Should people give informed, specific consent to their communications being intercepted for purposes such as behavioural advertising?
Should they be able to revoke their consent?
I don’t think ISPs would be able to determine how the information might be used. Intelligence gathering, stalking, marketing are all possible uses.
UK taken to court over web ’secret surveillence’
|
British ministers face an embarrassing showdown in court after the European Commission accused Britain of failing to protect its citizens from secret surveillance on the internet. |
The legal action is being brought over the use of controversial behavioural advertising services which were tested on British Telecom’s internet customers without their consent to gather commercial information about their web-shopping habits. |
Under the programme, the UK-listed company Phorm has developed technology that allows internet service providers (ISPs) to track what their users are doing online. |
ISPs can then sell that information to media companies and advertisers, who can use it to place more relevant advertisements on websites the user subsequently visits. The EU has accused Britain of turning a blind eye to the growth in this kind of internet marketing. Read more at www.nzherald.co.nz |
Prominent IP lawyers caution that GPLv2 may be problematic for licensees. GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? |
Open source legal minds unravel license |
Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that may be problematic for licensees. |
UK high court rules that outdated article in newspaper archive was libellous. News archives can lose libel protection as stories change |
A newspaper which continued to publish a defamatory article on its website after its subject was cleared in an investigation lost its right to claim a special journalistic defence against libel, the High Court has said. |
The ruling makes it clear that while responsible journalism is given some libel protection, that protection can evaporate if the crucial facts of the case change. Web archives of stories must change to reflect this, the ruling said. |
The online version of the article carried a warning in red capital letters which read: “Warning this article is subject to legal dispute. It should not be relied on or repeated.” The Court said, though, that this did not exonerate it of responsibility for the defamation contained in the piece. Read more at www.theregister.co.uk |
Not unexpected as Apple’s share of the smartphone market is increasing at the expense of Nokia. It does highlight the importance of patents in a market. Nokia sues Apple for patent infringement
|
| The world’s top cellphone maker Nokia has accused Apple of infringing Nokia patents in its iPhone.
|
Nokia dominates the global handset market but it has lost some ground to new smartphone entrants like Apple which entered the market with its iPhone in mid-2007. |
The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007, Nokia said. |
“By refusing to agree appropriate terms for Nokia’s intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation,” Ilkka Rahnasto, Vice President for Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia, said in a statement. Read more at www.stuff.co.nz |
US bloggers made to come clean on payments
|
Crown Law to review internet publishing laws
|
The Crown Law Office is conducting a review of internet publication, after recent cases raised questions over contempt of court and suppression order breaches. |
Debate was sparked during Clayton Weatherston’s murder trial this year when social networking websites posted comments from people assuming his guilt. |
University of Canterbury law faculty associate professor Ursula Cheer told Law News magazine the Weatherston, Berryman and Rickards cases were an example of a growing internet trend. |
More people were blogging and placing information on the internet, either without considering the legal implications, or in contravention of legal rulings because they felt strongly about an issue, she said. Read more at www.nzherald.co.nz |
Opinion: Website disclaimers – yes, they do work |
A recent case reminds disclaimers have a role |
| Have you ever wondered if your website disclaimers are really necessary? A recent case provides a timely reminder of how a disclaimer can protect you from liability for website mistakes. |
| It’s customary for websites to include a disclaimer such as: “This information is of a general nature only, and is not advice”. Or “This information is provided ‘as is’, and we accept no liability for its accuracy”. |
| Can an incorrect statement on a website result in a claim of negligence against the website owner, and, in what circumstances will a disclaimer protect the website owner from liability? |
| In July, the UK Court of Appeal reviewed these issues for the first time in the case Patchett v SPATA, setting a precedent likely to be influential in any similar New Zealand case.Read more at computerworld.co.nz |
Another article about the difficulties you leave behind, if you don’t have your Internet affairs sorted. Obviously this will be an increasing issue, as more content is moved online. Preparing for the digital afterlife |
How should we deal with web users’ Facebook, PayPal and other accounts when they log off for good? |
Although people increasingly live their lives online, few bother to specify what should happen to their digital assets once they log off for good. But failure to plan for the digital afterlife can cause problems for those left to sort out the affairs of the deceased. Without a username and password family members can struggle to access valuable web domains, online accounts – even photographs and documents on a PC. |
“People aren’t very aware of what you might call their living online legacy – potential employers looking at their Facebook accounts, for example. The issue of what happens to that information after their death is an extension of that,” says Yorick Wilks, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. Read more at www.guardian.co.uk |
|
UK taken to court over web ’secret surveillence’
