2009: Man Buys 5000 Bitcoins For $27, Forgets About Them. 2013: Man Rediscovers His Bitcoins, Now Worth $886,000

from the valuable-information dept

Bitcoin shares with drones the unhappy distinction of being the subject of almost exclusively negative reports. Just as drones are usually doing bad things to people, so Bitcoins are usually helping people do bad things because of their supposed untraceability. So it makes a pleasant change to come across an upbeat Bitcoin story like this, as told by the Guardian:

Kristoffer Koch invested 150 kroner ($26.60) in 5,000 bitcoins in 2009, after discovering them during the course of writing a thesis on encryption. He promptly forgot about them until widespread media coverage of the anonymous, decentralised, peer-to-peer digital currency in April 2013 jogged his memory.

In those four years, his Bitcoin holding had become worth around $886,000 -- a rather nice gain on the original outlay. But the real moral here is not, as it might appear, that you should rush out and buy Bitcoins in the hope that they will be worth fabulous sums in a few years' time -- the continuing fluctuations in Bitcoin's value and doubts about its underpinnings make that a very risky proposition. Rather, the key thing to note is the following:

Bitcoins are stored in encrypted wallets secured with a private key, something Koch had forgotten.

Fortunately for him, Koch did manage to remember his password. But just imagine how he would have felt if he hadn't been able to recall his private key, and had meanwhile discovered that he had $886,000 worth of Bitcoins that he couldn't access. So the real moral here is this: make sure you back up all your passwords -- even the ones you think you'll never need again -- just in case.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: bitcoin, encryption, fluctuations, norway, value

Norwegian Parliament Approves Extreme Version Of SOPA; Ignores All Sorts Of Rights If Someone Yells Copyright

from the incredible dept

A few years ago, I was in Norway for Nordic Music Week and got to meet with a number of people from all sides of the music industry there. It was very interesting to see how many of them were adapting to the changing environment. It was quite encouraging to see many were learning how to adapt and change with the times, embracing the internet to the fullest extent. Of course, one thing I noticed while there was that the major labels were entirely absent. Instead of spending time with the folks who are actually innovating and adapting it appears that they were, instead, doing what they do best: lobbying for incredibly overreaching legislation that wipes out all sorts of rights as soon as someone screams "copyright infringement." The Norwegian Parliament has now approved some legislation for copyright reform which is a major step in the wrong direction.

TorrentFreak has a good summary of what's in the law and its current status (almost certainly to be approved shortly). It has the standard "completely shut down anything and everything and block access if it's seen as a "pirate" site" bit that was so controversial under the SOPA proposal in the US:

...rightsholders may apply to the courts to have ISPs “prevent or impede access” to sites that have “extensively made available material that clearly violates copyrights.”

Website owners will be named as opposing parties in such procedures but if the owner of the site is unknown or has an unknown address “..the case can be decided without the person concerned being given an opportunity to comment.”

Think about both of those provisions for half a second and you realize how troubling they are. Lots of "legal" services also are used to infringe "extensively" on copyrights, but we don't kill them off because of that. As we've noted, nearly every important technological innovation that has helped the entertainment industry started out as something that was used almost exclusively for infringing uses -- mainly because the entertainment industry refused to adapt. Radio, cable TV, the VCR, the DVR the MP3 player, YouTube etc. Under a law like this, all of those would have been effectively outlawed.

In fact, think about the incentives here: this bill gives the entertainment industry incentive NOT to adapt and change with the times. The more it offers legitimate and authorized content, the harder it will be for them to shut down these sites. That's ridiculous. What kind of government would pass a law that effectively tells the entertainment industry not to embrace innovation? Apparently, Norway's.

And do we really need to even bring up what happens when no adversarial hearing happens where a site owner is allowed to present their side of the story? This law will lead to blocking access to tons of sites, many of which probably will have substantial non-infringing uses -- including many that are helpful to those who embrace them.

Oh, and it gets worse. Because under this law, if you scream copyright infringement loud enough, privacy laws go out the window for the public. Because, you know, "piracy!!!!!!" trumps privacy:

In dealing with end-users of unauthorized material (i.e the general public) the amendments are designed to make it easier for rightsholders to pursue individuals without falling foul of Norway’s data protection laws. Once passed, the new legislation will exempt personal data from the Personal Data Act when processing of such data is necessary for the pursuit of a legal claim.

While there are a few privacy safeguards in place, it seems like this law gets it backwards. Rather than exempting such data from the Personal Data Act with a few protections, why not create a clear test that needs to be met before any personal data could be revealed. At the very least, this should include clear and compelling evidence of actual harmful infringement by the individual, as well as the opportunity for the anonymous individual to mount a defense/response prior to being revealed. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

Of course, what this really shows is that, even if SOPA was defeated in the US, the industry is still hard at work getting similar laws approved around the globe. Just wait until a little ways down the road where an attempt is made to "harmonize" various laws to try to force the US to match such laws in other places.

Filed Under: copyright, norway, sopa

Norway To Get Its Own SOPA

from the try-try-again dept

The latest in the global merry-go-round of the legacy entertainment industry seeking to put in place draconian legislation is apparently Norway. A couple years ago, I went to Norway for Nordic Music Week, and had a great time talking to musicians, managers and labels, about all of the opportunity for new music business models. It was a fun and optimistic event, seeing everyone looking at all of the opportunities out there. But, of course, these were mostly independent artists. The major labels stayed away. And that's because the only "opportunity" they seem to see is in drafting the latest version of draconian laws that will do little to stop infringement, but which will have tremendous unintended consequences, including the potential to stifle widespread legitimate forms of expression.

TorrentFreak reports on the latest anti-piracy bill being put forth in Norway, which includes site-blocking provisions:

In May 2011 the Ministry of Culture announced that it had put forward proposals for amendments to the Copyright Act which would “..give licensees the tools they need to follow-up on copyright infringement on the Internet, while protecting privacy.”

The key proposals included making it easier for rightsholders to identify infringers from their IP addresses and amendments to the law to allow ISP-level blocking of sites deemed to be infringing copyright.

The article quotes people who are quite worried about what this will mean in practice. When every copyright holder can seek to completely shut down a site, the likelihood of trouble is immense. Already, here in the US, we see regular abuse of the DMCA to take down specific content that people deem infringing, but which is often just content they don't like. Imagine the ability to do that on a larger scale, such that it doesn't just take down the content, but entire sites.

Filed Under: blocking, copyright, filters, isp, norway, sopa

HBO's One Attempt At A Standalone Digital Service Sucks

from the surprise-surprise dept

In my recent post about the fragmentation of online television, there were a few aspects and details I left out because they seemed worthy of a separate, closer look. One is the oft-forgotten fact that HBO does indeed offer one lonely digital-only subscription service... to customers in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway. That program was announced last year and seemed like a promising step for the notoriously cable-dedicated HBO—but the customer feedback is coming in, and the results are not encouraging:

A list of complaints include HD content is (was?) only available on Samsung Smart TVs, meaning you were only given SD quality when streaming through your computer or any other device. Same goes for surround sound and 5.1, which are only available through the Samsung TV app. Other complaints I've heard includes buffering problems with the Widevine plugin (at standard definition), and lack of Apple Airplay support. The product is available as iOS and Android apps, but Xbox and Playstation apps are still said to be under development.

The online UI is nice to look at but was poorly designed; initially HBO only allowed you to search for TV shows by alphabetical letter. The results were underwhelming and exaggerated how little content HBO was offering.

...

It should be noted that you're not given access to the full back catalogue, several classics are not available such as Deadwood and Oz, which apparently have some copyright restrictions.

Some might claim it's still a good deal at €9.95/month, considering most people can't access any of these shows legally without a full cable package. Of course, Netflix only costs €7.99/month in the region, and has a larger selection, which makes the price a little less impressive. Then there's the fact that HBO initially promised much, much more:

• Every episode of all HBO series available online
• All new episodes available within 24 hours of the US premiere, with local subtitles (dubbing is rare in the Nordics, foreign TV shows and movies are usually subtitled in the local language)
• Works on practically all devices: smartphones, tablets (Android, iOS), computers (Windows, Linux, Mac), video game consoles (PS3, Xbox), Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players, and Sonera IPTV service
• Full HD 1080p picture quality
• Surround sound

Compare that to the list of complaints, and you realize HBO isn't doing a great job of living up to the expectations it created. Then there's the other truly insane catch: customers are locked into a 12-month contract, after which they must give 3-month notice for cancellation. Yeah. Moreover, the terms stated that simply logging into the service once waives your ability to cancel it because you're not satisfied (despite using the service being the only way to know if you are satisfied). After facing significant criticism for this move, HBO backtracked and offered subscribers the chance to use the service until the end of this month without a longer commitment—but only those subscribers who also signed up for the HBO Nordic newsletter. Classy.

It's no real surprise that HBO's first attempt at a standalone online offering is a disaster. HBO approaches the internet with extreme trepidation, but revolution requires gusto. Digital distribution—especially when it comes to competing with piracy—is a go big or go home endeavor. Or... go halfway, and watch your customers go elsewhere.

Filed Under: denmark, digital, finland, norway, sweden, television
Companies: hbo

Norwegian Researchers Compile The World's Largest Drug Test

from the pee-in-this-cup-for-me,-EVERYONE dept

Your body is a narc. If you use drugs, your body will always be willing to turn over that information to the appropriate authorities. No one even has to question you. We've all run into someone whose bleary and bloodshot eyes indicate they're stoned or drunk. (Or, very often, both.) A few strands of hair can detail a "lost weekend" with far more clarity than your acid-etched brain.

But, by a large margin, the most popular way to determine recent drug use is every employer's favorite: urinalysis. A couple of ounces of waste byproduct will sell your still-jobless ass out faster than that 14-year-old you sympathetically sold a dime bag of weed. Your body cheerfully fills your bladder full of self-incriminating fluid several times a day, forcing you to excrete damning evidence repeatedly.

Barring a random drug test or pre-employment screening, most of this evidence goes straight down the toilet, much like the half-dozen other baggies did in response to some unexpected door banging. Previously, this would have been the end of the line.

Not any more. News comes back to us via Bruce Sterling that researchers in Norway are sifting through sewage with the thoroughness of potential employers, looking for drug usage patterns amidst the detritus.

The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) in Oslo and the Mario Negri Institute in Milan led this research initiative, directly collaborating with 11 European research institutes. Raw sewage samples from 19 large European cities were collected by the participants of the study during a single week in March 2011 and analyzed for the urinary biomarkers of cocaine, amphetamine, ecstasy, methamphetamine and cannabis. The total amount of the drugs used by inhabitants of each of the 19 cities was measured and then the results were adjusted for population size.

Fun stuff, I would imagine. (And that's as close to analyzing raw sewage as I care to get -- the imagination level.) Sifting through the murky, anonymous "data" running through the sewers has given the researchers a clearer picture of actual drug use patterns than can be put together using existing methods. The usual methods, police and customs drug seizure records and hospital admission data (possibly including some records of seizures), are combined with other incomplete data sets like questionnaire-based studies. This leaves a few holes in coverage which these researchers believe they can fill with human waste.

"There will always be some uncertainty about the reliability of the results of questionnaire-based studies," he [Dr. Kevin Thomas] said. "Our research approach based on sewer samples of European cities however, yield very accurate and dependable results on the total amount of drugs used. Through sewer research, we can determine how big the drug market in a city is. We can also quickly measure changes in consumption over very short time, such as after a police raid or a customs seizure. Our approach is applicable anywhere. With the right financing we have the potential for the first time to better understand the hard facts about illicit drug use worldwide," Thomas adds.

This would be some interesting data. Measuring dips in usage (or a lack thereof) after a major seizure would certainly help test the efficacy of current anti-drug policies. Of course, major raids could result in a spike of drug content, albeit drugs untainted (yeah -- I'm using that word) by a ride through anything more complicated than a swirling toilet bowl.

Here's what the researchers have found so far, after roaming the sewers of Europe:

Cocaine use was higher in Western and Central Europe and lower in Northern and Eastern Europe. High per capita ecstasy loads were measured in Dutch cities, as well as in Antwerp and London. In general, cocaine and ecstasy loads were significantly elevated during the weekend compared to weekdays. Per capita loads of methamphetamine were highest in Helsinki, Turku, Oslo and Budweis, while per capita loads of cannabis were similar throughout Europe.

Those somewhat familiar with European drug culture may find this to be a little unsurprising. (But not me -- I'm totally acting shocked about these findings.) Weekends are for partying. Anything goes for the Dutch, but especially E. London is still rave central for England. Weed is universal. Meth is nearly as popular. And coke is still for the rich (or at least, the richer) kids.

A followup project researching U.S. cities is underway with results expected next year. I'd be very interested in checking that one out, if only to confirm my suspicion that most Midwestern bathtubs are connected to purloined lab equipment, rather than functioning drainage systems.

Filed Under: drug test, norway, privacy

Norwegian Court Rules Blog Posts Are Not 'Made Public'

from the welcome-to-the-world-of-weblogs dept

It's something of a truism that the courts take time to catch up with technology, especially in the fast-moving world of the Internet, but Thomas Steen points us to a recent court decision in Norway where the gulf between law and life is particularly wide. The case concerns a blogger called Eivind Berge who was arrested recently on account of some statements on his blog that allegedly "glorified and encouraged the killing of policemen" as a report on the Dagbladet newspaper site puts it (Norwegian original.) Moreover:

Berge also wrote that he "planned" to attack a policeman with a knife on a Saturday evening at Torgallmenningen in Bergen, and in police questioning, he confirmed that he supports the killing of policemen as a tool in the fight against male feminists.

The Gulating court had to consider whether Berge's writings were criminal under the Norwegian Penal Code, and came to the following, rather surprising, conclusion (Google Translation):

"In the present case we hear of statements the accused has made [on] his "blog" on the internet. This can be read and commented on [by] others, in that they seek and log onto the blog. The Court can not see that this means such a reproduction as the law requires," according to today's ruling.

As the Norwegian journalist Martin Grüner Larsen points out (Google Translate of Norwegian original):

This means in brief that a mass medium that can reach absolutely everyone in the world, which is publicly known, [with] many readers, is searchable by Google and that despite what it says in the ruling does not require authorization by any means, [is] not public.

Indeed, Larsen believes that the ruling as it stands might even apply to any Web site, not just blogs:

Gulating Court of Appeal in short, just know that the expression on the Internet are not public, regardless of deployment size, nature or amount of reading.

The Dagbladet piece says that the police are expected to appeal to Norway's Supreme Court. Assuming that happens, the lower court's ruling seems likely to be overturned, since it is based on an almost complete misunderstanding of how blogs work and Net dissemination takes place.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: blogs, free speech, norway, public

One Year After The Breivik Massacre, Norway Continues To Fight Terrorism With Democracy, Openness And Love

from the everyone-else-in-the-world-take-notes dept

 It's been a little over a year since Anders Breivik committed the greatest act of terrorism in Norway's history. The response to the horrific violence was completely unexpected. In a world where most countries would consider drafting major legislation and beefing up security, Norway's response seemed almost out-of-touch with the "real world."

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not undermined. "The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation," he said.

It's a pretty much unprecedented statement. One needs to look no further than the US government's reaction to the 9/11 tragedy to see an example of the standard M.O. Starting with the PATRIOT Act, the US government quickly turned the country into an echo chamber that subscribes to a culture of fear. This has allowed various government entities to insinuate themselves into nearly every aspect of Americans' lives at the expense of civil liberties and privacy.

One year down the road in Norway is a completely different story. As was pledged by Stoltenberg, the Norwegians have pushed forward with more openness and democracy. (via)

There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists. On the streets of Oslo, CCTV cameras are still a comparatively rare sight and the police can only carry weapons after getting special permission. Even the gate leading to the parliament building in the heart of Oslo remains open and unguarded.

"It is still easy to get access to parliament and we hope it will stay that way, " said Lise Christoffersen, a Labour party MP.

No one's rights were eroded, including the man at the center of the tragedy, Anders Breivik. He was treated no differently than any other prisoner and was given five days in court to tell his side of the story and lay out his ideas and motivations. Many critics believe this sort of unchallenged testimony would allow Breivik to glorify his actions and push his agenda, which they feared would inspire copycat acts of violence. Instead of falling prey to this mindset, officials felt that Breivik would do more harm to his own ideology by speaking openly than by being forced to sit quietly as an appointed mouthpiece spoke for him.

Cato Shiotz, a senior criminal lawyer, says having an open trial has enabled the Norwegian people to make their own informed judgement about Breivik.

"I think Breivik has done more harm to the radical right than he has benefited them," said Mr Shiotz. "His ideas now have less support than ever before."

Norway wants to combat terrorism in a new way. Rather than reacting to a terrorist act with draconian laws and increased security and surveillance, the country has opted to take the high ground and simply be "better" than their enemies. Many countries make statements to this effect, but most make the mistake of confusing a hardline "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stance with "taking the high road." Norway makes no such error.

"The only way to really combat terror is to show that we are better than them," says Jan Egeland, a former official in the Norwegian foreign ministry and now deputy head of Human Rights Watch.

"Their (the terrorists') whole point is to create shock and fear and get us to leave our liberal values…and lure us over to their shadowy part of the playing field… we should not let them win."

Unsurprisingly, Norway is not impressed with the US government's response to terrorism.

Mr Egeland is highly critical of how other countries, particularly the United States, have dealt with the terrorist threats they face, arguing that methods such as extraordinary rendition, the creation of the special prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo and the sanctioning of what is generally viewed as torture, have all been counter-productive.

"The whole (US) struggle against terror lost the moral high ground, You could see how public opinion was lost in Turkey, in Jordan, in moderate countries all over the Middle East," he said.

As the article points out, Breivik acted alone, not as part of a larger network. While a large network does change the dynamic of the threat, it hardly seems to justify the assumption that an isolated incident is an "act of war." Even worse, this assumption has led the US into a state of perpetual war against unseen, unnamed enemies with only the barest of threads holding the factions together. While Egeland insists that Norway wouldn't fall into the same pattern the US did post-9/11, he admits that he can't be certain the country would have "stood the test" as well as it has the Breivik massacre, if it was instead faced with a murky enemy located outside the country.

But all in all, the Norwegian response is more likely to unite its citizens against abhorrent acts of terrorism than it is to drive a wedge between the government and the governed. Openness is something the US sorely lacks, and despite 11 years and a change of presidents, there seems to be very little improvement on the horizon. No government can guarantee the safety of its citizens against unforeseen attacks, but certainly a culture of openness, democracy and love is preferable to a culture of fear and reprisal, carried out in the name of protection.

Filed Under: anders breivik, norway, openness, terrorism

Student Fined For Providing Free Film And TV Subtitles; Yet Another Business Opportunity Thrown Away By Copyright Industries

from the cutting-nose-off-to-spite-the-face dept

Mike recently reminded us that for some people, bizarrely, stopping "piracy" is more important than making money. Here's another example, this time from Norway:

A student who ran a site which enabled the download of a million movie and TV show subtitle files has been found guilty of copyright infringement offenses. Despite it being acknowledged that the 25-year-old made no money from the three-year-old operation, prosecutors demanded a jail sentence. After struggling due to a lack of case law, in the end the court settle on a fine.

Note that no money changed hands, and there was no attempt to copy the work of others in any way. Instead, the student was simply meeting an evident need for Norwegian subtitles that the original creators and distributors of those films and TV shows didn't address.

So wouldn't the rational thing have been to embrace what this person was doing, and turn it into a commercial opportunity for both him and the studios? That way, the Norwegian public would be happy, because they would have official subtitles that they could use; the Norwegian distributors would be happy, because they could offer English-language shows; and the original producers would be happy, since they would be selling more of their films and TV shows to the Norwegian market, and sooner.

Instead, out of sheer vindictiveness it would seem, charges were pressed, and a jail sentence was "demanded". It's telling that no custodial sentence was in fact handed down, because the infringement was so minor, and the judge simply couldn't find any justification for doing so. That's a further hint that prosecuting this non-commercial activity was completely inappropriate.

But as TorrentFreak explains, it wasn't money that the studios were interested in, but something else -- keeping control:

Although relatively rare, US movie and TV studios have taken legal action against subtitling sites before. The reason they appear to get so annoyed by the existence of these sites is that they allow people abroad to watch movies and TV shows that due to licensing issues haven’t even arrived on their shores yet.

In other words, rather than adapt their business models to the changing times through simultaneous releases around the world, the copyright industries prefer to wield the blunt instrument of enforcement, however counterproductive that may be for everyone -- including themselves.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: norway, subtitles

Press Tries To Pin High Profile Killings On The Web & World Of Warcraft

from the not-this-again dept

And, here we go again. The press and "cultural commentators" absolutely love to blame new technologies for someone who does something bad. The latest is that in response to the crazy Luka Magnotta case (involving the guy in Canada who killed and dismembered someone, filming the whole thing, eating some pieces and sending others to politicians) a "cultural critic" in France is arguing that without the internet, Magnotta would not have committed his crimes.

Without the web, “the butcher of Montreal would not exist,” Mr. de Boni concludes. “This killer character is a narcissistic and deviant avatar, one of many virtual identities he invented in order to create celebrity.”

Because, of course, prior to the internet and Facebook, there were no such things as psychotic people who killed others and ate them. While the internet may have influenced the specifics of how Magnotta went about his crime, it seems ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that absent the internet, none of this would have happened. Magnotta was clearly a very sick individual. If anything, it's worth pointing out that unlike the other examples I linked to in this paragraph of sociopathic killers who dismembered and ate their victims, Magnotta was actually caught after just the first victim -- in part because he provided all sorts of evidence of his guilt online.

Meanwhile, over in Norway, where the trial of mass murderer Anders Breivik is going on, we had already noted that the press was having a field day with the claim that Breivik played a lot of World of Warcraft. That seems pretty silly considering the millions of people who play the game. However, bizarrely, the prosecution has brought it up in the trial, letting the press grandstand on the issue yet again. Even Breivik found that line of questioning to be stupid, declaring (correctly) that "it is not relevant to this case whatsoever."

But it is relevant to reporters who want to build a story about those crazy video games...

Why is it so hard to believe that there are psychotic/sociopathic people out there who do harm, and that's got nothing to do with their internet or gaming usage? These things aren't "triggered" by surfing the web or playing games. I recognize that people feel the need to look for a "reason" that these people exist and do such horrible things, but it should be pretty clear that it's a problem with them -- not their use of technology.

Of course, if we should be concerned about video games at all in the Breivik trial, perhaps it should be over the fact that a judge in the case was spotted playing solitaire on his computer during the trial:

Filed Under: anders breivik, france, luka magnotta, norway, video games, world of warcraft