An object lesson for Senator Conroy.........

In December last year the BBC One Watchdog program outed legal firm Davenport Lyons for sending threatening letters to individuals with home internet connections (operating open WiFi networks) demanding sums in the vicinity of £500-£600 for alleged infringement of copyright.

These letters of demand were adamant that copyright breaches had occurred, even though it later found that it was in the wrong because either the downloading was proven not to have occurred on the PC in question or the stated IP addresses were incomplete or fake.

Now Davenport Lyons went so far as to make application to the UK High Court to start this extortion-like process off and it quickly descended into the ridiculous:

15. At 8:50pm on 08 Dec 2008, ebvjb45 wrote:

I also received one of these letters accusing me of uploading and making available a po*rn film called ************. As a happily married pensioner of 64 years old I ask you!. After plowing through the documentation I spotted one or two items that are either missing or incorrect.
It would appear that although they have my full postal address they do not have my name! The letter and documentation is addressed by name to ?Provider, Royal Mail Holdings PLC? If they do not use my name or appear to know it how on earth can they carry out any threats of court actions?
For me they list that the upload was done using three different IP Addresses, but all at the same time! As I understand it, my ISP issues me with single new IP address dynamically each time I reconnect to the internet (NOT THREE). As I use an ADSL Network Router that IP Address remains allocated to me till I switch off the router or disconnect it from the telephone line. The router is left switched on for weeks at a time. This throws some doubts on their data gathering reliability.
Doing a Google search on the name Davenport Lyons brings up some interesting facts about this company. After reading the comments about them and their ways of doing things I am certainly not going to be paying them a settlement. I will wait till they try to take me to court and fight it there.
Needless to say I have not seen this video, downloaded it or uploaded it.

It would have been most useful had Watchdog named the Lawyer who is representing the 400 people who received these demand letters, as I would like to make that figure up to 401 with my name. [Quote has been edited to avoid blocking by filters]

This law firm is apparently threatening Wikileaks for online publishing an example of the questionable letter of demand.

This is what Wikileaks has additionally published concerning how Davenport Lyons 'found' its information:

The legal threat letters themselves contain a hash value, and IP address and a time stamp that is being used as evidence – flimsy evidence according to many people who have observed the legal side of file-sharing. The reason it is seen as flimsy is that a filename can be called anything and still have the same hash value. Second of all, there is no evidence provided that verified that the file name matched what the actual work was. For all we know, it could have been a 5 minute porn clip rather than a music video. Thirdly, there's no evidence to suggest that an IP address is linked to an individual. The computer could be used by someone other than the owner of the connection. There could be a wifi connection that other users, including unauthorized ones, could be using that IP address. Finally, a time stamp doesn't contribute much into proving that a copyrighted work has been uploaded. The alleged incident in question happened over BitTorrent, but no website was given, so who really knows where the evidence was gathered in the first place?

A Davenport Lyons letter threatening the whistleblower with legal action was sent out this month.

This may be a response to the fact that it appears that Which? consumer group is now taking Davenport Lyons to court.

As the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, pursues his plan to censor the Internet in an effort to meet the corporate aims of both the IT security and entertainment industries he should perhaps ponder what bullying monsters he might be letting loose on Australian society.

Particularly as the Federal Government's own agency ACMA is operating in almost complete secrecy in creating its blacklist.

Senator Conroy may give assurances that the government will not be pursuing Internet account holders who appear to breach the ISP-level filter (if such a scheme is implemented), but there is no assurance that the client information which would have to be held by these ISPs will not be abused in the future.

Did you know Australia has a National Continence Management Strategy?

Did you know Australia has a National Continence Management Strategy?
I didn't.
It seems we even have a strategy website - The National Public Toilet Map.
In my younger days families often motored around the state on the basis of Golden Fleece petrol stations, but now they can follow the dunnies.
Bet you can't get those kids passports with visa stamps for each one visited though!
And for once New South Wales leads at something besides bad government.

Show toilets in:
Aust. Capital Territory (187)
New South Wales (4538)
Northern Territory (207)
Queensland (2992)
South Australia (1296)
Tasmania (718)
Victoria (3655)
Western Australia (1777)

Pic from Google Images

Sack this senator! Censorship protest digital billboard

If only..................................

Walking on the wildside: GMO transgenes found in wild maize

Evidence of the irresponsible nature of the biotechnology industry in general and Monsanto in particular.

Molecular Ecology:

A possible consequence of planting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in centres of crop origin is unintended gene flow into traditional landraces.

In 2001, a study reported the presence of the transgenic 35S promoter in maize landraces sampled in 2000 from the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca, Mexico.

Analysis of a large sample taken from the same region in 2003 and 2004 could not confirm the existence of transgenes, thereby casting doubt on the earlier results.

These two studies were based on different sampling and analytical procedures and are thus hard to compare. Here, we present new molecular data for this region that confirm the presence of transgenes in three of 23 localities sampled in 2001.

Transgene sequences were not detected in samples taken in 2002 from nine localities, while directed samples taken in 2004 from two of the positive 2001 localities were again found to contain transgenic sequences.

These findings suggest the persistence or re-introduction of transgenes up until 2004 in this area.

We address variability in recombinant sequence detection by analyzing the consistency of current molecular assays.

We also present theoretical results on the limitations of estimating the probability of transgene detection in samples taken from landraces.

The inclusion of a limited number of female gametes and, more importantly, aggregated transgene distributions may significantly lower detection probabilities.

Our analytical and sampling considerations help explain discrepancies among different detection efforts, including the one presented here, and provide considerations for the establishment of monitoring protocols to detect the presence of transgenes among structured populations of landraces.

This is not the first time transgenes have been found in the wild as GMO seed dispersal also leads to engineered seed establishing itself amid original species and cross-pollinating, as appears to be the case in relation to certain grasses.

Thanks to Balneus for pointing me in the direction of this information.

* This post is part of North Coast Voices' effort to keep Monsanto's blog monitor (affectionately known as Mr. Monsanto) in long-term employment.

Sometimes the Internet is so.....

Here I was paddling about the pond thinking that I was looking as handsome as any other duck.
Then I entered Wealth benchmarks International and found that my plumage ranking was in the bottom 3% of all Aussie ducks.
Now I don't know whether to be depressed at the sad state of my feathers or glad that so few people share my fate.
Perhaps I should give Joe Hockey a ring........

Australian National Day of Mourning, 22 February 2009

Marysville, Victoria, before the February 2009 bushfires razed the town

“February 7 will become etched in our national memory as a day of disaster, of death and of mourning and it is very important that the nation grieves,”
“The National Day of Mourning will allow us all an opportunity to honour those who lost their lives in the fires, support those who have suffered and recognise the work of our emergency services.
"This day will give all Australians the chance to reflect and remember this terrible tragedy, as an important step in rebuilding these communities." [Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia]

Memorial Service details

Are anti-terrorism laws beginning to quietly unravel?

Perhaps countries like Australia, who post-9/11 rushed headlong into drafting draconian anti-terrorism legislation, will now think again about the troublesome law created and the impact this has on the health of individuals, well being of families and justice within society.

The European Commission of Human Rights issued this media release last Thursday concerning the application of 11 individuals (six of Algerian nationality; four respectively, of French, Jordanian, Moroccan and Tunisian nationality; and, one, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, being stateless).

Although compensation mentioned is relatively small, it represents another step in addressing the issue of bad law.

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment¹ in the case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 3455/05).

The case concerned the applicants' complaints that they were detained in high security conditions under a statutory scheme which permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals certified by the Secretary of State as suspected of involvement in terrorism.

The Court held unanimously that there had been:

· no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan applicant whose complaints under these articles were declared inadmissible;

· a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan and French applicants who had elected to leave the United Kingdom, since it could not be said that the applicants were detained with a view to deportation and since, as the House of Lords had found, the derogating measures which permitted their indefinite detention on suspicion of terrorism discriminated unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals;

· a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court) in respect of two of the Algerian applicants, the stateless and Tunisian applicants, because they had not been able effectively to challenge the allegations against them; and,

· a violation of Article 5 § 5 in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan and French applicants, on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the above violations.

The Court made awards under Article 41 (just satisfaction) which were substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention, in view of the fact that the detention scheme was devised in the face of a public emergency and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the United Kingdom public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment. The Court therefore awarded, to the six Algerian applicants 3,400 euros (EUR), EUR 3,900, EUR 3,800, EUR 3,400, EUR 2,500 and EUR 1,700, respectively; to the stateless and Tunisian applicants EUR 3,900, each; and to the Jordanian applicant, EUR 2,800. The applicants were jointly awarded EUR 60,000 for legal costs. (The judgment is available in English and French.)

Full copy of summary here.