Weird News Stories

[Walsingham]

British political candidate blames gays for flooding.

 

 

LINK.

[Raithe]

One from just before Christmas..

 

Scientific American - Computers can be hacked using high-frequency sound

 

 

(ISNS)—Using the microphones and speakers that come standard in many of today's laptop computers and mobile devices, hackers can secretly transmit and receive data using high-frequency audio signals that are mostly inaudible to human ears, a new study shows.

 

Michael Hanspach and Michael Goetz, researchers at Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing, and Ergonomics, recently performed a proof-of-concept experiment that showed that "covert acoustical networking," a technique which had been hypothesized but considered improbable by most experts, is indeed possible.

 

Their findings, detailed in a recent issue of the Journal of Communications, could have major implications for electronic security.

"If you have a high demand for information security and assurance, you would need to prepare countermeasures," Hanspach wrote in an email to Inside Science.

In particular, it means "air-gapped" computers — that is, computers that are not connected to the Internet — are vulnerable to malicious software designed to steal or corrupt data.

 

"This is indeed a newsworthy development," said retired Navy Capt. Mark Hagerott, a cybersecurity professor at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

"These arms races between defensive and offensive advanced technologies have been going on for [a long time], but now, with the low cost of writing code, it may get progressively more challenging to defend against," said Hagerott, who was not involved in the study.

 

Secret transmissions

In their experiments, Hanspach and Goetz were able to transmit small packets of data between two air-gapped Lenovo business laptops separated by distances of up to about 65 feet (20 meters). Moreover, by chaining additional devices that picked up the audio signal and repeated it to other nearby devices, the researchers were able to create a "mesh network" that relayed the data across much greater distances. Importantly, the researchers were able to emit and record the ultrasonic and near-ultrasonic frequencies, which cannot be detected by humans, using the sound processor, speakers and microphone that came standard with the laptops.

 

The researchers experimented with a variety of software, but the best one was a program originally developed to transmit data acoustically under water. Created by the Research Department for Underwater Acoustics and Geophysics in Germany, the so-called adaptive communication system modem proved more reliable than the other techniques, but it had one significant drawback: it could only transmit data at a paltry rate of about 20 bits per second — a tiny fraction of today's standard network connections.

 

While not practical for transmitting video or other large files, this low transmission rate is still sufficient for sending and receiving keystrokes and other sensitive data such as private encryption keys or login credentials.

"If you have small-sized files of high value, you do not want to take the risk," Hanspach suggests.

 

Historical parallels

The low transmission rate would also suffice to send an electronic signal to a malware program that had been inadvertently installed — through a tainted USB stick, for example — onto an air-gapped computer and trigger an electronic attack, said Hagerott.

 

Moreover, Hagerott said, if history is any guide, it will only be a matter of time before someone refines the technique and increases its maximum transmission rate.

"Once you demonstrate that you can do something like this, other people will keep enhancing it," Hagerott said.

Hagerott also saw parallels between the current cyber arms race and the contest between real-world arms races of past eras. For example, experts once declared that there was no way a plane could sink a battle ship.

 

"They said, the planes weren't big enough, but then they got bigger and began carrying bigger bombs. But sadly, the experts didn't fully absorb this lesson until two British battleships in 1941 were sent to the bottom," Hagerott said.  

 

Countermeasures

Military history also suggests that countermeasures will eventually be developed against the new security threat that Hanspach and Goetz demonstrated. In their paper, the researchers themselves suggest several that might work. For example, one could simply switch off the audio input and output of devices, or use audio-filtering techniques to block high-frequency audio signals.

 

Devices running the Linux could implement the latter technique using tools that have already been developed for the operating system, the researchers write. They also propose the use of an "audio intrusion detection guard," a device that Hanspach and Goetz said would "forward audio input and output signals to their destination and simultaneously store them inside the guard's internal state, where they are subject to further analyses."

 

Oftentimes, though, the weakest links in cyber security systems are not hardware or software, but the humans who interact with them. For example, the Stuxnet virus that spread to air-gapped machines in the Iranian Natanz nuclear facilities and the Conficker digital worm that turned millions of PCs into a giant botnet in the city of Manchester, England, are believed to have been spread when employees used infected USB sticks.

"The human component is a huge part of this," Hagerott said.

 

[Elerond]

First thing that article pop up in my mind is that sonic screwdriver could actually work in hacking like Doctor Who uses it

[babaganoosh13]

British political candidate blames gays for flooding.

 

 

LINK.

Absolutely! Because:

 

[Humanoid]

Canada unleashes bioweapon attack on the UK, in the form of a cruise ship with a payload of DISEASED CANNIBAL RATS.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Canada unleashes bioweapon attack on the UK, in the form of a cruise ship with a payload of DISEASED CANNIBAL RATS.

 

That's cool. A random ship just out there, floating around.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Nun Faces up to 30 Years for Breaking Into Weapons Complex, Embarrassing the Feds
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/nun-megan-rice-sentencing-y-12-nuclear-weapons-security

 

In the dark morning hours of July 28, 2012, Rice and two fellow anti-war activists bushwhacked up to the edge of Y-12, cut through three separate security fences, and sprayed peace slogans and human blood on the wall of a building that is said to hold enough weapons-grade uranium to obliterate human civilization several times over.
The complex's security cameras and machine gun nests are designed to repel an attack by the world's most feared terrorist organizations, but they were no match for Sister Megan Rice, an 83-year-old Catholic nun armed with nothing more than a hammer and bolt cutters.

 

And should I mention that the two accomplices were 57 and 63 yrs old. I wonder where they got the idea from? Perhaps all those movies starring elderly Hollywood stars who still think they can cut it in action movies? (Not looking at anyone called Willis.)

 

I love this part.

 

Multiple security cameras were broken for months, and the guards often disregarded motion sensor alarms, which were constantly being tripped by wildlife.

 

One of the most important facilities in the United States & security doesn't really care.

[babaganoosh13]

Canada unleashes bioweapon attack on the UK, in the form of a cruise ship with a payload of DISEASED CANNIBAL RATS.

I assumed you were talking about the annual parliament arctic cruise. That would have been worse.

[babaganoosh13]

I actually thought this was weird. This is happening in the city closet to where I live, and my neighboring municipality.

 

Georgian Bluffs mayor says municipality not prepared to discuss boundary adjustments with city.

 

Background quote:

 

Barfoot said users on the city's water system in Georgian Bluffs already pay double the water rates, and he understands that. They also have to pay connection fees and any extensions if they are required.

 

 

What I think is weird about it is this:

 

Haswell said the days of just charging residents from outside the city more for its services are over.

 

 

What's weird to me is the outragous fees the city charges for water. It's why I didn't want to buy a house in the city. The water fees are basically just another tax grab. For instance, my buddy Joe (who lives in the city) used up just over $3 worth of water. His total bill came out to just over $88. The average bill is about double that. This is Georgian Bay water. They don't need to truck it in, or dig wells. It's right there.

 

Owen Sound has usually been very passive about its city hall. If I remember correctly, the turnout for the first municipal election there that I could vote in was around 17%. It was a lot higher when firemedics was almost brought in 8 or so years ago. The current mayor won the last election by a handful of votes. She's been the most useless twit yet as a mayor, and we had one that took out all of our rail lines, including a bridge that many of us used to walk across the Sydenham river. Okay, she's useless, that one was harmful. Want an appearance for your charity event from someone from city hall? Isn't "their" charity? Good luck. That being said, there is actually an organization going around trying to replace everyone in there.

Edited January 25, 2014 by babaganoosh13

[Raithe]

NYTimes - NSA Puts a furry smiley face on its mission

 

 

WASHINGTON — The turtle wearing a hat backward, baggy jeans and purple sunglasses looks just like other cartoon characters that marketers use to make products like cereal and toys appealing to children.

But the reptile, known as T. Top, who says creating and breaking codes is really “kewl,” is pushing something far weightier: the benefits of the National Security Agency.

 

“In the world of diplomacy, knowing what your enemy is planning helps you to prepare,” the turtle says. “But it is also important that your enemies do not know what you have planned. It is the mission of the National Security Agency and the Central Security Service to learn what it can about its potential enemies to protect America’s government communications.”

 

Such an enthusiastic endorsement of the N.S.A.’s mission might seem particularly timely given the criticism directed at the agency since one of its former contractors, Edward J. Snowden, began leaking documents he had stolen from it. But T. Top and a troupe of eight other smiley-faced cartoon characters have been busy promoting the N.S.A.’s mission for the past nine years as part of a governmentwide attempt to make agencies more understandable to the public. With cartoon characters, interactive games and puzzles, the N.S.A.’s CryptoKids website for “future codemakers and codebreakers” tries to educate children about spying duties and recruit them to work for the agency.

 

As the website says: “It is never too early to start thinking about what you want to do when you grow up.”

To enter the “How Can I Work for N.S.A.?” section of the site, children click on a picture of a bucktoothed rabbit, who says in his biography that he likes listening to hip-hop and rock. In his free time, the bunny says, he participates in cryptography competitions with other cartoon characters named Decipher Dog and CryptoCat.

 

“As a signals analyst, you will work with cutting edge technology to recover, understand and derive intelligence from a variety of foreign signals found around the world,” children are told in the future employment section. “You will also attempt to identify the purpose, content, and user of these signals to provide critical intelligence to our nation’s leaders.”

 

Civil libertarians, not surprisingly, said the website was propaganda. Experts on early childhood education and marketing to children said the tactics used by the N.S.A. were similar to the way McDonald’s puts toys in its Happy Meals.

 

“This is the N.S.A. putting on its best face and the way it wants to present itself without anyone else providing their opinions or making noise — and for children, it may make them feel good about what the N.S.A. does,” said Nina Huntemann, a professor at Suffolk University who studies the social impact of new media.

“Is that necessarily bad? I’m not that pessimistic; it happens all the time,” Ms. Huntemann said, referring to efforts by the government, companies and educators to promote messages to children through cartoons and games. “But these sites have been shown over and over to be ineffective at actually connecting with people.”

Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the N.S.A., said that “like many government agencies,” the N.S.A. “has a special website for children.”

 

“The site,” she said, “is designed to help children learn about cryptology and N.S.A.’s mission to defend the nation.” The site complies with a policy memo from President Bill Clinton that called on all federal agencies to develop ways to educate children about government. The F.B.I. and the Central Intelligence Agency are among the other government agencies that have their own sites to try to educate children about their missions.

 
Electronic games have also been popular. In 2002, for example, the Pentagon released the video game America’s Army to encourage people to enlist.

The N.S.A. started CryptoKids with seven characters, according to a news release in 2005, “to make researching America’s cryptologic heritage and learning about N.S.A./C,S,S, fun.”

 

In 2010, the N.S.A. added two more characters, the CyberTwins Cy and Cyndi, to educate children about “staying safe while enjoying cyberspace.”

“Both are world travelers,” the N.S.A. said in a news release about the new characters, “taking turns accompanying their Dad (a computer scientist in the U.S. Army) on his business trips around the world.”
 

The CyberTwins are now the first cartoon characters that visitors to the website see.

Although the Internet is a “great” place, Cy advises children, “there are people out there who don’t have your best interests in mind — stop and think before sharing private information, especially on social networking websites.”

After reading Cy’s message, children can enter the website and begin to “Meet the Gang” and play the games that allow them to make secret codes

 

 

 

"Just remember kids: Every month should be cybersecurity awareness month. No matter what the NSA tells you."

[Walsingham]

 

Canada unleashes bioweapon attack on the UK, in the form of a cruise ship with a payload of DISEASED CANNIBAL RATS.

 

That's cool. A random ship just out there, floating around.

 

 

Couldn't it be towed to the Horn of Africa. Or just, you know, exploded?

 

We were all thinking it!

[Walsingham]

Croatians experimenting by helping kids with autism by providing robot friends.

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/croatia-autism-robots-diagnosis/25243196.html

 

I thought it was quite cute.

[Rostere]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/01/putin-warns-gays-against-flamboyant-displays-at-olympics.html

 

Where's the Russia thread when you need it?

 

 

It's a joke article though

 

[Zoraptor]

Have some respect for the fallen. The Russia tread transcended mere threaddom and became something more. RIP in peace, sic transit gloria treadi etcetera.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

 

Canada unleashes bioweapon attack on the UK, in the form of a cruise ship with a payload of DISEASED CANNIBAL RATS.

 

That's cool. A random ship just out there, floating around.

 

 

Couldn't it be towed to the Horn of Africa. Or just, you know, exploded?

 

We were all thinking it!

 

 

I was hoping more Secret of NIMH stuff. Mutant Pirate Rats driving a ship around the oceans, terrorizing unsuspecting cruise liners while everyone is asleep. Swinging from their ship by ropes, raiding, pillaging and all that pirate stuff. There's a movie in there somewhere.

[babaganoosh13]

To Europe:

 

Remember the plague?

 

Love Canada.

[Hiro Protagonist]

NEWLYWEDS across Australia will be given a $200 voucher for marriage counselling from July 1, as part of a $20 million trial to strengthen relationships and avoid family breakdowns.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/federal-government-offers-newlyweds-200-voucher-to-attend-marriage-counselling/story-fnii5v6w-1226808063646

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't know if I'd laugh or be offended if I got married and the Government sent a marriage counselling voucher in the mail.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist

[Walsingham]

Have some respect for the fallen. The Russia tread transcended mere threaddom and became something more. RIP in peace, sic transit gloria treadi etcetera.

 

What he said. Ford transit in absentia.

[sorophx]

Flatulent cows start fire at German dairy farm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/us-germany-cows-idUSBREA0Q1HY20140127

[BruceVC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

 

Guys here is an excellent article debunking many of the myths around WW1

[Raithe]

TheNation - Verizon, FCC and what you need to  know about Net Neutrality

 

 

 

 

Editor’s note: On January 14, DC’s Circuit Court of Appeals found that the FCC does not have the authority to impose its net neutrality rules on Internet service providers. Read on to learn what that means for the future of the Internet.

 

Over the last decade, net neutrality has increasingly made its way into public discourse: politicians on Capitol Hill have battled over it, corporations have worked to curb it and public interest advocates have fought to preserve it. In September, the fight to keep the Internet free and open found its way to the DC’s Circuit Court of Appeals, where Verizon is attempting to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s current net neutrality regulations. Verizon vs. FCC, which could be decided as soon as this month, is the latest and arguably most important battle to protect the Internet from censorship and discrimination. But what is net neutrality? And what could this case mean for the future of the Internet? We’ve put together this explainer to catch you up.

 

What is net neutrality?

Network neutrality, or net neutrality, is a term first coined by technology policy scholar Tim Wu to describe the preservation of online innovation by prohibiting companies from discriminating against some users and content, or prioritizing some content over others. It guarantees a level playing field in which Internet users do not have to pay Internet service providers more for better access to online content, and content generators do not have to pay additional fees to ensure users can access their websites or apps.

 

By the way, what is an Internet service provider?

An Internet service provider, or ISP, is a company or organization that sells you access to the Internet. These companies, like Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable or CenturyLink, do not own the Internet, they just provide the infrastructure needed to access it, like underground fiber optic cables. It’s a lot like how your local water company doesn’t actually own the water you use, they just own the water pipes.

 

Is net neutrality a new concept?

No. The first innovators of the Word Wide Web intended for Internet to be non-discriminatory and fair to all users. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web, is a staunch supporter of net neutrality regulation and frequently makes public critiques of companies who aim to violate it.

 

Now, what happens without net neutrality?

Without net neutrality, your Internet service provider could block or slow online content, depending on which websites or apps they wish to preference. For example, an ISP might speed up your access to NBC.com, but slow or degrade your access to AlJazeera.com. They could also charge different prices for different content. An ISP might charge NBC.com more to host last week’s episode of Parks and Recreation than to feature an article about it. Internet service providers could also charge fees to Internet companies for providing that content to you. They might, for example, begin charging Netflix a fee for carrying online video over its network, which it likely will pass on along to its customers.

 

Yikes, that sounds awful. But is this threat just hypothetical?

No, there are some limited regulations to protect net neutrality (more on those later), and companies have already violated them. For example, in 2005 the FCC fined Madison River Communication, a North Carolina–based ISP, for blocking Vonage, a telephone company that provides Internet-based telephone service. Madison River said the company was a “competing phone service” and blocked their calls to more than 200 customers. In 2008, the FCC voted that Comcast violated the law by slowing user traffic to BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer networking sites to free up bandwidth on its network. In 2010 an appeals court sided with Comcast, ruling that federal regulators have limited authority over Internet regulation, but the company honored the FCC’s decision and agreed to stop blocking BitTorrent traffic. More recently, in 2012, AT&T announced it would block FaceTime, Apple’s mobile video chat function, from its devices unless customers buy a family plan, which is more expensive. Public interest groups filed a complaint with the FCC saying the move violated net neutrality rules. In 2013, the company unblocked the application for all users except those who have unlimited data plans. Since then the company has agreed to slowly enable FaceTime and other video calling apps. And in May 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that ESPN is considering a contract with at least one major cell phone provider to pay extra to exempt its application users from data caps, which are arbitrary limits that cell phone providers put on your data usage. The announcement has public interest advocates calling on the FCC to reign in this breach of net neutrality rules.

 

Wait—what is the Federal Communications Commission?

The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is an independent government agency that was created by the Communications Act of 1934 to oversee everything from radio and TV licenses to subsidized telephone service programs. The agency is made up of five commissioners appointed by the President and approved by the Senate to serve five-year terms. The President also chooses one commissioner to serve as the chairman. The FCC enforces both the Communications Act of 1934, which consolidated existing regulations for the radio, telephone and television industries, and its updated and reformed version, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which relaxed rules around media ownership and universal broadband service for schools and libraries, in addition to weakening regulation of telephone services.

 

How do these acts regulate communication?

The 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecommunications Act are split into seven major sections or “titles.” Each of these titles describes different regulations for different communications services. Title II contains all of the regulations that apply to “common carriers,” which are companies or organizations that provide a communication service to the general public, like your plain old telephone. Title II regulations ensure common carriers of wired telephone service treat consumers equally and share their infrastructure by leasing it to smaller companies. Title II also requires companies to keep customer information private and offer “reasonable charges” for services, among a list of other things. The services covered under Title II are called “telecommunications services.”

 

Are Internet service providers considered common carriers under Title II?

No. Internet service providers are classified under Title I of the Communications Act as providing “information services.” Title I says that no discrimination or price regulations of information services are “necessary for consumer protection” and the commission can’t regulate those services. However the FCC does have “ancillary jurisdiction” to regulate interstate and international communications, which means the agency has some indirect authority to regulate these networks.

 

Why isn’t the Internet protected under Title II as a regulated “telecommunications service”?

In 2002, the FCC under the Bush Administration ruled that cable broadband should be classified under Title I as an information service and should not be subjected to regulation, in order to ”encourage new investment” and market competition. In June 2005, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s classification of cable broadband as an information service, ruling that incumbent ISPs do not need to let smaller competitors, like EarthLink, connect to their networks. In August of that year, the FCC ruled to classify DSL Internet as an unregulated information service in order “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet.” That left our modern-day Internet unregulated by common carrier principles.

 

Has anyone in the US attempted to establish net neutrality rules?

Yes, the FCC issued an Internet policy statement in September 2005 that attempted to ensure ISPs “operated in a neutral manner” by offering consumers choice in content, providers and devices. But because it was merely a policy statement, it came with no enforceable rules. In 2006, Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska introduced a failed bill that would have prohibited ISPs from blocking traffic or applications. It would have also tasked the FCC with studying net neutrality for five years and handling net neutrality complaints.

 

What movement on net neutrality has happened since Obama took office?

The FCC shifted to the left after Obama’s 2008 campaign, which included a net neutrality platform. Obama appointed Julius Genachowski, a lawyer and media businessman who had previously served on the campaign’s technology policy working group, as the commission’s new chairman in 2009. With a new, more liberal chairman and a pro-net neutrality president in office, the FCC began the process of introducing net neutrality rules in October of 2009. In August of 2010, Google and Verizon released a joint policy proposal intended for the FCC as a framework for net neutrality rules, emphasizing self-regulation on broadband Internet. This proposal called for stricter net neutrality regulations on wired Internet services than on wireless Internet services and extremely limited regulation from the Commission. Four months later, in December 2010, the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order by a 3-2 vote. The order, which instituted relatively light net neutrality rules, imposed stricter rules on wired Internet services and weaker rules on wireless services, just as the Google and Verizon proposal had suggested.

 

What are the rules in the FCC’s Open Internet Order?

Wired Internet service providers, like your broadband Internet at home, are prohibited from blocking content, must disclose their network management practices, terms and conditions and are prohibited from prioritizing some traffic over others. On the other hand, mobile broadband providers, like your cell phone carrier or wireless internet provider, are only required to disclose their network management practices and terms and conditions of their service. These orders fell short of public interest goals to protect consumers, as people are increasingly accessing the Internet via mobile devices. But they also extended too far for some conservative congress members and companies, like Verizon.

 

Why did Verizon take the FCC to court over net neutrality?

Shortly after the order was instituted in 2011, Verizon sued the FCC saying that the commission does not have regulatory authority to impose net neutrality rules on any Internet Service Provider. After two years of legal filings, oral arguments for Verizon vs. FCC began in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September.

 

What happened in the oral arguments?

Oral arguments took place during a two-hour session before three judges. Verizon argued that the FCC overstepped its authority in imposing the Open Internet Order on ISPs because the rules amount to common carrier principles. Those common carrier principles fall under Title II regulations, not Title I, where ISPs like Verizon are free of regulation. Verizon also argued that the FCC failed to explain why it issued the order and what evidence they found to prove it was necessary. Most surprisingly, Verizon argued that the FCC’s order violated the company’s First Amendment right to free speech, claiming the company has the right to block, slow or prioritize content for a fee as it chooses. In response to a question from the judges about favoring some websites over others, Helgi Walker, Verizon’s lawyer, responded, “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”

 

The FCC argued it had ancillary authority, or indirect authority through the Communications Act, to impose net neutrality rules. They cited Congress’s instructions in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which requires the commission to promote broadband deployment and adoption across the country. The FCC argued that they need net neutrality rules in order to meet this requirement. They also strongly disagreed with Verizon’s First Amendment argument, saying that it would violate consumer choice if the company blocked or degraded connection to some websites over others. “Verizon has made clear over and over again that it is a conduit for other people’s speech,” said FCC lawyer Sean Lev.

 

The judges seemed to agree that, through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress had given the FCC some authority to regulate Internet Service Providers. There was, however, some discussion about striking down parts of the order or striking down the order in its entirety. Surprisingly, the judges seemed skeptical of the FCC’s argument against Verizon’s First Amendment claim. Judge Laurence Silberman gave the hypothetical of a website or application offering users chemical weapon construction lessons to be used against the United States. He said to Lev, under the commission’s view, “because Verizon is not a speaker it has no first amendment right to reject that message.” Some net neutrality experts said that this might have been the result of general confusion about how the Internet works and the role of ISPs as providing access to the Internet, not their role as owners of the Internet. After some back and forth about hypothetical First Amendment examples, Silberman seemed to confuse Verizon as a “conduit” of speech and as having its own content over its websites.

 

What happens now?

Based on past similar court decisions, judges should make a ruling between this month and March 2014. If it is a loss for the FCC and the Court strikes down major provisions of the Open Internet Order, the Commission might appeal the decision and take the case to the Supreme Court. The FCC could also attempt to reclassify the Internet under Title II through a vote, which would give the agency the authority to regulate it. Already the question is bubbling in DC as Tom Wheeler, who recently succeeded Julius Genachowski as chair of the FCC, settles into office. A reclassification vote might be the first test of Wheeler’s commitment to an open Internet and the public interest.

[Raithe]

For the general interest..

 

BBC News - Netherlands Court orders end to Pirates Bay Ban

 

 

 

A Dutch court has told local internet service providers they can restore access to The Pirate Bay.

The ISPs had been ordered in 2011 to stop internet addresses linked to the file-sharing site working.

 

But the Hague Appeals Court has reversed the decision on the basis it had proved "ineffective" at reducing copyright infringement.

Anti-piracy group Brein now faces having to pay 400,000 euros ($547,000; £330,000) of the ISPs' legal costs.

It has said it may lodge a further appeal with the country's Supreme Court.

 

One UK-based ISP said it was studying the ruling to see if there were any implications for a similar block imposed by the High Court.

"We will look carefully at what this means for the UK, but we do remain beholden to the UK courts," said Gareth Mead, head of media relations at Virgin Media.

 

'Violation of freedom'

 

The Dutch ruling marks a victory for Ziggo and XS4All - two local ISPs who had argued that the measure denied their subscribers free access to information.

The Pirate Bay does not host copyright-infringing content itself, but rather provides lists of links - many of which do lead to pirated films, TV shows, music and books.

 

Brein had initially tried to make The Pirate Bay itself remove such links. After failing to do so, it had convinced the Dutch courts to block users' access instead.

But the appeals court heard that web users were circumventing the ban by either finding alternative ways to access the site - such as using a VPN (virtual private network) to mask their location - or by using other file-sharing services.

 

Although there was evidence that Dutch traffic to The Pirate Bay had declined, the amount of torrenting - the way in which computer users share resources to speed up downloads - had not.

 

"This blockade imposed a violation of the basic freedom of commercial activity of the providers with insufficient justification," the court's ruling said.

"It is of great significance that the providers themselves were not violating copyrights."

Brein's director said this decision undermined efforts to encourage the public to pay for legal downloads.

"The purpose of blocking The Pirate Bay is obviously to reduce copyright infringement via The Pirate Bay," added Tim Kuik.

"It is paradoxical that although the court finds that this goal is indeed achieved, it rejects the blockade because users are going to other sites."

 

Nigel Miller, a technology expert at the law firm Fox Williams, said the Dutch ruling was unlikely to affect bans elsewhere.

"Recently the EU advocate general decided that under EU law you cannot issue a site-blocking injunction which is expressed in general terms, but you can require ISPs to take specific measures to prevent users accessing a website with illegal content, even if those measures can be circumvented," he said.

 

"Other courts in Europe will certainly have to take into account relevant EU directives, this opinion of the advocate general and decisions of other EU courts such as this one in the Hague Appeals Court, but ultimately each national can make its own decision based on the facts of the individual case and as to the terms of any site-blocking injunction which it issues."

 

Second defeat

 

The Dutch ruling is not the only defeat suffered by Brein this week.

The Torrentfreak news site has reported that a Dutch man who admitted uploading thousands of e-books to The Pirate Bay has had his case dismissed on a technicality.

 

Brein had claimed that Stefan K had caused about 50,000 euros of lost sales even though he had subsequently taken the material offline.

However, a judge ruled that the case should not have been brought to a criminal court as such an offence would be a civil matter.

 

 

 

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

 

Guys here is an excellent article debunking many of the myths around WW1

 

Interesting read, but a bit scant on detail as one would expect.  "Many soldiers enjoyed WW1", heh.

[213374U]

Poor, poor crabs.

 

(don't even ask how I came across that...)

[ShadySands]

Bill Nye Creationism Debate Livestreamed for Free

This Tuesday sees Bill Nye, the science guy, venture into the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where he will debate the merits of Creationism with Answers In Genesis CEO Ken Ham. Tickets for this hotly-anticipated debate were sold out within 25 minutes, but a global audience is expected to join in via the internet. The debate is due to be livestreamed for free via debatelive.org at 7pm ET.
 
A storm of controversy has erupted in the run-up to this debate, with scientists sharply criticizing Nye for engaging with Ham. A statement on the Richard Dawkins Foundation website said that scientists “should not debate Creationists, period.” Many bloggers and opinion columnists have echoed this point of view, arguing that simply by offering Creationism an equal platform, Nye is lending legitimacy to the belief.
 
Others, including Nye himself, have pointed out that as beloved as The Science Guy might be, he is not actually a scientist. Nye holds a degree in mechanical engineering although he has built an extensive media career as a science communicator. While he will go prepared, some people are concerned about a non-biologist attempting to defend one of the key tenets of modern biology.
 
In an interview with HuffPo Live, Nye explained that he felt compelled to accept the invitation as he is is “scared” of the influence of Creationist beliefs in certain parts of the United States. Nye has previously pointed to the anti-scientific approach of Creationists such as Ham as being a serious threat to America’s legacy of technological innovation.

 

EDIT: Some interesting quotes from a more interesting article

 

 

"Many people have been critical of me for taking this debate because I'm not an expert on evolution," Nye said. "But this is not advanced evolutionary theory. This is not high-school science. It might be elementary-school science. That Mr. Ham and his followers don't embrace it is troubling."

 

...

 

On his blog, Ham said he has seen lots of young people leave the church "because they saw evolution as showing the Bible could not be trusted." In a follow-up interview with NBC News, Ham said, "If you're taught that there's no God, that you're just an animal that arose through natural processes, that has great bearing on how you view yourself, and your fellow man, and your morality." 

Edited February 2, 2014 by ShadySands