Is there any hope for the Internet Governance Forum? No...

Is there any hope for the Internet Governance Forum? | IGP Blog: "Implementation of a more focused approach would require strong and visionary leadership, which is exactly what the IGF lacks right now. The policy issues chosen would have to be controversial enough to make discussion of them meaningful and substantive, yet there are still pro-status quo forces within the IGF who will resist that. The IGF has had no high-level executive leadership for a scandalously long period of time" 'via Blog this'

From Bahrain With Love: FinFisher’s Spy Kit Exposed?

From Bahrain With Love: FinFisher’s Spy Kit Exposed? – The Citizen Lab: "FinFisher Suite is described by its distributors, Gamma International UK Ltd., as “Governmental IT Intrusion and Remote Monitoring Solutions.” 1 The toolset first gained notoriety after it was revealed that the Egyptian Government’s state security apparatus had been involved in negotiations with Gamma International UK Ltd. over the purchase of the software. Promotional materials have been leaked that describe the tools as providing a wide range of intrusion and monitoring capabilities.2 Despite this, however, the toolset itself has not been publicly analyzed.
This post contains analysis of several pieces of malware obtained by Vernon Silver of Bloomberg News that were sent to Bahraini pro-democracy activists in April and May of this year. The purpose of this work is identification and classification of the malware to better understand the actors behind the attacks and the risk to victims. In order to accomplish this, we undertook several different approaches during the investigation." 'via Blog this'

How not to legislate? Lords Committee knocks Digital Economy Act Costs Order

Lords Committee knocks Digital Economy Act Costs Order | Open Rights Group: "The IOC and the Costs Order are supposed to clarify key substantive issues in the Digital Economy Act. It is telling that 2 years after it passed, some of these are still a cause for concern - including, as the Committee points out, why a £20 appeals fee was decided to be most effective and reasonable option. There are some lessons here - if you rush an Act, based on an inadequate analysis of objectives and how to achieve them, without sufficient scrutiny, then you'll probably have to spend quite a lot of time afterwards trying to clear up the mess." 'via Blog this'

UK Government anticipates June publication of new anti-piracy regulations

Government anticipates June publication of new anti-piracy regulations: "DCMS said in its response (26-page / 377KB PDF) to the Film Policy Review Panel's review of the UK film industry: "The Judicial Review of the online infringement of copyright provisions has caused significant delay since although the Government won overwhelmingly in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the point upon which we lost in both cases has meant that we have had to re-set how the costs of the process will be apportioned. This in turn has led to the Initial Obligations Code being delayed. However, we anticipate that the Code will be published in June 2012," it said." 'via Blog this'

Almunia on the Google antitrust investigation

EUROPA - Press Releases - Joaquín Almunia Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Competition Policy Statement of VP Almunia on the Google antitrust investigation Press room Brussels, 21 May 2012: "I believe that these fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified. Restoring competition swiftly to the benefit of users at an early stage is always preferable to lengthy proceedings, although these sometimes become indispensable to competition enforcement.
Our investigation has led us to identify four concerns where Google business practices may be considered as abuses of dominance.
First, in its general search results on the web, Google displays links to its own vertical search services. Our second concern relates to the way Google copies content from competing vertical search services and uses it in its own offerings. Google may be copying original material from the websites of its competitors such as user reviews and using that material on its own sites without their prior authorisation. 
Our third concern relates to agreements between Google and partners on the websites of which Google delivers search advertisements. The agreements result in de facto exclusivity requiring them to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers of search advertising intermediation services. 
Our fourth concern relates to restrictions that Google puts to the portability of online search advertising campaigns from its platform AdWords to the platforms of competitors. We are concerned that Google imposes contractual restrictions on software developers which prevent them from offering tools that allow the seamless transfer of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other platforms for search advertising." 
Will Google blink?
'via Blog this'

Race to the bottom? Obama Seeks to Promote "International Regulatory Cooperation"

Obama Seeks to Promote "International Regulatory Cooperation" - RegBlog: "Under the executive order, the federal government will search for “best practices for international regulatory cooperation,” which could include exchanging information and comparing other “regulatory tools.” The order also requires agencies that submit a Regulatory Plan under Executive Order 12866 to “include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations.” It also mandates that agencies include regulations with perceived “unnecessary” differences among the U.S. and its major trading partners in their retrospective review plans under Executive Order 13563.
The executive order also grants an already-existing federal Regulatory Working Group the authority to commission relevant reports from OIRA"
'via Blog this'

#ericssoneffect and Carl Bildt's "limited" view of Internet freedom

A few speculations on the #ericssoneffect | Intensifier: "The “freedom technologies” that Bildt want to keep selling, often have the worst form om European surveillance built into them. Hard coded, and well used, to violate human rights.So, I am wondering, what did Ericsson sell to Syria? In detail. We will probably never know, because revealing this may cause “competitive disadvantages”. I’m guessing moving over to Chinese Huawei is easier than arguing with Europe.
These systems should be treated as surveillance technologies. And this is our fault, our control society colonialism.
Carl Bildt calls this type of strategy “flow control”. When I criticized it earlier this year, he responded with calling me and a few others cyber anarchists. That is fine. The fact still remains is that there is no such things as a flow of “democratic” technologies. The flow of Ericsson gear to Syria, was not just an injection of some “Twitter revolution”. We need to acknowledge that this was just another export of Western technology, built under the circumstances where “legal interception” nowadays is the standard. The Bluecoat devices, revealed to be at work in Syria, are doing the same basic thing as European Data Retention." 'via Blog this'