Clayton makes a suggestion

Enough has been written about the House of Lords' report into surveillance in Britain, so today we'll be returning to Microsoft's latest version of Internet Explorer.We've written previously about IE8's notorious InPrivate function, the sole purpose of which is to keep the wife from knowing about the surprise holiday / present you've bought for her online. According to Microsoft, anyway. Let's face it, they weren't going to dub the function "PornCloaking+" were they?But still, there's nothing inherently evil about InPrivate.What does cause concern is IE8's "Suggested Sites" feature, which allows users (in Microsoft's words) to "discover websites you might like based on sites you've visited". By activating the service in your browser, you consent to send various data about your browsing activity to Microsoft. This could include the URLs of visited sites, search terms and form data, as well as information that could potentially identify individuals, such as a user's IP address.It's the classic trade-off: you agree to give up personal data in return for a service. But since users are fully aware of what data they'll be giving up and are able to give their informed consent to the service, this shouldn't present a privacy problem, should it?Unfortunately for Microsoft, Suggested Sites has attracted criticism from the esteemed Richard Clayton, the Bill Bryson-lookalike and doyen of Internet privacy campaigners.Dr Clayton says Microsoft must be clearer about explaining the risks, as well as the potential benefits of the service. He points out that full URL sharing via Suggested Sites poses a privacy and security risk and in particular warns that Microsoft should avoid sharing data submitted by surfers with other users of the service.The risks hinge upon the fact that Microsoft will get the full URL of the site you visit. In some cases, this is essential - knowing that you visited blogger.com ain't going to help Steve Ballmer to suggest sites, but a visit to blogger.com/animals-do-the-funniest-things will help him to point you in the direction of some cutesy squirrel pics.But sometimes, a full URL may hold clues to your identity, give permissions to others to access the site, or compromise your privacy or security in some other manner, says Clayton.It's not so much that a Microsoft employee might one day go rogue and start stealing these sensitive URLs; it's the possibility that Microsoft hands the URL to someone with similar tastes and these users visit the exact places that you go to. "Suddenly all that "security through obscurity", the pious hope that no one could possibly guess that URL, goes up insmoke," says Clayton.Dr Clayton is a Cambridge academic and an eminently sensible, if somewhat cautious, voice in a debate which is all too often conducted by shrill, ignorant or ill-informed comentators.Clayton doesn't want to score cheap points by gratuitously slating Microsoft - he merely points out that they could do better, by minimising the data transfer, and only obtaining longer URLs for the sites, like blogger.com, where it actually matters.In the meantime, they should honest and transparent about the potential risks.But Clayton's comments do have a silver lining for Microsoft: he points out that selecting the InPrivate mode automatically disables Suggested Sites, even if users have opted in. So, at least they can claim another alternative use for Pr0n-Mode...

Kangaroo gets thrown on the Barbie

There's no need to worry about blowing your bandwidth restriction on Project Kangaroo, the new joint IPTV venture between the Beeb, ITV and Channel 4.Today, the Competition Commission(CC) has blocked the new service citing threats to the video on demand(VoD) market.Peter Freeman, CC Chairman and Chairman of the inquiry group, said: "After detailed and careful consideration, we have decided that this joint venture would be too much of a threat to competition in this developing market and has to be stopped.""The case is essentially about the control of UK-originated TV content. VOD is an exciting and fast-moving development in TV, which makes programmes previously broadcast available to viewers at a time of their choice. The evidence we saw showed that UK viewers particularly value programmes produced and originally shown in the UK and do not regard other content as a good substitute."

"Dealing with Child Sexual Abuse Images (CSAI) on the Internet is not an optional extra"

Secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition for Internet Safety, John Carr, says, "Dealing with CSAI on the Internet is not an optional extra. It's part of the cost of doing business for a modern ISP. Governments round the world know that, technically, access to CSAI can be blocked and can be blocked inexpensively."No ISP wants illegal activity on their network and contrary to popular opinion even small and medium sized ISPs can play their part in combating access to CSAI.ISPs are able to block access to CSAI by deploying the first affordable one size fits all system from Internet filtering experts, Watchdog International.Talk Internet is the first UK ISP to implement the system and is a good example for other UK ISPs to follow in making the Internet a safer place by embracing new technology.Watchdog International’s MD, Peter Mancer, said, “The UK Internet industry has an excellent track record of fighting illegal content on the Internet, exemplified by the establishment of the IWF. On the technical side we recognise that no ISP's network is the same. There has been no one size fits all technical method of blocking CSAI. Now UK ISPs can implement a low cost system that protects their users from CSAI content without interfering with the speed and reliability of their network.”

A day for quiet reflection

Yesterday was European Data Protection Day; this blog held a one day's silence as a gesture of respect to the millions of pieces of personal and sensitive data that have been lost in the last year.Across the continent people gathered in their hundreds of thousands, coming together in their workplaces, in their communities, in the fields, in the hills and in the streets, to mark this most solemn and momentous day of data.I need not tell you what an emotional day it was for us all.Some of us may have brushed aside manly tears as we reflected on the 182 per cent rise in card cloning and phishing in the second quarter of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007; others may have stifled their sobs over the $2.8bn cost of phishing attacks; still more wept -openly and without shame - for the 44 per cent of small businesses that have fallen victims to identity fraud through phishing, internet scams and data theft.But all were united in their fervent hope that 2009 finally marks the year when the UK's government pulls its bloody finger out and puts a stop to departments' haemorrhaging of our personal and sensitive data.Fat chance...

A load of nonce-sense

If the first law of marketing is that sex sells, the first rule of tabloid journalism is that paedos shift papers.Things may have quietened down a bit since the 2000 moral panic, when the News of the World whipped up a hysterical mob of mouth-breathing simpletons into an orgy of vigilante violence, but tabloid editors still know that their barely-literate readers love a good “hate” almost as much as a new Lizzy Duke sovereign ring.So it’s no surprise to see yet another paedo story in today’s Sun, with the baffling headline: “Internet pervert charges rap”. In a nutshell, the story concerns comments made by the chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre which "slammed" (criticised) Internet Services Providers (ISPs) for charging child abuse investigators to access their data.The way that the Sun spins it, cynical ISPs are making an easy profit from the authorities hunting down Britain's biggest nonces. Naturally, the Sun is sympathetic to CEOP’s chief executive, Jim Gamble, who believes that ISPs should waive these charges in the public interest.Balance has never been the Sun’s strongest suit. If it were, they would have pointed out that under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) ISPs are entitled to charge the police for reasonable costs for data retrieval and that in the last four years, the Government has paid ISPs and telcos £19m for its agencies’ growing demands for access to communications data. This information was obviously deemed by the Sun to be of no interest to its audience, even to its more intellectual readers who don’t need to use their index fingers to read a newspaper.Interestingly, CEOP’s share of this £19m amounts to around £170,000 – less than one per cent of the total paid to ISPs. With CEOP having made just shy of 10,000 requests, the average cost of each request works out at less than £18.Why, then, is the Sun focused purely on paedophile investigators, when all regular police forces and government agencies are charged, fairly and under UK law, for using ISPs’ time and resources?As Malcolm Hutty, policy chief at the London Internet Exchange (Linx) points out, "Regular police forces investigate extremely serious crimes using communications data, including murder, rape and kidnapping, and they believe they are better served by cost recovery. We don't believe that the situation becomes different for child abuse cases merely because they are investigated by a specialist national unit."But here we come to the second law of tabloid journalism: never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Effect of terrorist attacks on India Property Market

The recent terrorist carnage in Mumbai has pushed India into the spotlight with many questioning the horror and condemning those responsible. In the aftermath of the attacks, concerns have been raised about the country’s financial and commercial economy with attention drawn to the deceleration of the Indian property market.India’s property market was previously thought to be a ‘crunch-free haven’, being seemingly unaffected by the recession. Merrill Lynch had even predicted a 700% increase in property prices from 2005 – 2015, yet evidence has now shown a damaging slow down in home sales.The immediate response to the attacks with property advisors revealing a massive loss of pace in enquiries and sales of properties in many areas of India. Concerns are rife that because British and Americans were targeted in the attacks, there has been a vast loss of interest in property entrepreneurs from these countries. There are also worries of more attacks resulting in property demand decreasing further.The terrorist attacks are not solely the reason the markets in India have been falling back. Recent months have already seen a great deal of pressure on India’s property trade with predictions of land prices falling by a quarter in the coming year. The recent attacks have magnified the flailing market but the real causes being the uneven supply and demand in property with there being more property than people are actually willing to buy. With the recession diminishing confidence in buying property, interest rate upsurges together with the rapid rise in home prices help to slow sales of properties. There is also the ‘wait-and-watch’ effect with many potential investors waiting for prices to drop so they can take full advantage so there is hope for a pick-up sometime soon.In the short-term there has been an effect as a result of the attacks but it is important to remember that the property market was already sluggish before the attacks.But bargain hunting anyone?

The DNA of the UK Constitution

The European Union really makes my blood boil. If they’re not telling us what shape our bananas should be, they’re ordering our grocers to sell potatoes by the metre. Now, in the latest piece of politically correct European legislation, convicted paedophiles will be allowed to keep a pale 8 year old boy in their cells, after the European Court of Justice ruled that this was a fundamental “Yuman Rite”.* You couldn’t make it up.† We’re literally going to hell in a handcart.Or so you’d believe if you had access to no other media than the Daily Mail. But even readers of what Alan Partridge described as “arguably the best newspaper in the world” surely can’t complain about a recent judgement from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which ruled that it is illegal to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints of people who have never been convicted of a crime.The case was brought by two men from Sheffield whose DNA was taken after they were arrested on two separate and unrelated charges; one case involving alleged harassment was dropped, while the other man was acquitted of attempted robbery. Yet in spite of their innocence, these two men’s DNA and prints are still on a national criminal database, along with 570,000 other profiles of innocent individuals (some sources, notably today’s Guardian, say 850,000).In reaction to the ruling the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said that while she was “disappointed” (shouldn’t that be “disappointing”? Ed.), the existing law would remain in place “while we carefully consider the judgement.”Well Jacqui, consider this. Presumption of innocence is an inseparable part of this country’s DNA, stretching back at least to Magna Carta. The principle of ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (that the burden of proof rests on whom asserts and not on whom denies, for those of you with a state education) is a fundamental foundation of our entire legal system which, in spite of frequent criticisms, remains one of the best in the world.Ms Smith argues that DNA and fingerprinting is vital in the fight against crime, and claims that it provides the police with more than 3,500 matches a month. But Jacqui, we’re going to let you into a little secret. You know that statue of Justice on top of the Old Bailey? What’s that she’s holding in her left hand? That’s right – scales! And do you know what that represents, Jacqui?Yes, it’s balance! And that’s what justice is all about – balance.Taking the Home Secretary’s comments at face value, we should take the prints and DNA of every British child at birth; then we’d have a nice big database of everyone’s details. But that wouldn’t play very well with the public, would it, so how about taking young people’s DNA the moment they turn 16 – what could be objectionable about that?Merely the fact that it criminalises the innocent and robs us of a fundamental principle of our centuries-old legal system.The EU can often be a ponderous, calciferous and obtuse organisation, but we should applaud it when it makes the right decisions. Well done.* Probably.† Well, actually you could.