IE feature can track Web surfers without warning Privacy from Companies9/11/2000; 5:49:04 PM 'Microsoft today said it is investigating a possible privacy loophole in its Internet Explorer browser that could thwart efforts by people who want to surf the Web anonymously. The feature in IE 5 and above, referred to by Microsoft as "persistence," is designed to let Web pages remember information, such as search queries, entered by visitors.'There are other good reasons to turn this feature off. You should not leave importent passwords on your computer if possible; since the feature is either "off" or "on", you can't seperate the importent passwords from the unimportent ones. (And I have some importent ones. The iRights password is kinda dear to me, for instance ).This is yet-another technology with unanticipated side effects. Paul, if you're looking, these last few snafus with Microsoft (macro viruses being the big one) have definately convinced me that capabilities-based security is indeed the way to go

Copyright and Copying Wrongs: A Web Re-balancing Act
Music & MP3
9/11/2000; 4:53:35 PM 'There is a large legal irony here. MP3.com may be thoroughly punished (the company is appealing the ruling), even though it has tried to ensure that people pay for copies of the music they want to listen to, said Pamela Samuelson, co-director of the University of California's Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. By contrast, Napster, another high-profile Internet music company being sued by the major record labels, has so far eluded any legal sanction for its activities, even though it exists to give people free access to the same music.'

What a crazy world.

Poland Ready to Clear Electronic Signatures General IP Issues9/8/2000; 7:09:57 PM 'Polish financial institutions joined forces to enable local Internet users to use electronic signatures in e-commerce and e-banking after the appropriate law is approved later this year, the central bank said on Thursday.'Regretfully, the article does not make clear if these are electronic or digital signitures. Explanation from the Glossary.

C-SPAN 2 RIght Now
Personal Notes
9/8/2000; 6:58:16 PM C-SPAN 2 right now is discussing "Privacy Act & the Presidency" right now, at 8:05 p.m. EST.

Don't know if it's necessarily all that interesting overall, but technically Carnivore belongs to the President, so some issues I cover on this site might be covered.

RealNetworks, Streambox Settle Copyright Case
General IP Issues
9/8/2000; 2:48:14 PM 'Streaming-media software company RealNetworks (RNWK) ended one of the first tests of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on Friday with an out-of court settlement with Streambox, a software rival it had accused of copyright infringement.

'RealNetworks' federal suit, filed Dec. 22 in Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington, accused Streambox of violating the DMCA with its Streambox Ripper and Streambox VCR products. The Ripper converts RealAudio files, which can be copy-protected by their owners, into MP3, WAV or Windows Media files, which lack similar copy protection. Streambox VCR can play and record video streams in the RealPlayer G2 format, also sidestepping copy protection.'

Metallica's Lawyer Asks 11 Major Institutions to Ban Napster Music & MP39/8/2000; 2:32:07 PM 'The lawyer for the rock band Metallica and the rap artist Dr. Dre has sent letters to 11 prominent universities asking the institutions to restrict students' access to Napster, the popular MP3 file-sharing service. Letters went out Wednesday night to Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford Universities, and the University of Virginia. The lawyer, Howard E. King, said he was sending letters Thursday to Boston University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of California at Los Angeles.' ...'The courts have yet to make clear whether a university can be successfully sued for not preventing specific online behaviors by students for whom the university provides network access. Some observers say no one would think of suing a telephone company because its customers use Napster in ways that violate copyright law. 'At the same time, however, university administrators do not appear eager to devote time and money to fighting legal battles that are largely unrelated to their educational missions -- especially not battles that would put them in the awkward position of defending students who were violating musicians' intellectual-property rights.'I think this likely, they admins from at least one of these universities will fold now, in order to "save themselves the hassle".It's not just cowardly (although courage doesn't pay the lawyers, unfortunately), it's false economy.It is most assuredly not worth fighting for the university network user's "rights" to use Napster, from the University's point of view. It is worth the fight to not be considered responsible for the use of the network by those students. You may save money not fighting today, but you will face more of these requests over the next few years, quite probably enough to make up for the money you would have spent defending yourselves, if these universities would just ban together and fight the responsibility. This is a major trap for these universities.As the Universities themselves would remind you under other circumstances, they are not policemen or parents. Their mission is education, not stopping the students from doing illegal things on the network, which can't be done anyhow.

Downtime by Law Misc.9/8/2000; 2:21:42 PM 'With almost embarrassing enthusiasm, the American judicial system has recently taken upon itself the task of spanking the Internet, hard and with relish. Each day seems to bring another decision designed to leave the technically savvy sputtering with rage. But as galling as the verdicts have been, the judiciary — with every curt dismissal of every nerd-approved argument — is doing the plugged-in set an enormous favor. Because if anybody needs a lesson in the way the real world works, it's the geeks.'Too true.I'd love to put money where my mouth is, but I don't have any. I run this site as what I figure is the best I can do.

Quiet after yesterday's burst Personal Commentary9/7/2000; 6:34:33 PM After yesterday's burst of news, a relatively quiet day. Amazon leaked some addresses to some people; it was attributed to a technical failure and from the description, I find that highly likely. Other then a reminder that there is always failure in human systems, not that big a deal .Carnivore will march on despite criticism... well, who expected anything else? The list of people and organizations the FBI has to answer to is quite short, and "the public" isn't on it, except I suppose in theory.On a more personal note, I'm engaged in what's called the "capstone project" for my undergraduate education. This particular semester, the class was broken into groups of 3 or 4 and dispersed amounst 10 or so local businesses, to do something to prove that we can work in teams and solve real-world problems. We will do this by spending a semester engaged in activities that will bear a striking resemblance to my job... oh well, who really goes to school to learn things anyhow?The prof gathered a number of different types of businesses, including things like Melting Moments (an ice cream shop), the MSU Bootery (a local shoe store, emphasis on boots), and the like. At the last minute, one of these stores dropped out and a law firm was added.Guess who gets to work with the law firm? (No, I did not swing the issue either way, nor did the prof know about this site, as far as I can tell. Still doesn't, as far as I know.)This is the last time I'll mention this (and you'll note the lack of details like names), because I'm sure it would make the law firm uncomfortable. It's just interesting to see how life turns out some times.

Point - Counterpoint: Digital Angel in your Children Personal Commentary9/6/2000; 10:27:09 PM You may recall the Digital Angel. Dan Gillmore engaged in a point-counterpoint debate with a collegue about whether or not they would put one in their child:

I side 1000% with Gillmore.The generation gap of the sixties is nothing compared to what this would cause. Children can't be kept on a leash; can you imagine what will happen when a generation of parents seriously tries? It's always dangerous to guess what sociological effect something will have, but this seems plenty plausible to me.On a more practical note, why not fight parental fear with parental fear: Will your child really be more safe with this perfect location data floating around the computer networks... or will pedophiles, kidnappers, and internet stalkers thank you now that picking a child to attack is a simple matter of running a query on the data to see what children are alone when and where. (They will get this data, even if it means getting a real job doing something legitimate with this data. This data will be leaked, it's too valuable to protect.)You must understand that destroying these devices will be possible. A well-designed device should be effectively unspoofable (although don't bet the child on the first ten or twenty iterations of the technology), but they will always, always, always be able to be silenced.Now, you've given the attacker a big pointed arrow straight at your kid, and the attacker has destroyed that arrow behind him. Where's your gain?

Legal Puzzle UCITA9/6/2000; 9:34:45 PM

  • Contracts between parties in multiple states can specify which state's laws apply to the contract, a necessary ability when you have 50 states.
  • UCITA goes online in Maryland in less then a month, and companies will be able to specify that the click-through contract will be under the laws of Maryland, putting it under UCITA.
  • The reason click-through contracts are legitimate contracts is that it is an explicit provision of UCITA.
So, my question is, if you are not in Maryland, and you are faced with a click-through contract claiming to be under the laws of Maryland, can this non-contract (in your state) bind you to the laws of the UCITA, or, since it's not really a contract in your state, does it not matter as much as it has not mattered in the past (which is to say, untested water)?Who cares if the contract claims to work under Maryland's law if it's not a contract where you're standing?