p2pnet - rss feed: Link Crime — 21st century offence
p2pnet news | P2P:- The world wide web is “still in its infancy”, says its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee.
Speaking, “ahead of the 15th anniversary of the day the web’s code was put into the public domain by Cern, the lab where the web was developed,” the future web will put “all the data in the world” at the fingertips of every user, Sir Tim said, according to the BBC, going on:
“Making the web free to use had a vital role in spreading its use worldwide.”
But if powerful vested interest corporations and wealthy individuals have their way, it’ll never reach maturity and the web as we know it will become a mockery, constricted and fouled.
Linking - sharing information by pointing to sources - is what the Net is all about.
Without it, the openness of CyberSpace would become a vacuum which is, of course, exactly what the entertainment and software cartels are striving for.
“Just imagine if one day in the near future the FBI comes to your enterprise with warrants that allow them to seize and remove any computer-related equipment, utility bills, telephone bills, any addressed correspondence sent through the U.S. mail, video gear, camera equipment, checkbooks, bank statements and credit card statements,” says Mark Gibbs in NetworkWorld.
The first question you’d ask is, “Who has done what?” - he says, going on >>>
You’re going to be presume your CEO has been involved in some outrageous stock manipulation, or maybe your CFO has been cooking the books. But no, the agent in charge says: “Someone here clicked on a Web link and we’re going to find out who did it.”
A link?! Clicking on a link can now be a federal offense?! Was it a link to the truth about JFK’s assassination (which we all know the CIA was responsible for . . . or was it the Moonies?). Was the link going to launch an ICBM at the Kremlin? Nope, it was a link to a nonexistent cache of kiddie porn that was created specifically by the FBI to attract pedophiles.
There are a number of reasons for the IT industry to be worried, he states.
But of course, it isn’t just the IT industry which needs to be fearful. Link crime has the potential to affect anyone and everyone who has a site which in any way links to another.
First, says Gibbs, “there’s the issue of intent” because, “It turns out that by simply accessing one of these links you are de facto, presumed guilty by your IP address being the proximate cause.”
He continues >>>
The fact that the action might not have been done by you personally is, apparently, not an issue. This makes running an open Wi-Fi access point completely inadvisable. And when your friends come over and ask to check their e-mail, the answer has got to be “no.” And you’d better have in-depth Internet filtering for your kids.
The second issue concerns browser add-ons, “that attempt to pre-cache the content of links on a page,” says NetworkWorld, concluding >>>
These add-ons are to improve perceived performance, but imagine that you run a Web search and wind up on a page that links to one of these FBI honeypots: Your browser will access the link and, unless you are masking what you do through something like the Tor network, the Feds will get your IP address. Before you know what’s going on, there will be a knock on your door, you’ll be hurled to the ground, cuffed, Mirandized, and all of your computer gear, financial records and leftover Chinese food will be en route to the local FBI office.
But what if an employee’s browser pre-caches the contents of one of these FBI links, or the employee actually clicks on it? Can you imagine the chaos and insanity that would result from the FBI paying your company a visit? Work would grind to a halt, PCs and other gear would be impounded, records taken and your business would be dead in the water.
Of course, sizes matters. The risk for, say, Proctor and Gamble is rather less than for the likes of Plastic Sidings ‘r Us, but every company in between should be concerned.
So, what are you going to do? Implement better filtering? Train employees better? Ensure browsers don’t pre-cache? This is a quagmire that has no immediate good answer.
Stay tuned. But don’t link.
.
.Stumble It!
BBC - Web in infancy, says Berners-Lee , April 30, 2008
NetworkWorld - Knock, knock, it’s the FBI, April 24, 2008
Link link …. - Google sued for online defamation, June 29, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Old news. I can’t see this lasting very long, any convictions overturned, and if we’re lucky, fines to the asshats that approved this. Living in more sane country, they couldn’t touch me. On the other hand, I’d like to get a link or two for that and post on *chan. >:D
April 30th, 2008 at 10:30 am
^^ Which country is that?
Cheers!
April 30th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I understand the problem and importance to enforce laws against kiddie porn, but this is absolutely the most ridiculous method to approach it.
While I oppose this “illegal link” business, I support the FBI’s efforts to catch some truly disgusting people.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The US also passed another nice little law a while back that I wasn’t even aware of until just recently. Apparently, it’s considered a “violation” of the children in such photos each and every time someone sees them. Also, the FBI considers child porn so dangerous that they can’t take any chances that any of it will fall into the public’s hands. To that end, the government passed a law that says that defense lawyers and experts hired by the defense are no longer allowed to have a copy of a suspect’s hard drive to conduct their own investigation of the suspected images. It can only be examined at a federal facility, under guard. Never mind that this could violate client/lawyer confidentiality, it greatly increases the cost of having an expert look at the drive because rather than bring it to their own lab, they have to lug all of their equipment to a different location.
As if the above wasn’t bad enough, there are documented cases where the FBI has mistaken adult performers for children and sworn under oath that they were no older than 13, even when the girl in the photos had been involved in similar cases previously. (look up Melissa Ashley) Even when it has been proven that the photos are 100% legal and no actual CP is found, the FBI will STILL try to prosecute someone on the grounds that the person might have THOUGHT that the pictures were CP and therefore they should be treated as a pedophile.
Thought-crime is here, welcome to 1984.
Are you scared yet?
May 1st, 2008 at 4:24 am
Well. It seems that the greatest crime is viewing the pictures. Not performing sex acts on children or doing the video and taking photos. These apparently are secondary. Not even uploading, profiting from, or distributing them is as bad. It’s up to the experts to define CP, as they perve (sorry, pore) meticulously over material in question. Pity when some of the experts get caught out with it on their own PCs. Great job for pedos if they can get it.
Another thing is that all the 1000s of sites which do business in scantily clad little girls who claim that it’s all legal, well most of it; guess what?
If you are suspected of having or downloading CP or are reported by your PC dealer or anyone framing mischief, this kind of material is quite sufficient to implicate you as a suspect, which can be just as bad to your reputation. This is because why else would you have such? If it becomes known you will be under suspicion and will be watched, shunned, disrespected, distrusted, hated, and restricted in any activity around children or otherwise.
Don’t even glance at an underage girl down the street. Scary alright. Unfair and unjust? Certainly.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Witches
Heretics
Communists
Pedophiles
Those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
I don’t have the details but I remember a court case where they tried to whip out the federal law on CP: the state DA called it “contraband” using federal regulations, but the judge said that the defendant’s civil rights would be violated, and that the case was not a federal case in a federal court, therefore because the risk of the defendant’s rights being violated the judge would not allow the contraband law to be used.
Unfortunately the defendant had to plea out.