Digital after death: A grave concern

This is another area to consider, after death, what about what one has stored on the internet (photos, emails, information in the cloud and social medias,..etc)?

Interesting area that may require a uniform law, what do you think?

full text here. 

Edmondson: [2013] EWCA Crim 1026

If you have not already seen it, you might find this case interesting, as it advances the interpretation of what is considered to be “in the course of transmission”, for the purposes of RIPA. It’s a “voicemail hacking” case, focussing on whether the actions of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and others could fall within the ambit of unlawful interception of communications.

Focussing particularly on voicemail, although making some interesting comments about email too, the case holds that, where a communication is stored on the infrastructure of a communications provider, access to that stored communication is an act of interception even where it has already been accessed or collected by the intended recipient. In other words, it provides some clarity on where the endpoint of a communication is for a hosted message service, for interception purposes.

New directive on attacks against information systems

The new directive against attacks on information systems was published in the Official Journal yesterday.

Not much of the content seems particularly new, especially in terms of the law in the UK at the moment.

The only area where I see some potential challenges, and the potential need for a sensible discussion between member states and industry relates to article 7 of the directive, “tools used for committing offences.” 

The drafting has clearly attempted to delineate that difficult boundary between a “hacking tool” and a tool which is useful testing the security of a network or computer system – which, in all likelihood, is the same software - and, to ensure that businesses and individuals remain able to test the security of their own infrastructure, implementing legislation must tread a fine line to ensure that this distinction is recognised.

Ofcom "Study into the Implications of Smartphone Operating System Security"

It's long, it's detailed, and it might just be up your street:

Goode Intelligence was commissioned by Ofcom to prepare an independent expert report into emerging risks to users of Smartphones and to further Ofcom's understanding of how these risks are addressed in this highly dynamic and nascent environment. 

 You can download all 130+ pages here.

US politicians quiz Google on Glass privacy

This is another example on privacy/ data and identity protection implications, when Google Glass potentially  gather images, video and other data about almost anything a user sees.

Full text here.

Tracking phones in shopping centres — how do you feel?

I was in a shopping centre in Reading today, and this notice caught my eye:

Despite the protestation that "no personal data is recorded," it's quite clear that information about me — or, perhaps, my phone — are being used to provide information to the shopping centre, and perhaps used in other ways.

It was a system I had heard of before, from a company called Path Intelligence. It does not work by using data from the mobile operators, but by careful monitoring of certain frequencies used by mobile phones, to detect phones as their users move around. There was quite some controversy around Path Intelligence in 2011, with the system being labelled as "secretly tracking" and "snooping," but it seems to have gone quiet since then.

I did come across this Freedom of Information Act request, made by Eric King at Privacy International, asking the Information Commissioner to produce any materials resulting from a discussion with Path Intelligence, and the results make for quite interesting reading.

How do you feel about this? Sufficiently invasive to be in need of regulatory attention, or a trivial and inherently harmless use of information gathered from the airwaves? Would it make a difference if you could opt out (something Path Intelligence does not offer)?

"Google chief urges action to regulate mini-drones"

Computers, of course, stretch far beyond boxes sitting in your study or on your desk — but how do you feel about computers, or sensors attached to remote computers, in the sky? How would you feel about an unmanned aircraft hovering over you, watching your every move and reporting it back to some unknown base station? Or are drones — even mini-drones — a good idea?

The BBC has an interesting piece about Eric Schmidt's views on mini-drones: Schmidt, of course, might be seen as an odd person to give pro-privacy advice, particularly after Google's StreetView project.