Dutch Propose Powers For Police To Break Into Computers, Install Spyware And Destroy Data -- Anywhere In The World

from the mutually-assured-destruction dept

Techdirt readers with long memories may recall a fantasy proposal from Orrin Hatch that would have seen technological means deployed to destroy the computers of those who downloaded unauthorized copies of files. Of course, the idea was so ridiculous it went nowhere. Now, nine years later, a similar idea has turned up, but with a rather better chance of being implemented, since it comes from a national government:

On 15 October, the Dutch ministry of Justice and Security proposed powers for the police to break into computers, install spyware, search computers and destroy data. These powers would extend to computers located outside the Netherlands.

The plan of allowing the police to break into domestic computers and install spyware is bad enough, as the German experience shows. There, it turned out that the malware employed had such serious flaws that anyone could take control of a machine infected with it. But the idea of giving Dutch investigators permission to break into computers anywhere in the world is even worse. The article from the digital rights group Bits of Freedom, quoted above, explains why:

If the Dutch government gets the power to break into foreign computers, this gives other governments the basis to break into Dutch computers which infringe the laws of their country. The end result could be less security for all computer users, instead of more. This is even more true with regard to the power to destroy data on foreign computers; it is likely that other governments would be very interested in using such a power against Dutch interests.

Even totally law-abiding users might be caught up in this digital war:

Furthermore, providing the government the power to break into computers provides a perverse incentive to keep information security weak. Millions of computers could remain badly secured because the government does not have an incentive to publish vulnerabilities quickly because it needs to exploit these vulnerabilities for enforcement purposes.

It's not really down to governments to publish details of flaws, but it's possible they might be less inclined to encourage the public to patch them, if they want to use the vulnerabilities themselves. This would doubtless lead to criminals taking advantage of widespread holes in security, with personal data being stolen, and financial systems compromised.

All-in-all, the Dutch proposal has to be one of the most foolish ever presented by a government in this area, and shows the folly of trying to come up with quick fixes for the currently-fashionable issue of "cybercrime", instead of really thinking through the consequences. Let's hope calmer heads prevail, and the proposal is withdrawn.

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

Filed Under: computers, netherlands, security, spyware, surveillance

Russia (Yes, The Country) Looking To Enter The Tablet Market

from the new-state-sponsored-tablet-or-cross-dresser's-quarters dept

The world of tablet computing is highly competitive and everyone's looking to get in on the action. The latest entrant has something going for it that its closest competitors can't touch: the weight of one the most powerful governments in the world.

Russia, yes that Russia, is looking to produce its own tablet, unfortunately titled the "RuPad." It should do well, considering it should be able to corner every market (but the black one) and become the "must have" tablet for both Russian government employees and the general public alike. There's nothing like the implicit threat of general statist unpleasantness to move a few thousand units.

Unlike Android tablets elsewhere in the world, the RuPad will provide users with unprecedented privacy, protecting their info from rogue capitalists like Google:

"The operating system has all the functional capabilities of the Android OS, but does not contain the covert functions of sending private user data to Google headquarters," Andrey Starikovsky, the general director of the university-based company behind the tablet, told Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

So, rather than being subjected to targeted personal ads and personally-tailored MPAA-approved search results, Russian citizens will have their personal data harvested by an entity with a long history of disappearing people away into labor camps for little more than looking at the government the wrong way. (I know, I know. That was the old way. The new, friendly Russia just imprisons people for singing partly-naked protest songs and censors the hell out of the web.)

On the bright side, Russians won't have to waste much time comparison shopping or camping out overnight for the latest iThing. I'm sure the RuPad will come highly recommended by salespeople wishing to keep their jobs and family members intact.

The expected retail price isn't exactly consumer-friendly (15,000 rubles/$460), but when you've got a powerful built-in market for your product, competitive prices aren't really a concern.

Developers at the ministry's Central Scientific Research Institute said their main client is—and will probably always be—the state and its top brass. "The military version will be shock- and water-proof," Russian media quoted production unit director Andrei Starikovsky as telling Rogozin at the presentation. 

Like the GLONASS satelitte system before it, the RuPad appears to be another state project that results in something usable by the general public. But for it to be Mother Russia-approved, the Android system has to be purged of its innate data harvesting properties. This homegrown Android version may have a chance for some stress testing as soon as it goes live, as Project Manager Dmitry Maikhailov has boldy invited hackers to punch holes in the system.

"They are not afraid of Google or the US government stealing things per se. They are afraid of leaks in general," the operating system's project manager Dmitry Mikhailov told AFP. "There is nothing like this operating system on the market. It is hack-proof," Mikhailov claimed. "There are people who are clamouring for this."

Despite insistence that this is a "military-first" project, pre-orders have already begun piling up, at least according to the manufacturer. And maybe there is a crowd of wealthier Russians looking to get their hands on some retail-ready military hardware. It worked for the Humvee. Why not a "shockproof, waterproof, hackerproof" tablet that runs a proprietary version of Android? (Currently sporting the name "RoMOS," which looks to be another possible name for the tablet itself.) 

One would imagine the government/military version would come with all needed software pre-loaded, but the average consumer might need to do a bit of rooting in order to install anything that isn't Russia-approved. Google has been kicked to the curb app-wise, as well:

"Some of the components will be imported, and the assembly will be carried out by a Russian-based leading defense institute. We excluded Google Market from it for safety reasons,” said Starikovsky.

There's no firm release date ("before the end of 2012") on the RuPad/RoMOS/ANTiGoogle, but considering the operating system has been in development for "over five years," it would seem like "any day now" would be a good bet. Of course, it's headed to the military and top government officials first, so it could be several more months before the specs make it out into the wild. Until the illustrious debut of the People's Tablet, feast your eyes on the Glorious Past of Russian Komputing!

Filed Under: computers, russia, tablets

United Airlines Massive Computer Crash Leads To Handwritten Boarding Passes

from the so-retro dept

Hopefully, you weren't flying United Airlines yesterday. As you may have heard, the company had a massive computer crash, which caused chaos at many airports. These kinds of things aren't new, but this one did seem quite impressive in terms of how much it impacted. Still, what interests me is that the airline sought to deal with no computers by handwriting boarding passes, some of which people started photographing and putting on Twitter.

Moira Forbes got one that at least looked kinda sorta like a normal boarding pass, done on a boarding pass blank: A James Fortune got a similar one that was a bit messier with the handwriting: And, finally, someone going by the name jmeg on Twitter didn't even get a boarding pass blank, but just sheet of paper. A few months ago, I ended up flying on the day that Virgin America chose to "switch over" its computer system. While they warned us a week ahead of time, they still suggested we show up early and noted that getting boarding passes would be more manual. In that case, they had pre-printed them all out before the systems were shut off, and then had to flip through the stack to find the right one. Even that took more time than usual, so I can only imagine the mess of having to do boarding passes by hand.

But what fascinates me about this is how people figure out how to cope when computer systems go down. Every so often we have these fear mongering stories about computer crashes, and we learn about how the Y2K bug could lead to the end of society or some computer hackers could create havoc by attacking key computers. And while there are computers that run some critical systems, even in situations like this -- where the computers are incredibly important -- when they go down it may create a major pain in the ass for some, but it's not the end of the world. People figure out ways to cope and to use alternative systems, such as handwriting boarding passes. It's not perfect, and there were plenty of people who didn't get to fly at all, but it's not like civilization broke down. Computer systems fail, people deal with it, and everyone gets on with their lives.

Filed Under: boarding pass, computers, crash
Companies: united airlines

From 0 To 70 Computers With No Money And Open Source Software

from the when-'for-the-children'-actually-means-something dept

For today's children, an education is not complete unless it comes with some form of computer interaction. In order to become fully functioning adults, these kids need to learn basic computer skills. Unfortunately for many schools, this goal runs in opposition to slashed budgets and bureaucratic apathy. What is an educator to do when he realizes that the computers that kids need are not going to be part of any budget the school has to offer?

Thanks to I Love Ubuntu, we have at least one answer answer. Robert Litt, a 6th grade teacher from Alameda County, faced just such a predicament. He needed to provide his students with computers but had no money and little support from the administration. So he set about building the computer lab his students needed using donated computers and the Ubuntu Linux operating system.

Why go with Ubuntu over the much more common Windows? Cost.

Most of the computers’ problems could be fixed by wiping the disks and reinstalling the operating system—but buying new software for every donated computer would be prohibitively expensive. So Robert began to research more affordable options. An acquaintance at the Alameda County Computer Recyclers suggested he use a free operating system, such as GNU/Linux.

This is one of the key issues of those hit with budget constraints. Computers can be expensive and having a proprietary operating system such as Windows can add to the cost. By going the Linux route, Robert was able to stick to his $0 budget and still provide the neccesary computers for the students. His early success in bringing in 18 computers led to additional excitement from both students and staff. He was then able to expand the computer lab to 70 computers through these means.

This success in building a quality lab has expanded the ability of the teachers at the school to teach meaningful computer skills to the students.

“The digital divide is growing in a hidden statistic,” Robert says, “the actual teaching of technology in a meaningful way.” He shows students how to do math on spreadsheets, how to make simple websites, how to put together slide presentations, all on free software. These are the computer skills that, students tell him, they are later expected simply to know.

By going this route, Robert was party to keeping the cost of education down, something that many people are trying to accomplish. It also brings in a fresh approach to teaching in the digital age. By stepping outside of his comfort zone when it comes to computers, Robert was able to expand his skill set. He now has an opportunity to share that new knowledge and skill with the students and hopefully expand the way in which they interact with technology. Something these kids and and future kids will be doing far more frequently.

Filed Under: computers, labs, linux, open source, ubuntu

WIPO: Giving Computers For 'Patents' To North Korea And Iran Didn't Violate UN Sanctions... But We'll Stop Doing It

from the you-know,-just-because dept

I still think that one of the craziest stories of the year was the news that the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, was caught defying UN sanctions (despite being a part of the UN) and giving computer systems to both North Korea and Iran -- officially to help both set up a database of international patents. Of course, none of this makes any sense, considering that neither country has shown much, if any, interest in respecting foreign patents. However, both have shown quite a lot of interest in building nuclear bombs... for which they need computing power.

The whole thing should be seen as a massive scandal that calls into question the judgment of those at the top of WIPO -- but it doesn't seem to be fazing too many people. WIPO recently released a statement trying to play down the whole thing, while at the same time admitting that it was changing its policies and likely would stop handing computers over to such regimes based on promises that they'd be used to setup patent databases. In other words, while it won't do it again, leadership there doesn't seem particularly apologetic for its actions.

The provision of standard IT equipment to the IP offices of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Islamic Republic of Iran that occurred in the preceding years, within the context of the Organization’s business modernization program for IP Offices in developing countries, is being referred to the relevant UN Sanctions Committees for their information and guidance.

The initial steps are being undertaken for a full external and independent review of the technical assistance provided to countries subject to UN sanctions.

A new internal instruction has been issued ending any provision of IT hardware in any of WIPO’s technical assistance programs.

It still amazes me that anyone at WIPO thought this was a good idea. The fact that they still refuse to admit doing anything wrong suggests they don't even realize how badly they were played by those governments.

Either way, WIPO boss Francis Gurry did an interview with IP-Watch where he continues to downplay the seriousness of the issue, and also says he doesn't feel any compulsion to respond to the US's stated concerns about the program. He says that they stopped sending the program because of some "ambiguity."

“There’s a relatively small number of countries who benefit from hardware as opposed to our complete software package,” Gurry said. “And since certain member states perceive that there is some ambiguity in the use of standard IT equipment – printers, cartridges, PCs and servers – we think the only complete answer we can give because of their perception of ambiguity is to say, we no longer do that.”

“We can argue for hours and hours and hours about the legal interpretation, that it’s only a few PCs, and so on,” he said. “But if there’s lingering doubt, let's eliminate it.”

Something about that statement reminds me of a particular Monty Python quote. Either way, it still seems like WIPO still doesn't understand why its actions are being questioned here.

Filed Under: computers, francis gurry, iran, north korea, un sanctions, wipo

DailyDirt: Computer Generated Music

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The amount of music in the world is growing every minute -- it's not even possible for a single person to listen to every song within a normal lifespan. Luckily, no one would really want to listen to every song, but technology is accelerating the process of creating music with algorithms that can compose songs faster than any human musician and robots that can play non-stop. If virtual monkeys can re-create Shakespeare (albeit in short snippets), it's only a matter of time before virtual musicians are churning out pop hits. Here are just a few recent accomplishments of our new robot musician overlords.

• "Evolution of Music by Public Choice" is the title of a paper that describes how a genetic algorithm -- along with input from volunteers -- made some not-unpleasant-sounding music. Check out Darwin Tunes to participate in the project and become part of the evolutionary record for this. [url]
• If you really want to surround yourself with your favorite music, there's some software that'll turn your tunes into a carpet pattern for you. But for some practical reasons (and copyright law?), only 5 carpet patterns from this algorithm have been manufactured: classical, ambient, jazz, electronic and silence. [url]
• Sound Machines 2.0 (a robotic string quintet) listens to whatever music you play for it, re-interprets your musical choice, and then plays its own musical composition based on what it heard. However, it might be better to wait for Sound Machines 3.0 for all the bugs to be worked out.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: ai, algorithm, artificial intelligence, computers, crowdsourcing, darwin tunes, music, robots

Pinterest Updates Terms Of Service... And People Are Still Overreacting

from the but-of-course dept

I have to admit that I'm still at a loss over people freaking out over Pinterest. It's pretty much a non-issue, but it refuses to go away. I think I've finally figured out what's going on, however. Some copyright extremists are using Pinterest to try to whip people into a frenzy about nothing, such that they can use that against other sites later as well -- and, once they got going, Pinterest became a "proxy" for all other internet services and (by extension) computing itself.

Last Friday, for example, Pinterest updated its terms of service to clarify the parts where some people were very confused and freaking out. While they certainly didn't go to the lengths that Tumblr went to to make its terms of service "human" readable, the updates do clarify things. The key change, for example, was removing the word "sell" from the list of things that you grant a license to Pinterest over, as the company notes it never intended to sell anyone's content. I can pretty much guarantee how this happened. The lawyers who drafted the terms pulled the boilerplate list of rights you grant, and "sell" is always on that list. As we noted in the Tumblr TOS post, it's really just to give the company legal protection in case it sells something that has a tidbit of something someone uploaded. It's not that hard to come up with a scenario where that might happen. But overly paranoid folks turned this into some nefarious plan by Pinterest to get people to violate copyrights so it could sell the results.

But, as mentioned above, this isn't calming down the maximlaist extremists. The folks over at the "Artists' Bill of Rights" (which is not what it sounds like -- it's a front for copyright extremists, paying almost no attention to how artists actually create) are still very upset about Pinterest's terms of service and are interpreting everything in the most nefarious of ways.

The philosophy of their site is still to encourage members to copy content from other people or organisations' websites to the Pinterest website, then place the entire legal responsibility on their members for such copying.

Why? Because the PInterest business model has to start making money at some point. How can it do this? By monetising the content belonging to other people copied to it's website, possibly via advertising or affilliate programs, or in some other way. It may not be monetising that content overtly at present, but it must do so at some stage because it is gobbling up a lot of investors money to keep it afloat. As soon as it starts monetising the content the cat will be out of the bag and legal actions will commence. They are still in a period of grace - but for how long?

Horror of horrors. Pinterest is a service provider who would like to make money at same point -- just as the copyright maximalist artists would like to make money. Why is it evil when a service provider does it, but not when an artist does it? And, the fact is that Pinterest doesn't make any money at all if it's not useful. So, as you can expect, the folks at the Artist Bill of Rights want to guarantee Pinterest is not at all useful. For example, they attack the fact that Pinterest is now pointing people to ChillingEffects claiming that it's a site that is all about "protect[ing] the economic interests of the tech business model". Say what?! A site that highlights how copyright law is abused to stifle free speech and creativity is about protecting free speech and creativity. Anyone aiming to protects artists' rights should celebrate Chilling Effects.

The other complaint? That Pinterest isn't "pro-active" in monitoring the site for infringement:

We will continue to complain that Pinterest are NOT being pro-active in ensuring that copyright infringements are minimised.

And it's that line that highlights the reality. The folks hating on Pinterest aren't really worried about the law. Pinterest already goes well above and beyond what the law says they have to do. What they're complaining about is that the world isn't the way they want it to be. They're complaining that the world doesn't magically block copying. In other words, they're luddites who can't fathom why a world in which computers actually work is a good thing, and prefer to go back to a past where there were no computers. Computers copy. It's what they do. Tons of services have popped up over the years to let people do useful stuff, but much of that stuff only works because computers make copies. Making collections of photos -- all with links back to the original content, which has already been shown to drive significant traffic -- seems like it should be a good thing. Unless you hate computers and the fact that they copy.

The anger here isn't about Pinterest. It's about computers. They'd have as much luck telling the tide which way to go.

Filed Under: bill of rights, business models, computers, copies, copyright, luddites, terms of service
Companies: pinterest

Teaching Style, Not Computers, Appears To Be Biggest Factor In Classroom Distraction

from the let's-go-to-the-data dept

For many years, we've covered various stories of professors struggling with the idea of students having their laptops open in the classroom. Our argument has always been that the computers themselves are neutral, and it's up to the professors to adapt and make sure their teaching strategies either do a good job incorporating the computers, or come up with ways to keep students' attention. Some have argued that this is an impossible task. A few years back, we even wrote about professors looking to ban computers in classrooms -- which won't do much to actually make boring professors any more interesting. Meanwhile, other professors found that, with a little education, students could learn to pay more attention.

Eric Goldman points us to an interesting discussion of a new empirical study that looked at how law students used computers in the classroom, and the data suggests that there clearly are teaching strategies that can overcome any issues. It also found that, even with laptops, not every student was off surfing celebrity gossip sites while they were supposed to be learning about the law. The study itself is by Kim Novak Morse.

The results from the study reveal that indeed students are off task in class; however, it is not as extensive as we thought, nor is it the population of students we thought it was (of course, this depends on whether you are an optimist or pessimist). Second-year students were off task the most time, at 42% of the entire semester. First-years were off task approximately 35% of the time for the semester while third-years spent approximately 28% of their class time off task. Regarding how many individual students were ON-task at a given instant, roughly 82% of third-years, 69% of first years, and 50% of second-years were NOT misusing their laptops (chart 1).

Another tidbit? Students who had higher LSAT scores tended to be more off-task. I would imagine there are a few possible interpretations of that factoid, including the idea that those who did well on the LSAT are able to grasp some of these topics more quickly (or picked them up elsewhere) and quickly move on to "other tasks," when a professor hits topics they're already familiar with or know they can teach themselves.

There is a rather stunning result on the question of how being off task impacts grades:

While the numbers indicate that students are off-task, my second research question sought to answer whether more off-task behavior might correlate to lower final course grade. Through statistical analysis, the results indicate that there is no correlation between high off-task behavior and lower final course grade (chart 4). Nor is there a correlation between low off-task behavior and higher final course grade. Such results support the idea that students learn outside of class as well as in class and, though they may miss ideas in class due to off-task behavior, they often learn or supplement it through readings, study groups, clinics, etc.

Shorter version: sorry, professor, the relevance of your actual lecture to a student's ability to learn the material might not be that big.

That said, the study also found that certain actions "promoted off-task behavior":

1. Student laptop users tend to go off-task when X-(anything) occurs for 4 minutes or more...
2. When professor is engaged in Socratic method with one student, there is a an increase in off-task behavior by other students
3. When a classmate engages with professor, there is an increase in off-task behavior by other students.
4. When professor is monotone, or, overly uses one linguistic intonation style, students tend to increase off-task behavior
5. Approximately 40 minutes into class, off-task behavior increases.
6. When professor calls on students in expected order, off-task behavior increases.

That shows what to avoid. What about strategies to get people to pay attention? The report has some answers there as well:

1)    “Announcing-the-Good-Stuff” Strategy: Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when professor provides big-point-summaries, rule formations, definitions, and conclusions. 

“Ultimately, courts look at X...”;  “The upshot is...”

 2)    Using the “Rupture Strategy”: Students decrease off-task behavior when directed to an item in a book, chalkboard, digital presentation, in-class task, etc.

“Look at page X...”;   “On the chalkboard you see...”; 

“On the screen, notice X...”, “Write a brief X...”

3)    “Changing-up-the-Voice” Strategy: Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when the professor prefaces content with signal phrases like:

“This would be a good exam question...”

“ I want to flag for you...” , “The critical idea here is...”

Or, by using linguistic mannerisms like intonation, especially rising intonation found in questions:

“And, how would you know   X     ?”;  “Because........?”

4)    “Problem-Posing” Strategy: Students redirect attention when the professor asks a problem-solving question to the class (less so than targeting one student).

“How might we determine X...?”

“If we alter X, what might Y?”

5)“Keep-the-Show-Moving” Strategy:

Students redirect attention away from off-task behavior when the professor manages “the duration of any X” so it doesn’t exceed 4-5 minutes. For example, the professor   1) may present info (5 min or less) switch 2) ask a question to the class (5 min or less)  switch 3) direct students to book (5 min or less) switch 4) ask an individual a question and have student respond (5 min or less). switch, etc.  6)“Moving-into-student’s-space” Strategy: Students redirect attention when professor moves toward off-task individuals (but surprisingly only for a short time).

I'm sure it's easy for professors to want to ban computers because they think it's a bad thing that students aren't paying attention to them. However, this study suggests something different: that the students already know they can get a better grasp on the material elsewhere, or they're just not that interested in what's happening in the classroom. The first point means that professors probably shouldn't worry so much about this issue. The second, however is something where many professors might want to focus on improving...

Filed Under: attention, computers, students, teaching

Computers That Accurately Guess What Gangs Did What Crimes

from the minority-report? dept

A few folks sent over this report of efforts by some researchers at UCLA to create an algorithm that can accurately take data on existing gang-related crimes, and use it to predict what gangs were involved in new crimes. It certainly has that "minority report -- pre-crime" feel to it, though I can certainly see where it could be useful. What concerns me, though, is that systems like this are only as accurate as the data they use. And, as has been reported elsewhere, one of the unintended consequences of such computer analysis of crime data is that it drives police departments to falsify or change crime reports in order to make their own numbers look better. So it makes you wonder how accurate those reports will be if the incentives to fudge the actual crime data continue to be in place.

Filed Under: computers, crimes, gangs