We’ve seen the function creep of technologies like this already – for example, average speed cameras that use number plate recognition to catch those speeding were installed under the promise that they would only ever be used for the purposes of speed control. Now though, we see that they are used to track movements of “terrorists” or “serious criminals”. With a database of all calls made and received, will the function eventually creep so that your exact location is logged every fifteen minutes or so when your mobile phone “checks in” with the network? Email on the move is also susceptible to this form of tracking – the IP address that sends the email could be tracked and in the future, why would they not start logging all the websites you’ve visited recently?

It really is frightening to think that this form of culture has become acceptable and that people simply “don’t care” that their privacy is being taken away from them. As the BBC News story reports, Britain is in danger of “sleep-walking into a surveillance society” – some may argue it is there already.

With several major data protection breaches being widely publicised in the media of late, how can the government justify trying to record more and more information if they can’t protect it properly? Should data such as this be leaked into the wrong hands, the consequences could be dire – imagine people’s movements and communications being tracked and used against them in blackmail or extortion. It may seem like an extreme reaction to an issue that, to some, may seem fairly minor. However, it is important to think of the possible consequences of such a move and decide if it will be a minor issue in the long run.

Minor? Personally, I think not.

From the article:

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a “walk in the park,” according to an interview published in the New Yorker’s print edition today.

McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.

“Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search,” author Lawrence Wright pens.

“Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said,” Wright adds. “Giorgio warned me, ‘We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’”

A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words — McConnell’s aide believes greater security can only come at privacy’s expense.

Please read the whole article on the Raw Story website and some user’s comments about the story on Slashdot to see how this may affect you. Personally, I find this frightening – the laws of the United States shouldn’t affect me directly, but if the US administration decides that privacy is no longer important and their “crime prevention” methods of monitoring every email they wish go though, you, me and virtually everyone globally will be affected directly with little we can do.

Perhaps it’s time you thought about encryption…

A bit of history: the Hymn Project is one of the oldest methods for users to remove the copy protection from songs legally purchased through iTunes (prior to version 7). This has been heralded as a “consumer champion” since it allows users to play their purchased songs on whatever equipment they like. Legalities aside, it is widely used and liked by many users. One of the key points in the Hymn Project, however, is that it removes the copy protection, but retains all the purchaser’s details on the track tags. The removal of the purchaser’s details was possible according to the Hymn site, but they saw no justification to do so.  The makers of Hymn rightly state that they do not condone piracy, they are simply exercising their rights to use their legally purchased content how they see fit without being guilty of piracy.

Now, with iTunes Plus offering DRM free downloads, several sites feature complaints that this “hidden user information” is a major breach of privacy. I don’t think so.

The user information is held within what is essentially an editable tag – these tags are found on most audio files such as mp3 and hold information such as track title, artist and album. As far as I can tell, the purpose of placing the user information in the tags is to act as a deterrent for users to share their files, and this is absolutely understandable. They do not limit the way the files can be legally used in any way, nor are they exploitable in terms of privacy unless users give access to the files to other parties. If a user really wants to remove the personal information from the purchased iTunes files, I would find it very difficult to believe that it wasn’t possible, or even if it was difficult.

The right to privacy is just that: it is defined as “the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life or affairs” - it is not an excuse for breaching copyright or breaking the law. When you purchase songs online, you purchase the right to listen to them as you please in the manner you wish – the removal of DRM from some tracks on iTunes simply extends the list of devices on which you can use the files you have purchased. Removing DRM makes sharing files possible, but it does not make it legal. I’m afraid that any claims of privacy breaches as a result of embedded personal details gain no sympathy from me (a self-admitted privacy advocate). In cases where “privacy” is used as a blatant excuse for law breaking, it reduces sympathy for the cause and degrades public and legal support for true and justified privacy. News stories such as this are, in my opinion, counter-productive.

So are Apple free from blame? No, not really. It perhaps should have been made clear from the beginning that DRM Free tracks would still contain personal details in the tags – this was no surprise to me since I expected it, although I can understand if people were expecting tracks as if ripped directly from a CD with nothing more than the required track tagging.

Is it a problem? Does it warrant protest? Are Apple or EMI in the wrong because of this? I don’t believe so.

I found this quite funny, and I hate to see the all-powerful legal threats being thrown around… especially when they’re wrong! Enjoy the video clip below from the EFF – you may want to read their comment on this story.

Of course, should a ruling like this be held up in court, the implications would be massive. Producers of free software would be sued left, right and centre because their potentially superior software is keeping companies from making money. Of course, the commercial developers actually have the money to sue the free software developers. This could have been a disaster for the global software market.
Fortunately, the judge involved in the case found in favour of the free software companies – in a sense telling Wallace that he had tried to manipulate the meaning of antitrust law to serve his own purposes. The case was thrown out, and the judge made the following comment:

“The GPL and open-source software have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws.”

So, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to our free softwares. You can read full details of the story here but I thought this was a particularly noteworthy story – the potential outcome from the case could have massive implications and if you actually think about the specific wording of the law (and cast aside common sense for a moment or two), maybe the case actually had something in it. In this case, fortunately the judge did think about the wider implications and sent Wallace packing. It’s a shame there wasn’t a similarly inclined judge during the passing of EU Data Retention laws!

I recently watched their Corruptibles video with great interest. It’s a fairly basic flash animation that outlines how new DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems could/will affect you in your every day lives. It’s worth a bit of a laugh, and it makes you think… but does it make you think what the EFF are trying to push?

The first part of the video makes the point that industry groups (such as the RIAA) are trying to stop users from recording music from the radio and burning them to CD – the animation shows us a man making a “love CD” for his significant other. But actually… I think the RIAA have a very good point in this case. While it’s nice not to be restricted with what you can and can’t do, with much higher quality digital broadcasting available these days, recording radio shows can be a real alternative to purchasing a CD or a track downloaded from the likes of iTunes. The operators of radio stations have to compensate artists if they play their music, but that compensation does not add up to the same amount of money as several thousand listeners who recorded the track rather than paying a few pence (or cents) to purchase the song legally. While I’m a firm believer in digital rights, I don’t believe that people should abuse digital systems to “avoid” having to pay for things that really should be paid for. The only other one of the EFF’s campaigns that I disagree with is related to this – they want all RIAA lawsuits against illegal downloaders to stop. But in my opinion, these users are breaking the law and therefore they are legitimate targets for prosecution. However, the burden of evidence on the RIAA is high, and questionable “evidence” such as screenshots are submitted to the courts. In a UK court, all digital photographs are inadmissible evidence since they can be “interfered with”, and yet a digital screenshot is acceptable?

However, the rest of the Corruptibles video is something I do agree with. The entertainment industry want you to be using a fully closed system so that no copies of anything can ever be made. This includes recording programs from the TV – something people have been doing happily since the release of the lowly VCR many years ago. In the pursuit of copy protection, the industry seems to have forgotten about us users – we want to buy films and music, and watch and listen to them when we want, how we want. It is in this argument that I fully support the EFF. The inclusion of DRM systems and copy protection is an assumption of guilt – it assumes that it is required to stop end users illegally sharing the content. However, it also stops users from legally using the content in other ways, such as playing back on other devices or transferring to new computers. These DRM systems remove rights that consumers have had since the beginning of time: The right to decide what to do with something after you’ve bought it. Is DRM defective by design? That’s really up to you to decide.

The EFF are also trying to overturn the US Government’s Surveillance Bills. This is a very very good thing – just read a few other articles in this blog to get an idea of why. This is one of the prime examples of where the EFF have international effects:

Consider this – I send an email from the UK to a friend in the US. The US are monitoring emails as a matter of course (again, see my earlier blog entries about this) and intercept the email. Is this legal? Well, there are several US bills that allow the authorities to intercept emails in the US, but when does the email actually “arrive” in the US? Is it before it reaches my friend’s inbox? Or after it arrives? I would assume that it’s before since interception suggests catching it, making a copy and then allowing it to continue on it’s journey. Obviously, the internet doesn’t work like that, but to what extent are my privacy rights protected if the US are monitoring emails? As far as I know, the US do not have the right to monitor any of my emails within the UK… but do they monitor them anyway? “US servers”, they may argue. “US Equipment”, they may say. Or would they return with the argument that “the US owns the internet anyway“? The EFF are fighting for the rights of the public not just in the US, but internationally despite this not being part of their job description.

There are currently several cases being fought by the EFF and these are all shown on their website – it is a pretty good read if you’re at all interested in your digital rights, so I recommend it. Additionally, the EFF help you protect your privacy with software: Tor. This software helps you surf anonymously so your web use can not be traced (or at least not easily and not quickly – it does not guarantee 100% anonymity since there are some quite clever people out there).

So what would I like to see in the future from the EFF? Well, despite my reservations about some of their policies, I think it’s important for them to continue and to expand. I would really like to see an EFF Europe organisation formed and I would support this via donations / membership. It worked for the Free Software Foundation (FSF and FSFE), showing that there is widespread support for these kinds of organisations. Think about it. Tell your friends about it. Blog about it. Link to it. Don’t just accept that what you’re being told is the way it has to be.