Thieves Steal Identities to Tap Home Equity

According to the Washington Post, "Federal authorities this week announced a series of arrests and convictions in connection with a global identity theft ring that stole millions of dollars by hijacking home-equity lines of credit issued to thousands of consumers" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702027.html).

Not only does this article show the real danger of hacking in society today, it also calls into question the steps people should be taking to protect themselves on the internet. The steps people can take include (but certainly aren't limited to): Using anti virus software, being wary of email attachments, installing firewalls, protecting passwords, updating security patches, backing up data, and logging offline when you're done using the internet(http://www.learnthenet.com/english/html/79secure.htm).

While the steps above will help, its obvious that it is not enough. While the hackers used advanced techniques, they also used basic con techniques. More specifially, these hackers targeted people with good credit and large, untapped home-equity lines of credit, diug through public records -- such as property deeds and mortgages -- as well as publicly available Internet databases to obtain credit applications, credit reports and victim signatures.( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702027.html) In order to counter these techniques, more advanced software needs to be developed. However, until software is developed, it is up to each individual to take the basic steps (listed above) to protect themselves on the internet.

Facebook Group Creator detained by Croatian Police

Recently, A man who launched a Facebook group critical of Prime Minister Ivo Sanader was detained and questioned by police. This event brings up some interesting points regarding the interaction between the law and the worldwide web. First of all, it calls attention to the ever growing power of social outlets such as Facebook, Myspace, etc. The fact that a Facebook group was considered a threat to the prestige of the Croatian government shows this growing power. This power can be attributed to the amount of people that one is able to reach just through creating a Facebook group and the amount of people that utilize Facebook in general. This very fact calls into question whether or not the Croatian government may have overstepped it's boundaries by trying to regulate sites such as Facebook. Is this not a violation of free speech? Do people not have the right to express their opinions? What is particularly interesting is the contradiction between this act and what is stated in the Croatian constitution.
Article 3 [State Values] states:
Freedom, equal rights, national equality and equality of genders, love of peace, social justice, respect for human rights, inviolability of ownership, conservation of nature and the environment, the rule of law, and a democratic multiparty system are the highest values of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia and the ground for interpretation of the Constitution.

Does the stripping away of ones ability to express themselves not contradict the ideals of a democratic society? It almost seems hypocritical for the Croatian government to lay out these principles in their constitution and then regulate free speech as they have.

Rather than actually detaining an individual, the Croatian government may come up with other deterrents to stop people from using the internet to bash their government. For example, a disclaimer could possibly put out that these groups will be removed immediately from facebook as soon as they were posted. This could potentially stop people from posting them in the first place.

Overall, this event can possibly serve as evidence of increased internet regulation. This increased interenet regulation may be eventually correlated to the loss of "inalienable" rights.

Myspace Suicide Case Verdict

Recently the case involving a young girl who committed suicide after being taunted by a 49 year old women and her daughter was tried. The court found the 49 year old women (Lori Drew) guilty of three misdemeanors for computer fraud. It seems that this ruling was based mainly on the fact that the young girl, Megan Meier, was known to have a history of depression and suicidal tendencies.

I think this case calls attention how new of a technology websites like Myspace and Facebook are. In this sense, positive outcomes can actually be seen from this case. According to New York lawyer, Nick Akerman, "This case will be simply another important step in the expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime."

While this case may serve as a stepping stone regarding the regulation of cyberbullying, state law already exists that adresses it. While most of the state law regards cyberbullying in schoool, I feel as if much of it could be applied across the board. According to USA Today, "a New Jersey bill added electronic communication to the definition of bullying in school policies. While the law refers to bullying in schools, new state guidelines say school administrators "may impose consequences for acts of harassment, intimidation or bullying that occur off school grounds, such as cyberbullying," but only when those acts substantially disrupt school". (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-06-cyber-bullying-list_N.htm) Had this case occurred in New Jersey, this law very well could have applied.

Although the outcome of this case is horrible, I don't disagree with the sentencing. It would be very difficult to prove that Meier committed suicide based on the cyberbullying beyond a reasonable doubt as she had a history of depression and suicidal tendencies. However, this does not change the fact that this event and those alike, is a tragedy.

EX-PHILLY TV ANCHOR GETS HOUSE ARREST FOR HACKING

According to BNA Internet Law news, recently, "A former TV newsman in Philadelphia who said he felt threatened by his co-anchor's "rising star" was sentenced to six months of house arrest after hacking into her e-mail and leaking gossip that contributed to her downfall". This displays exactly how easy it is to "hack". This article also ultimately displays the impact hacking can have on the victim in both their social life and professional lfie. In order to protect against hacking in general, I feel as if it is up to the individual to protect themselves. An individual can take numerous precautions in order to ensure this protection. Articles like this one display the obvious vulnerabilities of internet programs. Therefore it is up to each and everyone of us to look out for ourselves to avoid this type of invasion of privacy and those alike.

Facebook removes Italian neo-Nazi pages

According to a recent BNA Internet Law news article, the European parliament filed a complaint with Facebook regarding pages that promoted violence against gypsies. According to facebook, ""Facebook supports the free flow of information, and groups provide a forum for discussing important issues. However, Facebook will remove any groups which are violent or threatening". This very attribute of Facebook gives one an idea of the power that it wields. By posting information or opinion on facebook, one is able to reach a large audience. Evidence for this statement is provided by the fact that I can think of few people that do not have a facebook. By accessing this outlet, individuals are therefore able to share information that may very well be harmful. It seems as if Facebook needs to take the necessary precautions in order to stop this potentially harmful information from being posted in the first place.

HACKERS ACCESS SOME WHITE HOUSE EMAILS

According to an article published by BNA Internet Law News, "Emails that were going to the highest levels of the White House were ending up with the central authorities in China," said O. Sami Saydjari, president of the Cyber Defense Agency, a consulting firm." Although these emails were not classified, it still brings to light the ability (of people with the expertise) to retrieve information. What is even more disturbing is how often this goes on, whether or not it's made public or not. "The more that you see, the more numb you become to it," said one U.S. official familiar with the White House breach, who added that the mounting volume of attacks are of great concern. This mounting volume of attack is calling attention the fact that security measure presently being taken simply aren't cutting it.

GOOGLE'S GROWTH MAKES PRIVACY ADVOCATES WARY

The article I'm dealing with in this blog post deals with the level of power Google has attained throughout the years. This article points specifically to the the storage of search queries on the site. What worries people of this type of storage is the potential for the invasion of privacy. According to Google though, many of the accusations are not necessarily legitimate and can be attributed to a certain level of naivety of how the system works amongst critics. In defense of their position, representatives of Google claims that they only collect information to provide their service : " "You're flying blind without that information, so we have to collect a little bit," he said. "But we're really (collecting) the bare minimum we can to provide that service." Criticisms and defenses aside, this article brings the potential of privacy invasion in the future to the forefront (through the internet in particular).

TURKEY BANS BLOGGER.COM DUE TO LINKS TO INFRINGING CONTENT

As the title implies, recently Turkey banned the use of this site, Blogger.com, due to alleged copyright infringement amongst those who use this site to blog. To me, this seems like censorship at it's finest and seems to be going too far. Thousands of people use this site to voice their opinion day and day out and I simply don't see their explanation as being legitimate. Who is to say that there aren't motives beyond those given as to why Turkey has shut the site down? In no way am I advocating Copyright Infringement, but at the same time I feel like the restriction of use regarding this site should be a case by case basis rather than punishing the entire population of bloggers.

YOUTUBE SNUBS MCCAIN CAMPAIGN PLEA

"YouTube has rejected a request from U.S. presidential candidate John McCain's campaign to review its fair use policy and stop removing political campaign videos that may infringe copyright so swiftly. The McCain campaign's general counsel sent a letter to executives from YouTube and parent company Google earlier this week asking for a "full legal review" of takedown notices submitted against videos posted by political candidates and campaigns." This article from BNA Law Internet News brings up a very interesting topic. It brings up the topic of the power of popular websites to influence the way people think. More specifically, it can be said (after reading this article) that popular websites have political influence. The very fact that the McCain campaign went to the length of sending a letter to Youtube acknowledges the fact that they realize this power.

BUSH SIGNS CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-PIRACY LAW

"President George W. Bush signed into law yesterday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music copyright infringement at the federal level. The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority." This article, published by BNA deals with an already prevalent issue today. This article however provides a different dimension by recognizing the fact there is now an "intellectual property czar" that reports directly to the president. The question this brings up is whether or not this is a necessary step that the U.S. government really needs to be taking. It has been argued that this bill is unnecessary "because the recording and movie industry had the right to take accused infringers to court." Another argument against this idea points to the fact there are already many penalties for copyright violations. These opposing arguments bring to light another question: Is government overstepping their bounds?

LAWYER’S THREATS, INTIMIDATION SHUT DOWN WEB SITE

As the title implies, a Virginia lawyer was able to shut down a site using bullying tactics to reach that end. These tactics included defamation claims, as well as trademark infringement. I would like to focus on the Virgina lawyer's argument of defamation claims. My question would have to be where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and defamation of character? An interesting quote relating to this very issue is found right in the article: "The courts repeatedly have struck down these types of bullying tactics and upheld the public’s right to criticize people and companies on the Internet – something which Mr. Dozier was well aware of when he began his intimidation campaign against our client,” Levy said. “Not liking what someone says about you is not enough reason to throw out the First Amendment.” I'm yet to read anything about this case that makes it special other than the fact that the lawyer was in a power of position (due to the fact that he is a lawyer) and was able to exert that power in the form of having the site taken down.

Senate passes intellectual property bill

The senate recently passed a bill regarding the protection of intellectual property. In the article the importance of intellectual property is stressed and the content of the bill is described. "The bill also would authorize funding for federal and local law enforcement to fight intellectual property theft and expand the scope of things that could be seized in a criminal case." This quote from the article that I read brought up one large question. What kind of "things" will be able to be seized in criminal cases other than what is already being seized presently? This seems to grant enforcement agencies a lot more breathing room when investigating potential violations, which may or may not be a good thing in itself. It goes without saying that this increased power so to speak allows more room for abuse. What aspect of these investigations could possibly be abused by these agencies remains to be seen.

Hackers break into Sarah Palin's E-mail account

"It wasn't immediately clear how hackers broke into Palin's Yahoo! account, but it would have been possible to trick the service into revealing her password knowing personal details about Palin that include her birthdate and ZIP code. A hacker also might have sent a forged e-mail to her account tricking her into revealing her own password." This quote perfectly describes how foggy the idea of "privacy" really is in this country. No matter what precautions or safeguards are taken, there always seems to be ways around these very safeguards. This idea becomes that much more important when it involves a candidate in the Presidential race. What if these emails contained information that could potentially damage Mccain and Palin's campaign? And in the same sense, what if these emails were hacked out of Obama's account? Obviously the race would be tainted and in a sense history would be tainted as well as this invasion could of changed the outcome for both sides.

Another quote in this article perfectly sums up this idea of invasion of privacy within this country: "Todd Palin was the winner of the grueling Iron Dog snowmobile race, and "fek9wnr" also is Todd Palin's vehicle license tag in Alaska."

YouTube Bans Terrorism Training Videos

As the title suggests, the article that I read, which was from the BNA internet news, dealt with the problem You Tube has been having regarding "Terrorism training videos". These videos involve things such as instruction as to how to make bombs out of everyday household items. While it is understandable that You Tube doesn't want this kind of content on their site, I found it very interesting how You Tube goes about deciding which videos to take off. "YouTube has not identified specific videos on its site that led to the change, nor said exactly how it will choose those that are purged." As you can see, this explanation leaves a lot of room for Youtube to more or less pick and choose what they want on their site.
I realize that Youtube has every right to decide what they want posted on their site. The reason I find this especially interesting though is the popularity of the site itself. With thousands of hits a day, Youtube is more than capable of influencing what people think about certain issues whether it be conscience or subconscious by simply picking and choosing what videos are posted. The question that this brings up though is whether or not Youtube has the ability to arbitrarily not allow videos onto their site indirectly on the basis of issues such as race and ethnicity.

"Picture your name here"

The article that I'm choosing to blog about has an effect on that majority of the students throughout the UMass campus. This article dealt with Facebook and one's ability to tag another person in a picture. More specifically, this article brings up the fact that there is no way to stop someone from initially tagging another person in a picture (other than that person untagging themself). This article brings up privacy issues and the lack of protection that facebook provides to each individual. On one side, individuals have the right to express themself freely. On the other side, people have a right to protect their character. Anyone who has looked at an album on facebook has probably seen an individual's character called into question via a picture. This clearly creates a conflict in which the question is whether or not an individual should be allowed to post a picture on Facebook that could possibly constitute as defamation of character. The simple solution to this question would be for people simply not to put themselves in situations where embarassing/potentially damaging pictures could be taken. Obviously, the solution is not that simple (especially when alchohol is involved).