TJantunen.com

As part of the story I wrote about e-mails sent back and forth between the Home Office and the behavioural advertising service Phorm, I asked the government department seven specific questions.

Here are those questions and the answers supplied by a Home Office spokesperson.

(1) Why was the Home Office collaborating with and seeking feedback on a document from a company whose technology it was supposed to be assessing from a legal standpoint?

“The Home Office has responsibility for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which among other things deals with the interception of communications.
“The Home Office was interested in understanding how targeted online advertising would work and what some of the issues were. The Home Office was not assessing any particular form of technology. And as made clear (see paragraph below) it definitely was not providing any legal guidance.
“‘This note offers informal guidance on issues relating to the provision of targeted online advertising services. It should not be taken as a definitive statement or interpretation of the law, which only the courts can give.’
“We listened to representations from one company about a complex area.
“The Home Office is not responsible for assessing the suitability or otherwise of any particular commercial product or method.”

(2) Why was the Home Office asking Phorm, a commercial company, if its legal policy viewpoint would “comfort” Phorm and its clients?

“This refers to the government’s desire that a balance is struck between safeguarding privacy and enabling legitimate technological innovation.”

(3) How can the Home Office’s position on Phorm remain valid given the information about the exchange of e-mails between Phorm and the office?

“The government has not endorsed Phorm or any other similar products.
“We appreciate the commercial companies want to develop new technology but we are committed to protecting the privacy of UK consumers and will ensuring that any new technology of this sort is applied in an appropriate and transparent manner, in full accordance with the law and with proper regulation from the appropriate authority.”

(4) Why was the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism giving advice to Phorm via the Home Office?

“The Office of Security and Counter Terrorism is part of the Home Office and will continue to work with business to understand their commercial developments whilst ensuring that there is a proper balance between privacy and public safety. We welcome companies sharing ideas and proposals for new products in commercial confidence as it offers both sides the opportunity to consider relevant issues, including the impact on public safety etc.”

(5) According to Hansard, Lord West of Spithead told Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: “The Home Office has made no assessment of the legality of BT’s trials or any specific targeted online advertising system.”
Why do the e-mails between the Home Office and Phorm show that the document was drawn up with Phorm specifically in mind, but was made “generic” because of – as the e-mail states – “the importance which will be attached to whatever we say, by your clients, and by your clients’ competitors (which is why I’ve not written it specific to Phorm but to the general principle)”?

“The Home Office has made no assessment of the legality of BT’s trials or any other targeted on line advertising system. However in drawing up the generic Q&A the Home Office did have discussions with Phorm and they were invited to comment – but the Q&A was not written specifically for Phorm.”

(6) Was Lord West aware that the policy had been drawn up in conjunction with Phorm?

“This was not a policy document and was not shared with ministers. It was Q&A produced to try to improve the understanding of the issues. As set out above Home Office met with Phorm and we wanted to ensure that we had understood their explanation of how target online advertising works.”

(7) Did the Home Office send the document that it was preparing to other behavioural targeting advertising firms and ask them for their revisions and changes?

“No, but we would have shared it with other companies had they expressed an interest in it.”

Go to Source

What’s the most powerful force on the web right now? No, not Twitter – still a minority interest – but video, in all its forms.

In the last couple of weeks we’ve seen three examples of the popularity and importance of moving pictures on the internet. But each of them raises a few more questions about the economics of web video.

When Susan Boyle first appeared on Britain’s Got Talent, 11 million people watched her on ITV. But within a day or so, far more had viewed her on YouTube, and a fortnight on, her various clips online have given the 48-year-old singing sensation a bigger audience than even Barack Obama achieved.

So has that produced a windfall for ITV, which could certainly do with a boost to advertising revenues right now?

As well as looking at YouTube, viewers could also go to itv.com for clips from the programme and it has certainly seen a big boost in its traffic.

But on YouTube, there is no advertising to be seen near the Britain’s Got Talent clips, and there’s not much on itv.com. Even if there were, each online ad viewer would be worth a fraction of anyone catching commercial breaks on the television.

For another media outlet, a different kind of web video hit. The Guardian’s footage of the moment Ian Tomlinson was pushed to the ground by police at the G20 protest – or rather the video acquired from a member of the public – was a major scoop.

But did it do much for the sales of the newspaper? I doubt it, because most people will have seen the video – either on the Guardian website or more likely on television news broadcast the night before.

The pictures will have driven plenty of traffic to the Guardian’s site – but again, the advertising rates there will not match what is achieved in the newspaper. Video content on newspaper websites is becoming more and more important, but is still struggling to find a business model.

One online video service which doesn’t need to make money, of course, is the BBC iPlayer. Last week it went HD, making it an even more attractive alternative to live television.

But an HD iPlayer is also more expensive – for the BBC (how much, I’m told, is commercially sensitive), for some viewers who may have to buy extra bandwidth from their internet service providers, and for those ISPs, who’ve already complained about the strain the standard definition version places on the network.

Still, the iPlayer – along with the online services from ITV, Channel 4 and Sky – is proving why we might need to build a faster broadband network across the UK, as more and more television viewing migrates onto the internet. So that leaves us with only two simple questions to answer.

Who will pay to bring that HD-capable broadband network to every home – because, as we know, BT and Virgin Media only plan to cover half the UK with super-fast broadband – and who can work out how to make money by pumping video along it?

Update: Many thanks to Shravan Nagraj in the comments for pointing out that our friends at the BBC Internet Blog are hosting a conversation about how these issues relate to BBC iPlayer in their Open Post.

Go to Source

From the moment Phorm first hit the headlines in 2008, controversy has dogged the online advert targeting firm.

Its history as a technology company accused of peddling spyware immediately antagonised privacy campaigners.

And when it was revealed that Phorm and BT had carried out secret trials of the technology, which monitors users’ web habits without their consent, battle lines were drawn.

At the heart of the argument is a debate over whether Phorm’s technology breaks UK data interception laws. The European Commission has also waded into the issue, asking for better protection for consumers.

This has been a battle fought on message boards and forums, in detailed technical assessments of the technology, and even within government.

Phorm asserts that it is doing nothing wrong, that it sets higher standards of privacy and protection than rivals and that it has the support of bodies like the Information Commissioners’ Office, the Home Office and the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform.

However, anti-Phorm campaigners have gone to each of these bodies and in turn received word that they have not endorsed Phorm’s technology.

Indeed, the Home Office says it has never advised Phorm that its technology does not break UK law.

Yet e-mails between the Home Office and Phorm released under Freedom of Information appear to show the Home Office doing precisely that, and also asking Phorm for comments and changes to a document it was drawing up in order to ascertain the company’s legal status.

At one point, a Home Office official asks whether Phorm and its clients will be “comforted” by the document.

Of course, the Home Office will regularly consult with private enterprise when it draws up informal guidance, especially around new technologies.

Lord West of Spithead, the government’s Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, explained to the House of Lords last year why the government had met with Phorm:

“This was an informal meeting to improve officials’ understanding of the ways in which targeted online advertising could be undertaken. There was no agenda and no minutes were taken.”

He added: “It would not be appropriate to provide details of that communication to a legal adviser in Phorm as we believe it is subject to legal privilege.”

But anti-Phorm campaigners are questioning why the Home Office and Phorm were exchanging the document in question.

Phorm believes it is being unfairly singled out: it also believes it is the victim of an orchestrated “smear” campaign:

“Over the last year Phorm has been the subject of a smear campaign orchestrated by a small but dedicated band of online ‘privacy pirates’ who appear very determined to harm our company.”

It has set up a website to counter these smears, called Stop Phoul Play.

The site also hints that this campaign may be the work of Phorm’s competitors:

“Their energetic blogging and letter-writing campaigns, targeted at journalists, MPs, EU officials and regulators, distort the truth and misrepresent Phorm’s technology.

“We have decided to expose the smears and set out the true story, so that you can judge the facts for yourself.”

The company has also accused one of the leading campaigners of being a “serial agitator”.

This is a battle with no sign of a ceasefire, with both sides settling down to a war of attrition, and with governments, both in the UK and the EU, drawn into the crossfire.

Go to Source

By Maggie Shiels
Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley

Google has defended its online book deal amid reports it is being reviewed by the US justice department.

An investigation is expected to examine whether or not the book search agreement with authors and publishers violates anti-trust laws.

Google reached a settlement in October to create a $125m (£85m) fund to pay authors to have their work digitised.

The deal still needs court approval and this week the deadline was extended to September for others to oppose it.

Now that the justice department has become involved, Google has taken to the blogosphere with a post explaining the benefits of putting millions and millions of books online.

"As the discussion continues, it’s important to understand what readers stand to gain," wrote Adam Smith, the director of product management for Google Book Search.

In his post, Mr Smith outlined a number of scenarios where readers could benefit. These include being able to access out-of-print, or so-called "orphaned" books where the authors cannot be found, as well as being able to get hold of more books in foreign languages.

For authors, Google also stressed the positives.

"The settlement won’t just expand access to out-of-print books, either," said Mr Smith.

"Because authors and publishers will have the ability to let users preview and purchase their in-print books through Google Book Search, readers will have even more options for accessing in-print books than they have today."

‘Monopolistic situation’

The Google settlement was reached following earlier legal action by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

That suit claimed that Google’s practice of scanning copyrighted books from libraries for use in its Book Search service was a violation of copyrights.

Both organisations refused to comment on the story.

The Department of Justice also declined to give a statement. Its involvement does not necessarily mean it will attempt to scuttle the deal, which critics have said would unfairly give Google an exclusive licence to profit from millions of books.

Some librarians have said they fear that with no competition Google would be free to raise prices to access the collection.

The Consumer Watchdog told the BBC it was one of a number of groups involved in calling on the Department of Justice to act.

"We felt the deal set up an unfair monopolistic situation for Google," explained Consumer Watchdog advocate John Simpson.

"We do need to have the world’s books digitised but I think there are very big concerns if one internet giant is able to dominate the digital market. We want a level playing field here," Mr Simpson said.

The deal currently only applies in the US, but Google’s Adam Smith said: "We believe that this will constitute an unprecedented test bed for the development of similar services around the world."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Go to Source

By Jane Wakefield
Technology reporter, BBC News website

Security remains a huge issue for businesses and consumers alike.

Whether it be better ways of securing data or more effective passwords, the issues may be old but every year brings new solutions.

The BBC news website has been on the floor at InfoSec 2009 to find some of the innovations on offer.

LOCKING DATA

The Data Locker is a portable USB hard drive which also has a built-in keyboard.

Designed by Origin Storage, the device was a year in the making and promises to secure data which is increasingly being transferred or taken out of an organisation.

The keyboard allows users to choose a password of between six and 18 digits, without which there can be no way of accessing the data.

The unit is a little bigger than the average smartphone but is also very light.

"We made it small and light enough to carry around but big enough not to be lost," said Origin Storage’s director Andy Cordial.

The device, priced from £199, comes in three versions models, with either 128 or 256 bit encryption.

Users can choose from versions with either 160 gigabyte, 320 gigabyte and 500 gigabyte storage capacity.

Aimed at businesses and government departments, it has been available since January.

INSIDER THREAT

As the global recession makes redundancy a reality for many, firms are increasingly at risk of having important data stolen by disgruntled employees.

Companies are realising the need to lock down their system but traditionally anyone with an administration password has been free to do whatever they liked within the system.

Cyber-Ark is one of several firms touting its wares at InfoSec, launching its Priveleged Identity Management Suite, designed to combat insider threats and data theft.

The system promises to secure, manage, log and monitor privileged accounts such as those held by admininstrators.

Its survey of IT administrators found that one third would use their rights to access confidential or sensitive information, while 85% said they would take information if they left the company.

The firm has 500 clients around the world, including banks, supermarkets and government organisations.

WEB 2.O FIREWALL

Palo Alto claims it has invented the next generation of firewall, enabling control of applications such as social networks and peer-to-peer technology that are bypassed by traditional firewalls.

It says it can spot over 800 applications using its patent-pending App-ID technology.

While traditional firewalls rely on ports and protocols to classify traffic, the App-ID determines exactly which applications are on the network by using up to four different identification techniques.

From peer-to-peer technology to copyright theft, the Palo Alto technology claims to be able to identify both content and user.

"We can do it all in one place, on the perimeter of the network," said Alex Raistrick, UK manager of Palo Alto.

SAFER NET

Security firm Aladdin will announce this autumn a deal with UK ISPs which it claims will be the first time tie-up to see ISP-hosted security and content filtering.

It will be offering ISPs its eSafe content security product which offers defence against the threats of malware, spam, Trojans and viruses.

The firm is already working with a couple of Israeli ISPs which have around 160,000 users signed up.

As well as offering security against traditional threats, the system also allows parents to control the content their children are seeing.

It will be announcing the ISPs it has signed up in the UK in September.

PASSWORD PATTERNS

GrIDsure is a British company which is hoping that its Personal Identification will one day replace PIN numbers.

Users authenticate themselves by remembering a minimum of a four block pattern on a five by five grid.

Randomly generated numbers will appear on the grid and users simple enter the numbers which correspond to their chosen pattern.

Cambridge University mathematicians have estimated that GrIDsure is 100 times more secure than a traditional PIN.

According to GrIDsure’s chairman Jonathan Craymer there are over 9 million pattern options on a five by five grid.

GrIDsure is not a new technology. The firm has been around for a couple of years but is now beginning to see its technology incorporated in devices.

It has just signed a deal with Microsoft to have GridSure put on the handsets of mobile workers as a means of authentication, providing an alternative to expensive tokens.

Meanwhile Sharp has incorporated the grid system into its new range of multi-functional printers.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Go to Source

A controversial French bill which could disconnect people caught downloading music illegally three times returns to parliament on Wednesday for debate.

The legislation, backed by President Nicolas Sarkozy, was surprisingly rejected in a vote earlier this month.

If passed, the bill would set a tough global precedent in cracking down on internet piracy.

The music industry has been calling for stricter laws as revenues have fallen.

An amended version will go before the Assembly and Senate for debate, where opponents and supporters can add further changes.

Three strikes

The new legislation operates under a "three strikes" system. A new state agency would first send illegal file-sharers a warning e-mail, then a letter, and finally cut off their connection for a year if they were caught a third time.

It has been backed by both the film and record industries.

But some consumer groups have warned that the wrong people might be punished – should hackers hijack their computers’ identity, and that the scheme amounted to state surveillance.

The socialist parliamentarian Patrick Bloche said the bill was "dangerous, useless, inefficient, and very risky for us citizens."

Although the legislation was approved by the Senate, France’s upper house, it was defeated in a vote of the National Assembly.

Two members of Mr Sarkozy’s majority government joined the socialist opposition in voting against the bill, in a protest to an amendment which would have made users who had been banned, continue to pay their internet bills.

Mr Sarkozy’s ruling party is likely to ensure the Assembly has enough members in session at the vote, after a low turn out of politicians helped derail the bill.

When the bill was defeated John Kennedy, chairman of the IFPI, which represents the global music industry, said the result was "disappointing".

"President Sarkozy has been a true champion of intellectual property rights and the proposed law is an effective and proportionate way of tackling online copyright infringement and migrating users to the wide variety of legal music services in France."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Go to Source