Tag Archives: industry

Canada’s Supreme Court Orders Google to Remove Search Results Worldwide

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/canadas-supreme-court-orders-google-remove-search-results-worldwide-170629/

Back in 2014, the case of Equustek Solutions Inc. v. Jack saw two Canadian entities battle over stolen intellectual property used to manufacture competing products.

Google had no direct links to the case, yet it became embroiled when Equustek Solutions claimed that Google’s search results helped to send visitors to websites operated by the defendants (former Equustek employees) who were selling unlawful products.

Google voluntarily removed links to the sites from its Google.ca (Canada) results, but Equustek demanded a more comprehensive response. It got one.

In a ruling handed down by a court in British Columbia, Google was ordered to remove the infringing websites’ listings from its central database in the United States, meaning that the ruling had worldwide implications.

Google filed an appeal hoping for a better result, arguing that it does not operate servers in British Columbia, nor does it operate any local offices. It also questioned whether the injunction could be enforced outside Canada’s borders.

Ultimately, the British Columbia Court of Appeal disappointed the search giant. In a June 2015 ruling, the Court decided that Google does indeed do business in the region. It also found that a decision to restrict infringement was unlikely to offend any overseas nation.

“The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect,” Justice Groberman wrote.

Undeterred, Google took its case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, hoping to limit the scope of the injunction by arguing that it violates freedom of expression. That effort has now failed.

In a 7-2 majority decision released Wednesday, Google was branded a “determinative player” in facilitating harm to Equustek.

“This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders,” wrote Justice Rosalia Abella.

“We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.”

With Google now required to delist the sites on a global basis, the big question is what happens when other players attempt to apply the ruling to their particular business sector. Unsurprisingly that hasn’t taken long.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which supported Equustek’s position in the long-running case, welcomed the decision and said that Google must “take on the responsibility” to ensure it does not direct users to illegal sites.

“Canada’s highest court has handed down a decision that is very good news for rights holders both in Canada and around the world. Whilst this was not a music piracy case, search engines play a prominent role in directing users to illegal content online including illegal music sites,” said IFPI CEO, Frances Moore.

“If the digital economy is to grow to its full potential, online intermediaries, including search engines, must play their part by ensuring that their services are not used to facilitate the infringement of intellectual property rights.”

Graham Henderson, President and CEO of Music Canada, which represents Sony, Universal, Warner and others, also welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that online service providers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal activity that they facilitate; on the contrary, they have an affirmative duty to take steps to prevent the Internet from becoming a black market,” Henderson said.

But for every voice of approval from groups like IFPI and Music Canada, others raised concerns over the scope of the decision and its potential to create a legal and political minefield. In particular, University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist raised a number of interesting scenarios.

“What happens if a Chinese court orders [Google] to remove Taiwanese sites from the index? Or if an Iranian court orders it to remove gay and lesbian sites from the index? Since local content laws differ from country to country, there is a great likelihood of conflicts,” Geist said.

But rather than painting Google as the loser in this battle, Geist believes the decision actually grants the search giant more power.

“When it comes to Internet jurisdiction, exercising restraint and limiting the scope of court orders is likely to increase global respect for the law and the effectiveness of judicial decisions. Yet this decision demonstrates what many have feared: the temptation for courts will be to assert jurisdiction over online activities and leave it to the parties to sort out potential conflicts,” Geist says.

“In doing so, the Supreme Court of Canada has lent its support to global takedowns and vested more power in Internet intermediaries, who may increasingly emerge as the arbiters of which laws to follow online.”

Only time will tell how Google will react, but it’s clear there will be plenty of entities ready to test the limits and scope of the company’s responses to the ruling.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Operation ‘Pirate On Demand’ Blocks Pirate IPTV Portals

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/operation-pirate-on-demand-blocks-pirate-iptv-portals-170628/

Via cheap set-top boxes, IPTV services (Internet Protocol TV) allow people to access thousands of live TV channels in their living rooms for a nominal fee.

Some of these services are available for just a few euros, dollars or pounds per month, often in HD quality.

While service levels can vary, some of the best also offer comprehensive Video On Demand (VOD), with hundreds and in some cases thousands of movies and TV shows on tap, supported by catch-up TV. Given their professional nature, the best IPTV products are proving a real thorn in the side for rights holders, who hope to charge ten times the money while delivering a lesser product.

As a result, crackdowns against IPTV providers, resellers and other people in the chain are underway across the world, but Europe in particular. Today’s news comes from Italy, where Operation “Pirate On Demand” is hoping to make a dent in IPTV piracy.

The operation is being headed up by the Guardia di Finanza (GdF), a department under Italy’s Minister of Economy and Finance. Part of the Italian Armed Forces, GdF says it has targeted nine sites involved in the unlawful distribution of content offered officially by local media giants Mediaset and Sky.

The authorities received assistance of a specialized team from the local anti-piracy group DCP, which operates on behalf of a broad range of entertainment industry companies.

According to GdF, a total of 89 servers were behind the portals which together delivered an estimated 178 terabytes of pirate content, ranging from TV shows and sports, to movies and children’s entertainment.

The nine portals are in the process of being blocked with some displaying the following message.

Seizure notice on the affected sites

The investigation began in September 2016 and was coordinated by Giangiacomo Pilia, the prosecutor at the Cagliari Court. Thus far, two people have been arrested.

A person arrested in the Varese area, who police believe is the commercial director of an illicit platform, has been charged with breaching copyright law.

A second individual arrested in Macerata is also suspected of copyright offenses, having technically managed the platform. Computer equipment, decoders, smart cards, and other electronic devices were also seized.

In addition to blocking various web portals, measures will now be taken to block the servers being used to supply the IPTV services. The GdF has also delivered a veiled threat to people who subscribed to the illicit services.

“It is also in the hands of investigators the position of those who have actively accessed the platforms by purchasing pirated subscriptions and thus benefiting by taking advantage,” GdF said.

The moves this week are the latest to take place under the Operation “Pirate On Demand” banner. Back in March, authorities moved to shut down and block 15 portals offering illegal IPTV access to Mediaset and Sky channels.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Yahoo Mail’s New Tech Stack, Built for Performance and Reliability

Post Syndicated from mikesefanov original https://yahooeng.tumblr.com/post/162320493306

By Suhas Sadanandan, Director of Engineering 

When it comes to performance and reliability, there is perhaps no application where this matters more than with email. Today, we announced a new Yahoo Mail experience for desktop based on a completely rewritten tech stack that embodies these fundamental considerations and more.

We built the new Yahoo Mail experience using a best-in-class front-end tech stack with open source technologies including React, Redux, Node.js, react-intl (open-sourced by Yahoo), and others. A high-level architectural diagram of our stack is below.

image

New Yahoo Mail Tech Stack

In building our new tech stack, we made use of the most modern tools available in the industry to come up with the best experience for our users by optimizing the following fundamentals:

Performance

A key feature of the new Yahoo Mail architecture is blazing-fast initial loading (aka, launch).

We introduced new network routing which sends users to their nearest geo-located email servers (proximity-based routing). This has resulted in a significant reduction in time to first byte and should be immediately noticeable to our international users in particular.

We now do server-side rendering to allow our users to see their mail sooner. This change will be immediately noticeable to our low-bandwidth users. Our application is isomorphic, meaning that the same code runs on the server (using Node.js) and the client. Prior versions of Yahoo Mail had programming logic duplicated on the server and the client because we used PHP on the server and JavaScript on the client.   

Using efficient bundling strategies (JavaScript code is separated into application, vendor, and lazy loaded bundles) and pushing only the changed bundles during production pushes, we keep the cache hit ratio high. By using react-atomic-css, our homegrown solution for writing modular and scoped CSS in React, we get much better CSS reuse.  

In prior versions of Yahoo Mail, the need to run various experiments in parallel resulted in additional branching and bloating of our JavaScript and CSS code. While rewriting all of our code, we solved this issue using Mendel, our homegrown solution for bucket testing isomorphic web apps, which we have open sourced.  

Rather than using custom libraries, we use native HTML5 APIs and ES6 heavily and use PolyesterJS, our homegrown polyfill solution, to fill the gaps. These factors have further helped us to keep payload size minimal.

With all the above optimizations, we have been able to reduce our JavaScript and CSS footprint by approximately 50% compared to the previous desktop version of Yahoo Mail, helping us achieve a blazing-fast launch.

In addition to initial launch improvements, key features like search and message read (when a user opens an email to read it) have also benefited from the above optimizations and are considerably faster in the latest version of Yahoo Mail.

We also significantly reduced the memory consumed by Yahoo Mail on the browser. This is especially noticeable during a long running session.

Reliability

With this new version of Yahoo Mail, we have a 99.99% success rate on core flows: launch, message read, compose, search, and actions that affect messages. Accomplishing this over several billion user actions a day is a significant feat. Client-side errors (JavaScript exceptions) are reduced significantly when compared to prior Yahoo Mail versions.

Product agility and launch velocity

We focused on independently deployable components. As part of the re-architecture of Yahoo Mail, we invested in a robust continuous integration and delivery flow. Our new pipeline allows for daily (or more) pushes to all Mail users, and we push only the bundles that are modified, which keeps the cache hit ratio high.

Developer effectiveness and satisfaction

In developing our tech stack for the new Yahoo Mail experience, we heavily leveraged open source technologies, which allowed us to ensure a shorter learning curve for new engineers. We were able to implement a consistent and intuitive onboarding program for 30+ developers and are now using our program for all new hires. During the development process, we emphasise predictable flows and easy debugging.

Accessibility

The accessibility of this new version of Yahoo Mail is state of the art and delivers outstanding usability (efficiency) in addition to accessibility. It features six enhanced visual themes that can provide accommodation for people with low vision and has been optimized for use with Assistive Technology including alternate input devices, magnifiers, and popular screen readers such as NVDA and VoiceOver. These features have been rigorously evaluated and incorporate feedback from users with disabilities. It sets a new standard for the accessibility of web-based mail and is our most-accessible Mail experience yet.

Open source 

We have open sourced some key components of our new Mail stack, like Mendel, our solution for bucket testing isomorphic web applications. We invite the community to use and build upon our code. Going forward, we plan on also open sourcing additional components like react-atomic-css, our solution for writing modular and scoped CSS in React, and lazy-component, our solution for on-demand loading of resources.

Many of our company’s best technical minds came together to write a brand new tech stack and enable a delightful new Yahoo Mail experience for our users.

We encourage our users and engineering peers in the industry to test the limits of our application, and to provide feedback by clicking on the Give Feedback call out in the lower left corner of the new version of Yahoo Mail.

Indie Game Developer Shares Free Keys on The Pirate Bay

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/indie-game-developer-shares-free-keys-on-the-pirate-bay-170626/

Online piracy is an issue that affects many industries, and indie game developers are certainly no exception.

How people respond can vary from person to person. What’s right and what’s wrong largely depends on one’s individual beliefs, and some do better with pirates than others.

Jacob Janerka, developer of the indie adventure game ‘Paradigm,’ was faced with this issue recently. A few days after his game was released he spotted a cracked copy on The Pirate Bay.

But, instead of being filled with anger and rage while running to the nearest anti-piracy outfit, Janerka decided to reach out to the pirates. Not to school or scold them, but to offer a few free keys.

“Hey everyone, I’m Jacob the creator of Paradigm. I know some of you legitimately can’t afford the game and I’m glad you get to still play it :D,” Janerka’s comment on TPB reads.

Having downloaded many pirated games himself in the past, Janerka knows that some people simply don’t have the means to buy all the games they want to play. So he’s certainly not going to condemn others for doing the same now, although it would be nice if some bought it later.

“If you like the game, please tell your friends and maybe even consider buying it later,” he added.

Janerka’s comment

The response has gone relatively unnoticed for a while but was posted on Reddit recently, where many people applauded the developer for his refreshing approach.

We reached out to Janerka to find out what motivated him to share the free keys on The Pirate Bay. He says that it was mostly a matter of understanding that many pirates are actually huge game fans who don’t have the money to buy every game they want to play.

Allowing them to do so for free, might lead to a few paying customers down the road, something he experienced first hand.

“I did it because I understand that in some cases, some people legitimately cannot afford the game and would like to play it. So maybe HOPEFULLY for a lucky few, they got the official keys and got to play it and enjoy it.

“I know for sure that when I was a young kid, I was unable to buy all the games I wanted and played pirated games. And when I actually got that disposable income, I ended up buying sequels/merch/extra copies,” Janerka adds.

The developer doesn’t think that piracy hurts him much, as many people who pirate his games don’t have the money to buy them anyway. In addition, having non-paying fans of the game is more valuable than having no fans at all.

“Maybe I lost a few sales or whatever, but people liking your game can be just as valuable. Realistically, most people who pirated it, wouldn’t have played it anyway, so its neat that more people get to experience it, when they wouldn’t have otherwise,” he says.

It’s a refreshing approach to see. While pirates should be under no illusion that any major developer will follow suit, they are probably happy that someone from the industry views piracy from a different perspective.

For Janerka, there’s probably something positive in this as well. He wins the sympathy of many game pirates, and as the news spreads, this could even generate some additional sales for the Paradigm game.

Paradigm trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Sorry, the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” Anti-Piracy Ad Wasn’t ‘Pirated’

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/sorry-the-you-wouldnt-steal-a-car-anti-piracy-ad-wasnt-pirated-170625/

In recent years millions of people have seen the Piracy It’s a Crime anti-piracy video.

According to popular belief and reputable news sources, the music used in the “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car” clip was itself pirated.

Oh the irony…

While the case in question dates back to the beginning of the decade, the alleged “theft” is still cited regularly. People regularly mention it on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and also while commenting on various memes, as recently as a few days ago.

Amusing, for sure, but there’s one problem. It’s not true.

The sources for this remarkable story refer to the case of Dutch musician Melchior Rietveldt. In 2006 he was asked to compose a piece of music to be used in an anti-piracy advert. This was supposed to be used exclusively at a local film festival.

However, it turned out that the anti-piracy ad was recycled for various other purposes without the composer’s permission. The clip had been used on dozens of DVDs both in the Netherlands and overseas. This means that Rietveldt’s music was used without his permission, or pirated, as some would say.

Piracy. It’s a Crime

The above is true, as we reported in the past. And the composer was eventually compensated for missed royalties. However, the whole case has nothing to do with the Piracy It’s a Crime clip. It’s about an entirely different ad.

The actual Rietveldt commercial is unknown to the wider public, and there are no online copies that we know of. What we do know is that the “Piracy. It’s a Crime” clip was produced in 2004, not 2006, and also not for a Dutch film festival.

The Piracy It’s a Crime ad was part of a joint initiative by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). The original announcement is still available online.

A source close to the Dutch film industry confirmed that the Rietveldt case has nothing to do with the frequently mentioned clip, which means that it’s all a massive misunderstanding. One that is now deeply ingrained in Internet history, it seems.

It made its way into the Who Sampled database, for example, ABC Science did a feature on it, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

So where does this fable originate from?

When covering the story, several news outlets used an image from the Piracy It’s a Crime video, since that’s the classic example of an anti-piracy ad. Somewhere along the line, however, other reporters started to identify that clip as Rietveldt’s work, without properly checking. Fast forward a few years and many now assume it’s an established fact.

Pirated or not, the Piracy it’s a Crime campaign remains a popular source for memes. Whether this is what the MPA and IPOS intended is doubtful, but at least they got the message out.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Banning VPNs and Proxies is Dangerous, IT Experts Warn

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/banning-vpns-and-proxies-is-dangerous-it-experts-warn-170623/

In April, draft legislation was developed to crack down on systems and software that allow Russian Internet users to bypass website blockades approved by telecoms watchdog Roskomnadzor.

Earlier this month the draft bill was submitted to the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. If passed, the law will make it illegal for services to circumvent web blockades by “routing traffic of Russian Internet users through foreign servers, anonymous proxy servers, virtual private networks and other means.”

As the plans currently stand, anonymization services that fail to restrict access to sites listed by telecoms watchdog Rozcomnadzor face being blocked themselves. Sites offering circumvention software for download also face potential blacklisting.

This week the State Duma discussed the proposals with experts from the local Internet industry. In addition to the head of Rozcomnadzor, representatives from service providers, search engines and even anonymization services were in attendance. Novaya Gazeta has published comments (Russian) from some of the key people at the meeting and it’s fair to say there’s not a lot of support.

VimpelCom, the sixth largest mobile network operator in the world with more than 240 million subscribers, sent along Director for Relations with Government, Sergey Malyanov. He wondered where all this blocking will end up.

“First we banned certain information. Then this information was blocked with the responsibility placed on both owners of resources and services. Now there are blocks on top of blocks – so we already have a triple effort,” he said.

“It is now possible that there will be a fourth iteration: the block on the block to block those that were not blocked. And with that, we have significantly complicated the law and the activities of all the people affected by it.”

Malyanov said that these kinds of actions have the potential to close down the entire Internet by ruining what was once an open network running standard protocols. But amid all of this, will it even be effective?

“The question is not even about the losses that will be incurred by network operators, the owners of the resources and the search engines. The question is whether this bill addresses the goal its creators have set for themselves. In my opinion, it will not.”

Group-IB, one of the world’s leading cyber-security and threat intelligence providers, was represented CEO Ilya Sachkov. He told parliament that “ordinary respectable people” who use the Internet should always use a VPN for security. Nevertheless, he also believes that such services should be forced to filter sites deemed illegal by the state.

But in a warning about blocks in general, he warned that people who want to circumvent them will always be one step ahead.

“We have to understand that by the time the law is adopted the perpetrators will already find it very easy to circumvent,” he said.

Mobile operator giant MTS, which turns over billions of dollars and employs 50,000+ people, had their Vice-President of Corporate and Legal Affairs in attendance. Ruslan Ibragimov said that in dealing with a problem, the government should be cautious of not causing more problems, including disruption of a growing VPN market.

“We have an understanding that evil must be fought, but it’s not necessary to create a new evil, even more so – for those who are involved in this struggle,” he said.

“Broad wording of this law may pose a threat to our network, which could be affected by the new restrictive measures, as well as the VPN market, which we are currently developing, and whose potential market is estimated at 50 billion rubles a year.”

In its goal to maintain control of the Internet, it’s clear that Russia is determined to press ahead with legislative change. Unfortunately, it’s far from clear that there’s a technical solution to the problem, but if one is pursued regardless, there could be serious fallout.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Court Suspends Ban on Roku Sales in Mexico

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/court-suspends-ban-on-roku-sales-in-mexico-170623/

Last week, news broke that the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico had issued a ban on Roku sales.

The order prohibited stores such as Amazon, Liverpool, El Palacio de Hierro, and Sears from importing and selling the devices. In addition, several banks were told stop processing payments from accounts that are linked to pirated services on Roku.

While Roku itself is not offering any pirated content, there is a market for third-party pirate channels outside the Roku Channel Store, which turn the boxes into pirate tools. Cablevision filed a complaint about this unauthorized use which eventually resulted in the ban.

The news generated headlines all over the world and was opposed immediately by several of the parties involved. Yesterday, a federal judge decided to suspend the import and sales ban, at least temporarily.

As a result, local vendors can resume their sales of the popular media player.

“Roku is pleased with today’s court decision, which paves the way for sales of Roku devices to resume in Mexico,” Roku’s General Counsel Steve Kay informed TorrentFreak after he heard the news.

Roku

TorrentFreak has not been able to get a copy of the suspension order, but it’s likely that the court wants to review the case in more detail before a final decision is made.

While streaming player piracy is seen as one of the greatest threats the entertainment industry faces today, the Roku ban went quite far. In a way, it would be similar to banning the Chrome browser because certain add-ons and sites allow users to stream pirated movies.

Roku, meanwhile, says it will continue to work with rightholders and other stakeholders to prevent piracy on its platform, to the best of their ability.

“Piracy is a problem the industry at large is facing,” Key tells TorrentFreak.

“We prohibit copyright infringement of any kind on the Roku platform. We actively work to prevent third-parties from using our platform to distribute copyright infringing content. Moreover, we have been actively working with other industry stakeholders on a wide range of anti-piracy initiatives.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Three Men Sentenced Following £2.5m Internet Piracy Case

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/three-men-sentenced-following-2-5m-internet-piracy-case-170622/

While legal action against low-level individual file-sharers is extremely rare in the UK, the country continues to pose a risk for those engaged in larger-scale infringement.

That is largely due to the activities of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and private anti-piracy outfits such as the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT). Investigations are often a joint effort which can take many years to complete, but the outcomes can often involve criminal sentences.

That was the profile of another Internet piracy case that concluded in London this week. It involved three men from the UK, Eric Brooks, 43, from Bolton, Mark Valentine, 44, from Manchester, and Craig Lloyd, 33, from Wolverhampton.

The case began when FACT became aware of potentially infringing activity back in February 2011. The anti-piracy group then investigated for more than a year before handing the case to police in March 2012.

On July 4, 2012, officers from City of London Police arrested Eric Brooks’ at his home in Bolton following a joint raid with FACT. Computer equipment was seized containing evidence that Brooks had been running a Netherlands-based server hosting more than £100,000 worth of pirated films, music, games, software and ebooks.

According to police, a spreadsheet on Brooks’ computer revealed he had hundreds of paying customers, all recruited from online forums. Using PayPal or utilizing bank transfers, each paid money to access the server. Police mentioned no group or site names in information released this week.

“Enquiries with PayPal later revealed that [Brooks] had made in excess of £500,000 in the last eight years from his criminal business and had in turn defrauded the film and TV industry alone of more than £2.5 million,” police said.

“As his criminal enterprise affected not only the film and TV but the wider entertainment industry including music, games, books and software it is thought that he cost the wider industry an amount much higher than £2.5 million.”

On the same day police arrested Brooks, Mark Valentine’s home in Manchester had a similar unwelcome visit. A day later, Craig Lloyd’s home in Wolverhampton become the third target for police.

Computer equipment was seized from both addresses which revealed that the pair had been paying for access to Brooks’ servers in order to service their own customers.

“They too had used PayPal as a means of taking payment and had earned thousands of pounds from their criminal actions; Valentine gaining £34,000 and Lloyd making over £70,000,” police revealed.

But after raiding the trio in 2012, it took more than four years to charge the men. In a feature common to many FACT cases, all three were charged with Conspiracy to Defraud rather than copyright infringement offenses. All three men pleaded guilty before trial.

On Monday, the men were sentenced at Inner London Crown Court. Brooks was sentenced to 24 months in prison, suspended for 12 months and ordered to complete 140 hours of unpaid work.

Valentine and Lloyd were each given 18 months in prison, suspended for 12 months. Each was ordered to complete 80 hours unpaid work.

Detective Constable Chris Glover, who led the investigation for the City of London Police, welcomed the sentencing.

“The success of this investigation is a result of co-ordinated joint working between the City of London Police and FACT. Brooks, Valentine and Lloyd all thought that they were operating under the radar and doing something which they thought was beyond the controls of law enforcement,” Glover said.

“Brooks, Valentine and Lloyd will now have time in prison to reflect on their actions and the result should act as deterrent for anyone else who is enticed by abusing the internet to the detriment of the entertainment industry.”

While even suspended sentences are a serious matter, none of the men will see the inside of a cell if they meet the conditions of their sentence for the next 12 months. For a case lasting four years involving such large sums of money, that is probably a disappointing result for FACT and the police.

Nevertheless, the men won’t be allowed to enjoy the financial proceeds of their piracy, if indeed any money is left. City of London Police say the trio will be subject to a future confiscation hearing to seize any proceeds of crime.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Is Continuing to Patch Windows XP a Mistake?

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/is_continuing_t.html

Last week, Microsoft issued a security patch for Windows XP, a 16-year-old operating system that Microsoft officially no longer supports. Last month, Microsoft issued a Windows XP patch for the vulnerability used in WannaCry.

Is this a good idea? This 2014 essay argues that it’s not:

The zero-day flaw and its exploitation is unfortunate, and Microsoft is likely smarting from government calls for people to stop using Internet Explorer. The company had three ways it could respond. It could have done nothing­ — stuck to its guns, maintained that the end of support means the end of support, and encouraged people to move to a different platform. It could also have relented entirely, extended Windows XP’s support life cycle for another few years and waited for attrition to shrink Windows XP’s userbase to irrelevant levels. Or it could have claimed that this case is somehow “special,” releasing a patch while still claiming that Windows XP isn’t supported.

None of these options is perfect. A hard-line approach to the end-of-life means that there are people being exploited that Microsoft refuses to help. A complete about-turn means that Windows XP will take even longer to flush out of the market, making it a continued headache for developers and administrators alike.

But the option Microsoft took is the worst of all worlds. It undermines efforts by IT staff to ditch the ancient operating system and undermines Microsoft’s assertion that Windows XP isn’t supported, while doing nothing to meaningfully improve the security of Windows XP users. The upside? It buys those users at best a few extra days of improved security. It’s hard to say how that was possibly worth it.

This is a hard trade-off, and it’s going to get much worse with the Internet of Things. Here’s me:

The security of our computers and phones also comes from the fact that we replace them regularly. We buy new laptops every few years. We get new phones even more frequently. This isn’t true for all of the embedded IoT systems. They last for years, even decades. We might buy a new DVR every five or ten years. We replace our refrigerator every 25 years. We replace our thermostat approximately never. Already the banking industry is dealing with the security problems of Windows 95 embedded in ATMs. This same problem is going to occur all over the Internet of Things.

At least Microsoft has security engineers on staff that can write a patch for Windows XP. There will be no one able to write patches for your 16-year-old thermostat and refrigerator, even assuming those devices can accept security patches.

MPAA & RIAA Demand Tough Copyright Standards in NAFTA Negotiations

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-riaa-demand-tough-copyright-standards-in-nafta-negotiations-170621/

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico was negotiated more than 25 years ago. With a quarter of a decade of developments to contend with, the United States wants to modernize.

“While our economy and U.S. businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not,” the government says.

With this in mind, the US requested comments from interested parties seeking direction for negotiation points. With those comments now in, groups like the MPAA and RIAA have been making their positions known. It’s no surprise that intellectual property enforcement is high on the agenda.

“Copyright is the lifeblood of the U.S. motion picture and television industry. As such, MPAA places high priority on securing strong protection and enforcement disciplines in the intellectual property chapters of trade agreements,” the MPAA writes in its submission.

“Strong IPR protection and enforcement are critical trade priorities for the music industry. With IPR, we can create good jobs, make significant contributions to U.S. economic growth and security, invest in artists and their creativity, and drive technological innovation,” the RIAA notes.

While both groups have numerous demands, it’s clear that each seeks an environment where not only infringers can be held liable, but also Internet platforms and services.

For the RIAA, there is a big focus on the so-called ‘Value Gap’, a phenomenon found on user-uploaded content sites like YouTube that are able to offer infringing content while avoiding liability due to Section 512 of the DMCA.

“Today, user-uploaded content services, which have developed sophisticated on-demand music platforms, use this as a shield to avoid licensing music on fair terms like other digital services, claiming they are not legally responsible for the music they distribute on their site,” the RIAA writes.

“Services such as Apple Music, TIDAL, Amazon, and Spotify are forced to compete with services that claim they are not liable for the music they distribute.”

But if sites like YouTube are exercising their rights while acting legally under current US law, how can partners Canada and Mexico do any better? For the RIAA, that can be achieved by holding them to standards envisioned by the group when the DMCA was passed, not how things have panned out since.

Demanding that negotiators “protect the original intent” of safe harbor, the RIAA asks that a “high-level and high-standard service provider liability provision” is pursued. This, the music group says, should only be available to “passive intermediaries without requisite knowledge of the infringement on their platforms, and inapplicable to services actively engaged in communicating to the public.”

In other words, make sure that YouTube and similar sites won’t enjoy the same level of safe harbor protection as they do today.

The RIAA also requires any negotiated safe harbor provisions in NAFTA to be flexible in the event that the DMCA is tightened up in response to the ongoing safe harbor rules study.

In any event, NAFTA should not “support interpretations that no longer reflect today’s digital economy and threaten the future of legitimate and sustainable digital trade,” the RIAA states.

For the MPAA, Section 512 is also perceived as a problem. While noting that the original intent was to foster a system of shared responsibility between copyright owners and service providers, the MPAA says courts have subsequently let copyright holders down. Like the RIAA, the MPAA also suggests that Canada and Mexico can be held to higher standards.

“We recommend a new approach to this important trade policy provision by moving to high-level language that establishes intermediary liability and appropriate limitations on liability. This would be fully consistent with U.S. law and avoid the same misinterpretations by policymakers and courts overseas,” the MPAA writes.

“In so doing, a modernized NAFTA would be consistent with Trade Promotion Authority’s negotiating objective of ‘ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments’.”

The MPAA also has some specific problems with Mexico, including unauthorized camcording. The Hollywood group says that 85 illicit audio and video recordings of films were linked to Mexican theaters in 2016. However, recording is not currently a criminal offense in Mexico.

Another issue for the MPAA is that criminal sanctions for commercial scale infringement are only available if the infringement is for profit.

“This has hampered enforcement against the above-discussed camcording problem but also against online infringement, such as peer-to-peer piracy, that may be on a scale that is immensely harmful to U.S. rightsholders but nonetheless occur without profit by the infringer,” the MPAA writes.

“The modernized NAFTA like other U.S. bilateral free trade agreements must provide for criminal sanctions against commercial scale infringements without proof of profit motive.”

Also of interest are the MPAA’s complaints against Mexico’s telecoms laws. Unlike in the US and many countries in Europe, Mexico’s ISPs are forbidden to hand out their customers’ personal details to rights holders looking to sue. This, the MPAA says, needs to change.

The submissions from the RIAA and MPAA can be found here and here (pdf)

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

BPI Breaks Record After Sending 310 Million Google Takedowns

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/bpi-breaks-record-after-sending-310-million-google-takedowns-170619/

A little over a year ago during March 2016, music industry group BPI reached an important milestone. After years of sending takedown notices to Google, the group burst through the 200 million URL barrier.

The fact that it took BPI several years to reach its 200 million milestone made the surpassing of the quarter billion milestone a few months later even more remarkable. In October 2016, the group sent its 250 millionth takedown to Google, a figure that nearly doubled when accounting for notices sent to Microsoft’s Bing.

But despite the volumes, the battle hadn’t been won, let alone the war. The BPI’s takedown machine continued to run at a remarkable rate, churning out millions more notices per week.

As a result, yet another new milestone was reached this month when the BPI smashed through the 300 million URL barrier. Then, days later, a further 10 million were added, with the latter couple of million added during the time it took to put this piece together.

BPI takedown notices, as reported by Google

While demanding that Google places greater emphasis on its de-ranking of ‘pirate’ sites, the BPI has called again and again for a “notice and stay down” regime, to ensure that content taken down by the search engine doesn’t simply reappear under a new URL. It’s a position BPI maintains today.

“The battle would be a whole lot easier if intermediaries played fair,” a BPI spokesperson informs TF.

“They need to take more proactive responsibility to reduce infringing content that appears on their platform, and, where we expressly notify infringing content to them, to ensure that they do not only take it down, but also keep it down.”

The long-standing suggestion is that the volume of takedown notices sent would reduce if a “take down, stay down” regime was implemented. The BPI says it’s difficult to present a precise figure but infringing content has a tendency to reappear, both in search engines and on hosting sites.

“Google rejects repeat notices for the same URL. But illegal content reappears as it is re-indexed by Google. As to the sites that actually host the content, the vast majority of notices sent to them could be avoided if they implemented take-down & stay-down,” BPI says.

The fact that the BPI has added 60 million more takedowns since the quarter billion milestone a few months ago is quite remarkable, particularly since there appears to be little slowdown from month to month. However, the numbers have grown so huge that 310 billion now feels a lot like 250 million, with just a few added on top for good measure.

That an extra 60 million takedowns can almost be dismissed as a handful is an indication of just how massive the issue is online. While pirates always welcome an abundance of links to juicy content, it’s no surprise that groups like the BPI are seeking more comprehensive and sustainable solutions.

Previously, it was hoped that the Digital Economy Bill would provide some relief, hopefully via government intervention and the imposition of a search engine Code of Practice. In the event, however, all pressure on search engines was removed from the legislation after a separate voluntary agreement was reached.

All parties agreed that the voluntary code should come into effect two weeks ago on June 1 so it seems likely that some effects should be noticeable in the near future. But the BPI says it’s still early days and there’s more work to be done.

“BPI has been working productively with search engines since the voluntary code was agreed to understand how search engines approach the problem, but also what changes can and have been made and how results can be improved,” the group explains.

“The first stage is to benchmark where we are and to assess the impact of the changes search engines have made so far. This will hopefully be completed soon, then we will have better information of the current picture and from that we hope to work together to continue to improve search for rights owners and consumers.”

With more takedown notices in the pipeline not yet publicly reported by Google, the BPI informs TF that it has now notified the search giant of 315 million links to illegal content.

“That’s an astonishing number. More than 1 in 10 of the entire world’s notices to Google come from BPI. This year alone, one in every three notices sent to Google from BPI is for independent record label repertoire,” BPI concludes.

While it’s clear that groups like BPI have developed systems to cope with the huge numbers of takedown notices required in today’s environment, it’s clear that few rightsholders are happy with the status quo. With that in mind, the fight will continue, until search engines are forced into compromise. Considering the implications, that could only appear on a very distant horizon.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Affected By Adverse Court Rulings – Everyone Else Is

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-isnt-affected-by-adverse-court-rulings-everyone-else-is-170618/

For more than a decade The Pirate Bay has been the world’s most controversial site. Delivering huge quantities of copyrighted content to the masses, the platform is revered and reviled across the copyright spectrum.

Its reputation is one of a defiant Internet swashbuckler, but due to changes in how the site has been run in more recent times, its current philosophy is more difficult to gauge. What has never been in doubt, however, is the site’s original intent to be as provocative as possible.

Through endless publicity stunts, some real, some just for the ‘lulz’, The Pirate Bay managed to attract a massive audience, all while incurring the wrath of every major copyright holder in the world.

Make no mistake, they all queued up to strike back, but every subsequent rightsholder action was met by a Pirate Bay middle finger, two fingers, or chin flick, depending on the mood of the day. This only served to further delight the masses, who happily spread the word while keeping their torrents flowing.

This vicious circle of being targeted by the entertainment industries, mocking them, and then reaping the traffic benefits, developed into the cheapest long-term marketing campaign the Internet had ever seen. But nothing is ever truly for free and there have been consequences.

After taunting Hollywood and the music industry with its refusals to capitulate, endless legal action that the site would have ordinarily been forced to participate in largely took place without The Pirate Bay being present. It doesn’t take a law degree to work out what happened in each and every one of those cases, whatever complex route they took through the legal system. No defense, no win.

For example, the web-blocking phenomenon across the UK, Europe, Asia and Australia was driven by the site’s absolute resilience and although there would clearly have been other scapegoats had The Pirate Bay disappeared, the site was the ideal bogeyman the copyright lobby required to move forward.

Filing blocking lawsuits while bringing hosts, advertisers, and ISPs on board for anti-piracy initiatives were also made easier with the ‘evil’ Pirate Bay still online. Immune from every anti-piracy technique under the sun, the existence of the platform in the face of all onslaughts only strengthened the cases of those arguing for even more drastic measures.

Over a decade, this has meant a significant tightening of the sharing and streaming climate. Without any big legislative changes but plenty of case law against The Pirate Bay, web-blocking is now a walk in the park, ad hoc domain seizures are a fairly regular occurrence, and few companies want to host sharing sites. Advertisers and brands are also hesitant over where they place their ads. It’s a very different world to the one of 10 years ago.

While it would be wrong to attribute every tightening of the noose to the actions of The Pirate Bay, there’s little doubt that the site and its chaotic image played a huge role in where copyright enforcement is today. The platform set out to provoke and succeeded in every way possible, gaining supporters in their millions. It could also be argued it kicked a hole in a hornets’ nest, releasing the hell inside.

But perhaps the site’s most amazing achievement is the way it has managed to stay online, despite all the turmoil.

This week yet another ruling, this time from the powerful European Court of Justice, found that by offering links in the manner it does, The Pirate Bay and other sites are liable for communicating copyright works to the public. Of course, this prompted the usual swathe of articles claiming that this could be the final nail in the site’s coffin.

Wrong.

In common with every ruling, legal defeat, and legislative restriction put in place due to the site’s activities, this week’s decision from the ECJ will have zero effect on the Pirate Bay’s availability. For right or wrong, the site was breaking the law long before this ruling and will continue to do so until it decides otherwise.

What we have instead is a further tightened legal landscape that will have a lasting effect on everything BUT the site, including weaker torrent sites, Internet users, and user-uploaded content sites such as YouTube.

With The Pirate Bay carrying on regardless, that is nothing short of remarkable.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Pirates Cost Australia’s Ten Network “Hundreds of Millions of Dollars”

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-cost-australias-ten-network-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-170616/

In 2016, Australia’s Ten Network posted losses of AUS$157 million. This April, the broadcaster showed signs of continuing distress when it posted a half-year loss of AUS$232 million.

In a statement to the stock exchange, Ten said it was trying to secure new terms for a AUS$200 million debt financing guarantee. According to ABC, the company had lost more than 60% of its value in the preceding 12 months and almost 98% over the previous five years.

More bad news arrived this week when Ten’s board decided to put the company into voluntary administration after failing to secure a guarantee for a AUS$250 million loan that could’ve kept the ship afloat into the new year. As moves get underway to secure the company’s future, fingers of blame are being raised.

According to Village Roadshow co-chief executive Graham Burke, Internet pirates cost Ten “hundreds of millions of dollars” in advertising revenue due to their tendency to obtain movies and TV shows from the web rather than via legitimate means.

Burke told The Australian (paywall) that movies supplied to Ten by 21st Century Fox (including The Revenant and The Peanuts Movie which were both leaked) had received lower broadcast ratings due to people viewing them online in advance.

“Piracy is a much bigger channel and an illicit economy than the three main commercial networks combined,” Burke told the publication.

“Movies from Fox arrive with several million people having seen them through piracy. If it wasn’t for piracy, the ratings would be stronger and the product would not be arriving clapped out.”

But leaked or not, content doesn’t come cheap. As part of efforts to remain afloat, Ten Network recently tried to re-negotiate content supply deals with Fox and CBS. Together they reportedly cost the broadcaster more than AUS$900 million over the previous six years.

Despite this massive price tag and numerous other problems engulfing the troubled company, Burke suggests it is pirates that are to blame for Ten’s demise.

“A large part of Ten’s expenditure is on movies and they are being seen by millions of people ­illegitimately on websites supported by rogue ­advertising for drugs, prostitution and even legitimate advertising. The cumulative effect of all the ­pirated product out there has brought down Ten,” Burke said.

While piracy has certainly been blamed for a lot of things over the years, it is extremely rare for a senior industry figure to link it so closely with the potential demise of a major broadcaster.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

“Top ISPs” Are Discussing Fines & Browsing Hijacking For Pirates

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/top-isps-are-discussing-fines-browsing-hijacking-for-pirates-170614/

For the past several years, anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp has been moderately successful in forcing smaller fringe ISPs in the United States to collaborate in a low-tier copyright trolling operation.

The way it works is relatively simple. Rightscorp monitors BitTorrent networks, captures the IP addresses of alleged infringers, and sends DMCA notices to their ISPs. Rightscorp expects ISPs to forward these to their customers along with an attached cash settlement demand.

These demands are usually for small amounts ($20 or $30) but most of the larger ISPs don’t forward them to their customers. This deprives Rightscorp (and clients such as BMG) of the opportunity to generate revenue, a situation that the anti-piracy outfit is desperate to remedy.

One of the problems is that when people who receive Rightscorp ‘fines’ refuse to pay them, the company does nothing, leading to a lack of respect for the company. With this in mind, Rightscorp has been trying to get ISPs involved in forcing people to pay up.

In 2014, Rightscorp said that its goal was to have ISPs place a redirect page in front of ‘pirate’ subscribers until they pay a cash fine.

“[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what’s called a hard redirect, like, when you go into a hotel and you have to put your room number in order to get past the browser and get on to browsing the web,” the company said.

In the three years since that statement, the company has raised the issue again but nothing concrete has come to fruition. However, there are now signs of fresh movement which could be significant, if Rightscorp is to be believed.

“An ISP Good Corporate Citizenship Program is what we feel will drive revenue associated with our primary revenue model. This program is an attempt to garner the attention and ultimately inspire a behavior shift in any ISP that elects to embrace our suggestions to be DMCA-compliant,” the company told shareholders yesterday.

“In this program, we ask for the ISPs to forward our notices referencing the infringement and the settlement offer. We ask that ISPs take action against repeat infringers through suspensions or a redirect screen. A redirect screen will guide the infringer to our payment screen while limiting all but essential internet access.”

At first view, this sounds like a straightforward replay of Rightscorp’s wishlist of three years ago, but it’s worth noting that the legal landscape has shifted fairly significantly since then.

Perhaps the most important development is the BMG v Cox Communications case, in which the ISP was sued for not doing enough to tackle repeat infringers. In that case (for which Rightscorp provided the evidence), Cox was held liable for third-party infringement and ordered to pay damages of $25 million alongside $8 million in legal fees.

All along, the suggestion has been that if Cox had taken action against infringing subscribers (primarily by passing on Rightscorp ‘fines’ and/or disconnecting repeat infringers) the ISP wouldn’t have ended up in court. Instead, it chose to sweat it out to a highly unfavorable decision.

The BMG decision is a potentially powerful ruling for Rightscorp, particularly when it comes to seeking ‘cooperation’ from other ISPs who might not want a similar legal battle on their hands. But are other ISPs interested in getting involved?

According to the Rightscorp, preliminary negotiations are already underway with some big players.

“We are now beginning to have some initial and very thorough discussions with a handful of the top ISPs to create and implement such a program that others can follow. We have every reason to believe that the litigations referred to above are directly responsible for the beginning of a change in thinking of ISPs,” the company says.

Rightscorp didn’t identify these “top ISPs” but by implication, these could include companies such as Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, Charter, Verizon, and/or even Cox Communications.

With cooperation from these companies, Rightscorp predicts that a “cultural shift” could be brought about which would significantly increase the numbers of subscribers paying cash demands. It’s also clear that while it may be seeking cooperation from ISPs, a gun is being held under the table too, in case any feel hesitant about putting up a redirect screen.

“This is the preferred approach that we advocate for any willing ISP as an alternative to becoming a defendant in a litigation and facing potential liability and significantly larger statutory damages,” Rightscorp says.

A recent development suggests the company may not be bluffing. Back in April the RIAA sued ISP Grande Communcations for failing to disconnect persistent pirates. Yet again, Rightscorp is deeply involved in the case, having provided the infringement data to the labels for a considerable sum.

Whether the “top ISPs” in the United States will cave into the pressure and implied threats remains to be seen but there’s no doubting the rising confidence at Rightscorp.

“We have demonstrated the tenacity to support two major litigation efforts initiated by two of our clients, which we feel will set a precedent for the entire anti-piracy industry led by Rightscorp. If you can predict the law, you can set the competition,” the company concludes.

Meanwhile, Rightscorp appears to continue its use of disingenuous tactics to extract money from alleged file-sharers.

In the wake of several similar reports, this week a Reddit user reported that Rightscorp asked him to pay a single $20 fine for pirating a song. After paying up, the next day the company allegedly called the user back and demanded payment for a further 200 notices.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

UK Police Claim Success in Keeping Gambling Ads off Pirate Sites

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/uk-police-claim-success-in-keeping-gambling-ads-off-pirate-sites-170614/

Over the past several years, there has been a major effort by entertainment industry groups to cut off revenue streams to ‘pirate’ sites. The theory is that if sites cannot generate funds, their operators will eventually lose interest.

Since advertising is a key money earner for any website, significant resources have been expended trying to keep ads off sites that directly or indirectly profit from infringement. It’s been a multi-pronged affair, with agencies being encouraged to do the right thing and brands warned that their ads appearing on pirate sites does nothing for their image.

One sector that has trailed behind most is the gambling industry. Up until fairly recently, ads for some of the UK’s largest bookmakers have been a regular feature on many large pirate sites, either embedded in pages or more often than not, appearing via popup or pop-under spreads. Now, however, a significant change is being reported.

According to the City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), over the past 12 months there has been an 87% drop in adverts for licensed gambling operators being displayed on infringing websites.

The research was carried out by whiteBULLET, a brand safety and advertising solutions company which helps advertisers to assess whether placing an advert on a particular URL will cause it to appear on a pirate site.

PIPCU says that licensed gambling operators have an obligation to “keep crime out of gambling” due to their commitments under the Gambling Act 2005. However, the Gambling Commission, the UK’s gambling regulatory body, has recently been taking additional steps to tackle the problem.

In September 2015, the Commission consulted on amendments (pdf) to licensing conditions that would compel licensees to ensure that advertisements “placed by themselves and others” do not appear on websites providing unauthorized access to copyrighted content.

After the consultation was published in May 2016 (pdf), all respondents agreed in principle that gambling operators should not advertise on pirate sites. A month later, the Commission said it would ban the placement of gambling ads on such platforms.

When the new rules came into play last October, 40 gambling companies (including Bet365, Coral and Sky Bet, who had previously been called out for displaying ads on pirate sites) were making use of PIPCU’s ‘Infringing Website List‘, a database of sites that police claim are actively involved in piracy.

Speaking yesterday, acting Detective Superintendent Peter Ratcliffe, Head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), welcomed the ensuing reduction in ad placement on ‘pirate’ domains.

“The success of a strong relationship built between PIPCU and The Gambling Commission can be seen by these figures. This is a fantastic example of a joint working initiative between police and an industry regulator,” Ratcliffe said.

“We commend the 40 gambling companies who are already using the Infringing Website List and encourage others to sign up. We will continue to encourage all UK advertisers to become a member of the Infringing Website List to ensure they’re not inadvertently funding criminal websites.”

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Introducing the Self-Service Business Associate Addendum

Post Syndicated from Chad Woolf original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/introducing-the-self-service-business-associate-addendum/

HIPAA logo

Today, we made available a new feature in AWS Artifact (our auditing and compliance portal) that enables you to review, accept, and track the status of your Business Associate Addendum (BAA). With this new feature, you can accept the terms of a BAA online, and instantly designate an AWS account as a “HIPAA Account” for use with protected health information (PHI) under the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In addition, you can sign in to AWS Artifact to confirm that your account is designated as a HIPAA Account, and review the terms of the BAA for that account. If you are no longer using a designated HIPAA Account in connection with PHI, you can remove that designation using the AWS Artifact interface.

Today’s release addresses two key customer needs in particular: (1) the need to enter into a BAA quickly, and (2) the need to easily track and control whether an AWS account is designated as a HIPAA Account under a BAA.

The BAA is the first specialized industry agreement that AWS is making available online. We chose to launch with the BAA as a commitment to AWS customer organizations who are reinventing the way healthcare is researched and delivered with the cloud. Many AWS customers have great stories to tell as we work together to use technology to advance the healthcare industry.

If you already have a BAA with AWS, or if you are considering designing or migrating a new solution that will create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI on AWS, you can use AWS Artifact to manage your HIPAA Accounts today. As with all AWS Artifact features, there are no additional fees for using AWS Artifact to review, accept, and manage BAAs online.

– Chad

Healthcare Industry Cybersecurity Report

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/06/healthcare_indu.html

New US government report: “Report on Improving Cybersecurity in the Health Care Industry.” It’s pretty scathing, but nothing in it will surprise regular readers of this blog.

It’s worth reading the executive summary, and then skimming the recommendations. Recommendations are in six areas.

The Task Force identified six high-level imperatives by which to organize its recommendations and action items. The imperatives are:

  1. Define and streamline leadership, governance, and expectations for health care industry cybersecurity.
  2. Increase the security and resilience of medical devices and health IT.

  3. Develop the health care workforce capacity necessary to prioritize and ensure cybersecurity awareness and technical capabilities.

  4. Increase health care industry readiness through improved cybersecurity awareness and education.

  5. Identify mechanisms to protect research and development efforts and intellectual property from attacks or exposure.

  6. Improve information sharing of industry threats, weaknesses, and mitigations.

News article.

Slashdot thread.

Teaching tech

Post Syndicated from Eevee original https://eev.ee/blog/2017/06/10/teaching-tech/

A sponsored post from Manishearth:

I would kinda like to hear about any thoughts you have on technical teaching or technical writing. Pedagogy is something I care about. But I don’t know how much you do, so feel free to ignore this suggestion 🙂

Good news: I care enough that I’m trying to write a sorta-kinda-teaching book!

Ironically, one of the biggest problems I’ve had with writing the introduction to that book is that I keep accidentally rambling on for pages about problems and difficulties with teaching technical subjects. So maybe this is a good chance to get it out of my system.

Phaser

I recently tried out a new thing. It was Phaser, but this isn’t a dig on them in particular, just a convenient example fresh in my mind. If anything, they’re better than most.

As you can see from Phaser’s website, it appears to have tons of documentation. Two of the six headings are “LEARN” and “EXAMPLES”, which seems very promising. And indeed, Phaser offers:

  • Several getting-started walkthroughs
  • Possibly hundreds of examples
  • A news feed that regularly links to third-party tutorials
  • Thorough API docs

Perfect. Beautiful. Surely, a dream.

Well, almost.

The examples are all microscopic, usually focused around a single tiny feature — many of them could be explained just as well with one line of code. There are a few example games, but they’re short aimless demos. None of them are complete games, and there’s no showcase either. Games sometimes pop up in the news feed, but most of them don’t include source code, so they’re not useful for learning from.

Likewise, the API docs are just API docs, leading to the sorts of problems you might imagine. For example, in a few places there’s a mention of a preUpdate stage that (naturally) happens before update. You might rightfully wonder what kinds of things happen in preUpdate — and more importantly, what should you put there, and why?

Let’s check the API docs for Phaser.Group.preUpdate:

The core preUpdate – as called by World.

Okay, that didn’t help too much, but let’s check what Phaser.World has to say:

The core preUpdate – as called by World.

Ah. Hm. It turns out World is a subclass of Group and inherits this method — and thus its unaltered docstring — from Group.

I did eventually find some brief docs attached to Phaser.Stage (but only by grepping the source code). It mentions what the framework uses preUpdate for, but not why, and not when I might want to use it too.


The trouble here is that there’s no narrative documentation — nothing explaining how the library is put together and how I’m supposed to use it. I get handed some brief primers and a massive reference, but nothing in between. It’s like buying an O’Reilly book and finding out it only has one chapter followed by a 500-page glossary.

API docs are great if you know specifically what you’re looking for, but they don’t explain the best way to approach higher-level problems, and they don’t offer much guidance on how to mesh nicely with the design of a framework or big library. Phaser does a decent chunk of stuff for you, off in the background somewhere, so it gives the strong impression that it expects you to build around it in a particular way… but it never tells you what that way is.

Tutorials

Ah, but this is what tutorials are for, right?

I confess I recoil whenever I hear the word “tutorial”. It conjures an image of a uniquely useless sort of post, which goes something like this:

  1. Look at this cool thing I made! I’ll teach you how to do it too.

  2. Press all of these buttons in this order. Here’s a screenshot, which looks nothing like what you have, because I’ve customized the hell out of everything.

  3. You did it!

The author is often less than forthcoming about why they made any of the decisions they did, where you might want to try something else, or what might go wrong (and how to fix it).

And this is to be expected! Writing out any of that stuff requires far more extensive knowledge than you need just to do the thing in the first place, and you need to do a good bit of introspection to sort out something coherent to say.

In other words, teaching is hard. It’s a skill, and it takes practice, and most people blogging are not experts at it. Including me!


With Phaser, I noticed that several of the third-party tutorials I tried to look at were 404s — sometimes less than a year after they were linked on the site. Pretty major downside to relying on the community for teaching resources.

But I also notice that… um…

Okay, look. I really am not trying to rag on this author. I’m not. They tried to share their knowledge with the world, and that’s a good thing, something worthy of praise. I’m glad they did it! I hope it helps someone.

But for the sake of example, here is the most recent entry in Phaser’s list of community tutorials. I have to link it, because it’s such a perfect example. Consider:

  • The post itself is a bulleted list of explanation followed by a single contiguous 250 lines of source code. (Not that there’s anything wrong with bulleted lists, mind you.) That code contains zero comments and zero blank lines.

  • This is only part two in what I think is a series aimed at beginners, yet the title and much of the prose focus on object pooling, a performance hack that’s easy to add later and that’s almost certainly unnecessary for a game this simple. There is no explanation of why this is done; the prose only says you’ll understand why it’s critical once you add a lot more game objects.

  • It turns out I only have two things to say here so I don’t know why I made this a bulleted list.

In short, it’s not really a guided explanation; it’s “look what I did”.

And that’s fine, and it can still be interesting. I’m not sure English is even this person’s first language, so I’m hardly going to criticize them for not writing a novel about platforming.

The trouble is that I doubt a beginner would walk away from this feeling very enlightened. They might be closer to having the game they wanted, so there’s still value in it, but it feels closer to having someone else do it for them. And an awful lot of tutorials I’ve seen — particularly of the “post on some blog” form (which I’m aware is the genre of thing I’m writing right now) — look similar.

This isn’t some huge social problem; it’s just people writing on their blog and contributing to the corpus of written knowledge. It does become a bit stickier when a large project relies on these community tutorials as its main set of teaching aids.


Again, I’m not ragging on Phaser here. I had a slightly frustrating experience with it, coming in knowing what I wanted but unable to find a description of the semantics anywhere, but I do sympathize. Teaching is hard, writing documentation is hard, and programmers would usually rather program than do either of those things. For free projects that run on volunteer work, and in an industry where anything other than programming is a little undervalued, getting good docs written can be tricky.

(Then again, Phaser sells books and plugins, so maybe they could hire a documentation writer. Or maybe the whole point is for you to buy the books?)

Some pretty good docs

Python has pretty good documentation. It introduces the language with a tutorial, then documents everything else in both a library and language reference.

This sounds an awful lot like Phaser’s setup, but there’s some considerable depth in the Python docs. The tutorial is highly narrative and walks through quite a few corners of the language, stopping to mention common pitfalls and possible use cases. I clicked an arbitrary heading and found a pleasant, informative read that somehow avoids being bewilderingly dense.

The API docs also take on a narrative tone — even something as humble as the collections module offers numerous examples, use cases, patterns, recipes, and hints of interesting ways you might extend the existing types.

I’m being a little vague and hand-wavey here, but it’s hard to give specific examples without just quoting two pages of Python documentation. Hopefully you can see right away what I mean if you just take a look at them. They’re good docs, Bront.

I’ve likewise always enjoyed the SQLAlchemy documentation, which follows much the same structure as the main Python documentation. SQLAlchemy is a database abstraction layer plus ORM, so it can do a lot of subtly intertwined stuff, and the complexity of the docs reflects this. Figuring out how to do very advanced things correctly, in particular, can be challenging. But for the most part it does a very thorough job of introducing you to a large library with a particular philosophy and how to best work alongside it.

I softly contrast this with, say, the Perl documentation.

It’s gotten better since I first learned Perl, but Perl’s docs are still a bit of a strange beast. They exist as a flat collection of manpage-like documents with terse names like perlootut. The documentation is certainly thorough, but much of it has a strange… allocation of detail.

For example, perllol — the explanation of how to make a list of lists, which somehow merits its own separate documentation — offers no fewer than nine similar variations of the same code for reading a file into a nested lists of words on each line. Where Python offers examples for a variety of different problems, Perl shows you a lot of subtly different ways to do the same basic thing.

A similar problem is that Perl’s docs sometimes offer far too much context; consider the references tutorial, which starts by explaining that references are a powerful “new” feature in Perl 5 (first released in 1994). It then explains why you might want to nest data structures… from a Perl 4 perspective, thus explaining why Perl 5 is so much better.

Some stuff I’ve tried

I don’t claim to be a great teacher. I like to talk about stuff I find interesting, and I try to do it in ways that are accessible to people who aren’t lugging around the mountain of context I already have. This being just some blog, it’s hard to tell how well that works, but I do my best.

I also know that I learn best when I can understand what’s going on, rather than just seeing surface-level cause and effect. Of course, with complex subjects, it’s hard to develop an understanding before you’ve seen the cause and effect a few times, so there’s a balancing act between showing examples and trying to provide an explanation. Too many concrete examples feel like rote memorization; too much abstract theory feels disconnected from anything tangible.

The attempt I’m most pleased with is probably my post on Perlin noise. It covers a fairly specific subject, which made it much easier. It builds up one step at a time from scratch, with visualizations at every point. It offers some interpretations of what’s going on. It clearly explains some possible extensions to the idea, but distinguishes those from the core concept.

It is a little math-heavy, I grant you, but that was hard to avoid with a fundamentally mathematical topic. I had to be economical with the background information, so I let the math be a little dense in places.

But the best part about it by far is that I learned a lot about Perlin noise in the process of writing it. In several places I realized I couldn’t explain what was going on in a satisfying way, so I had to dig deeper into it before I could write about it. Perhaps there’s a good guideline hidden in there: don’t try to teach as much as you know?

I’m also fairly happy with my series on making Doom maps, though they meander into tangents a little more often. It’s hard to talk about something like Doom without meandering, since it’s a convoluted ecosystem that’s grown organically over the course of 24 years and has at least three ways of doing anything.


And finally there’s the book I’m trying to write, which is sort of about game development.

One of my biggest grievances with game development teaching in particular is how often it leaves out important touches. Very few guides will tell you how to make a title screen or menu, how to handle death, how to get a Mario-style variable jump height. They’ll show you how to build a clearly unfinished demo game, then leave you to your own devices.

I realized that the only reliable way to show how to build a game is to build a real game, then write about it. So the book is laid out as a narrative of how I wrote my first few games, complete with stumbling blocks and dead ends and tiny bits of polish.

I have no idea how well this will work, or whether recapping my own mistakes will be interesting or distracting for a beginner, but it ought to be an interesting experiment.

[$] A beta for PostgreSQL 10

Post Syndicated from jake original https://lwn.net/Articles/724871/rss

PostgreSQL version 10 had its first beta release on May
18, just in time for the annual PGCon developer
conference
. The latest annual release comes with a host of major
features, including new versions of replication and partitioning, and
enhanced parallel query. Version 10 includes 451 commits, nearly half a
million lines of code and documentation, and over 150 new or changed
features since version 9.6. The PostgreSQL
community will find a lot to get excited about in this
release, as the project has delivered a long list of enhancements to
existing functionality. There’s also a few features aimed at fulfilling
new use cases, particularly in the “big data” industry sector.