlaw.com/cyberlaw-0205.html
"The Supreme Court Finally Steps Into The Fray Between Online File Swappers And The Major Movie And Recording Studios.
On March 29, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., a closely-watched case involving peer-to-peer file sharing - a process in which people send or receive music or movies over the Internet.
The most famous peer-to-peer file sharing site was, of course, Napster. However, after a number of rounds of litigation, Napster has now been transformed into a site that, for a monthly payment, allows only legal downloads of music (that is, downloads of copyright music for which a license has been granted). Other sites, however, continue to offer peer-to-peer file sharing software despite the fact that one of its uses is to pirate copyrighted music and movies - and Grokster is one such site.
The Court's ultimate decision in MGM v. Grokster is very likely to be one of the landmarks of this term."
From: http://practice.findlaw.com/feature-0305.html (The article continues to give a simple, but good, overview of the case.)
Gambling operator Ladbrokes, owned by Hilton, cannot offer
Internet-based betting services in the Netherlands,
according to a ruling by the Dutch Supreme Court that upheld
a ban by a lower court. Gambling is regulated under Dutch
law, and only organizations with a special permit can offer
services. Ladbrokes, which does not have a permit, is
offering its services on the Internet and through call
centres operated outside the Netherlands. The Supreme Court
noted that the gambling site may use geolocation software to
ban Dutch users from accessing their site. Dutch decision at
[Source BNA newsletter]
"Libel - Abuse of Process - Jameel Vs Dow Jones Inc"
"... the case of Jameel v Dow Jones Inc brings an important restriction on the right of Claimants to sue in this jurisdiction (which is amongst the most Claimant-friendly regimes in the world for libel). Previously, as long as a Claimant could show publication to one person in this jurisdiction, he could bring an action for libel here. This created the difficult scenario for online publishers (e.g. any website owner) of facing claims in England brought by foreign individuals or companies in respect of publications which in reality had little to do with England. The Jameel case was a good example, a Saudi individual suing a US publisher in this jurisdiction on the basis that the website was accessible from England and that he (the Claimant) had some level of reputation here. It emerged in evidence that, in fact, only five people had accessed the website from England, including the Claimant himself and two of his legal advisors.
The Court of Appeal indicated that it will no longer allow this sort of claim. It held that the costs of the case would have been completely disproportionate to the benefit which the Claimant could have acheived and the action was therefore struck out as an abuse of process. The decision is of some comfort to website owners, but is unlikely to impact claims where the Claimant does have some genuine connection to this jurisdiction and can show that the defamatory words have been read by more than a minimal number of people."
The ACCC is seeking views from consumers, businesses and other parties on options for legislative reform to address concerns about the domin...
The United Nations intellectual property agency (WIPO) is the latest front in the US-China trade war. http://www.theage.com.au/world/sad-am...
The Australian Privacy Commission made an award compensating individuals for non-economic loss for a privacy law breach. This was a first ...
Finally, what is called direct registration of domain names is coming to Australia. See https://www.auda.org.au/statement/australias-interne...