27 October 2016 @ 12h CET:
$688.67 | €630.61 | ¥4706.77 | £571.63
1h +0.37% | 1d +4.07% | 7d +8.65% | 1m +12.91%
UK to search engines: Stop illegal file sharing, or else…
Proposed amendments to the UK’s Digital Economy Bill have revealed a desire by some MPs to force search engines to tackle piracy. A new clause would require search engines to come to a voluntary arrangement with rightsholders, or face being forced into one by the government.
TorrentFreak: UK Considers Fines to Force Search Engines to Tackle Piracy »
IoT DDoS attack leads to recalls
TechDirt: Chinese Company Recalls Cameras, DVRs Used In Last Week’s Massive DDoS Attack »
AI criminals?
New York Times: As Artificial Intelligence Evolves, So Does Its Criminal Potential »
Central banks fear Bitcoin
A piece of news that has been sadly under-reported is that the European Central Bank (ECB) has called for tightened rules on digital currencies such as Bitcoin. The reason, according to Reuters is a fear that they “might one day weaken its own control over money supply in the euro zone”. (Link»)
The European Commission has been fairly relaxed when it comes to digital currencies, being aware of the dynamic evolution of Blockchain-based electronic money. It seems the Commission realizes there is no way the Brussels bureaucracy can grasp or foresee all the different ways Bitcoins can / will be used and the technical development. (The EU, however, demands that identity must be proven when changing electronic currencies for fiat money.)
However, this opinion from the ECB might change that. After all, the EU is struggling to keep the common European currency – the Euro – afloat.
While the ECB is “printing” money as mad, Bitcoin has a known volume growth rate and a given maximum volume. The real value of the Euro is slowly decreasing with inflation, while (despite its volatility and other problems) the value of Bitcoins seems to slowly be on the rise.
If nothing else, this exposes how central banks are robbing the people, by stealth. Clearly, that is not popular with central bankers.
We also know from the Euro crisis that the ECB and national central banks are prepared to take drastic steps to protect the Euro. Greece has seen closed banks and limits on ATM withdrawals. In Cyprus, the public had a portion of its bank savings confiscated. In this perspective, the Euro has lost much of its trustworthiness against e.g. Bitcoin.
And it doesn’t have to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Chances are that someone sooner or later will create a new digital currency that has learned from the problems and mistakes made by its predecessors, winning wider public trust and acceptance.
But no government and no central bank can end the development of digital currencies. There might be government Luddism and some countries will try to outlaw them. But Blockchain-based digital money cannot be stopped. And there will always be a demand.
In the long run, the ECB might very well be right. Central banks risk losing control over money supply. But that is not because digital currencies are a bad idea. Rather the opposite. It’s because inflation, debt, and centralized systems are undermining the confidence in state-issued fiat money.
/ HAX
Fingerprints are not passwords
Biometrics were never authentication tokens. They were identity tokens. Authentication tokens are secret and replaceable, and your fingerprints (your retina, your iris, and so on) are neither.
When you authenticate something even slightly sensitive with biometrics, you’re doing it wrong.
The right way to do it is to identify with biometrics, and then authenticate with a proper security token, which is secret.
Falkvinge: Once more, with passion: Fingerprints suck as passwords »
Rule of law or private censorship?
By HAX on October 21, 2016 in Big Data, Big Entertainment, Censorship, Civil liberties, Intellectual Property
But what do we do when the same threats aren’t the result of a law or the practices of an individual company, but the result of a private industry agreement? For example, agreements between copyright holders and Internet companies that give copyright holders the ability to effectively delete users’ content from the Internet, and agreements on other topics such as hateful speech and terrorism that can be used to stifle lawful speech. Unlike laws, such agreements (sometimes also called codes, standard, principles, or guidelines) aren’t developed with public input or accountability. As a result, users who are affected by them are often completely unaware that they even exist.
EFF: Shadow Regulation: the Back-Room Threat to Digital Rights »
EU, copyright and the Internet
EDRi: Commissioner defends nuclear attack on internet freedom »
Italy opens for arbitrary net censorship
This specific measure will have two consequences: unilateral and arbitrary censorship of content, and a huge power for and pressure on platforms to act without any form of neutral examination. The consequences are unpredictable.
EDRi: Censorship in Italy: Child protection is the excuse again »
Yet another ill-conceived EU idea on fighting copyright infringements
By HAX on October 20, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet
The European Commission has a new idea – to fight copyright infringements by targeting companies who advertise on file sharing sites. To nobody’s surprise, what the commission suggests is a mess.
EDRi:s Joe McNamee:
It is currently discussing “guiding principles” for withdrawal of services by advertising companies to penalise and prevent “commercial scale” infringements. Tellingly, the final paragraph of the “guiding principles” contains very similar wording to the ill-fated “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) that was rejected in 2012.
Like ACTA, the “guiding principles” include illusory “safeguards”, such as references to non-existent legal terms like “fundamental principles” and “fair process” (not due process). Like ACTA, it refers to “commercial scale”, as if this was a safeguard. The European Commission itself has previously said that the term is too vague in existing law.
The text also refers to a “right to access lawful content”, even though there is no such “right”. We have a right to freedom of movement (not a right to legal movement), we have a right to freedom of communication. The implication of the expression “right to access lawful content” is that everything we do or say should be assumed to be illegal until proven otherwise. This is profoundly objectionable.
Why is it that every time the European Commission address issues like copyright, file sharing and a free and open Internet – they totally loose it?
The commissioners are supposed to be the elite of European bureaucracy and they have top legal advisors. But do they even know what they are doing? Or do they deliberately conspire to deceive the public?
/ HAX