Barence writes: "Eugene Kaspersky has told PC Pro that governments should be monitoring the internet activity of their citizens more closely. The security firm boss, who was educated at the KGB-sponsored Institute of Cryptography, said that monitoring "the internet so closely would be a positive step" and that "the [UK] Government is not a Big Brother which wants to watch everyone — and taxation is not high enough to have such a budget.""
Random BedHead Ed writes: "When BlueWiki posted documents about reverse engineering the iTunesDB format used on iPods late last year, Apple demanded that the content be removed, citing the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing copy protection. BlueWiki removed the content, but yesterday they filed suit against Apple seeking a declaratory judgment that the discussions did not violate the DMCA. ZDNet quotes EFF's Fred von Lohmann, who says that this is an issue of censorship. "Wikis and other community sites are home to many vibrant discussions among hobbyists and tinkerers. It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host those discussions." More info on the EFF's website."
nk497 writes: "Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act have shown that the UK Home Office asked Phorm for help deciding if deep packet inspection behavioural advertising systems — such as, say, Phorm — were indeed legal. After the pair decided changes to an advice document, a government official asked Phorm: "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted?"
An opposition MP called the email exchange "bizarre" and suggested the Home Office sought help either because it doesn't understand the technology or because it wants to use it, too."
The Phorm company that intercepts and amends web pages users request (for now just adverts) is hitting back at critics, with Phorm's chief executive setting up a website stopphoulplay.com against two leading critics of Phorm whom he describes as "privacy pirates". Both men deny allegations including the claim that they could be supported by Phorm's rivals.
The Chief Exec. thinks Phorm's potential competitors are spreading lies about the content manipulation system. The reality is, people value their privacy, and can see the system as dangerous to full blown government system amending content of web pages on-the-fly for their advantage.
Barence writes: "The UK Home Office allegedly checked whether its interpretation of the law suited Phorm, before issuing advice on whether the controversial advertising service was legal. The Home Office and Phorm entered a dialogue about the company's services back in August 2007, after Phorm requested that the Government take a view on its technology. In an email sent to Phorm in January 2008, a Home Office official writes: "I should be grateful if you would review the attached document, and let me know what you think." After Phorm made deletions and amendments to the document, the Home Office sent another email to the company stating: "If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted?""