A Christmas Message From Theresa May

Justice is it? Odd choice of word that, Home Secretary, particularly for someone who has overseen a £15,000,000 denial of justice for Madeleine McCann.

The Mail

MONDAY, MONDAY Bumped

MONDAY, MONDAY Bumped

Update: Though we are not quite at the threshold where Blogger takes exception to the number of comments on any one thread, seemingly around the two hundred mark, I think it prudent to re-up the post and carry on afresh here. Thank You.

The Mamas and the Papas had plenty to say on the subject. The McCanns, on the other hand, had nothing to say on the subject, either when asked by police in 2007 or since (in Kate McCann’s ‘Account of the Truth’).

And now it appears they are silent once more – deaf to the question of why a computer file generated by CEOP and archived against a date of 30 April 2007 should have appealed for help in finding Madeleine McCann, who was not due to go missing until 3 May! The man who genuinely should know the answer, former CEOP supremo Jim Gamble, has also ‘assumed the foetal position’.

One cannot help but wonder whether Robert Murat booked his urgent early morning flight to Praia da Luz having read the CEOP announcement the night before. Or whether Kate really did take her famous ‘tennis photo’ on the morning of Tuesday 1 May, when Murat was heading home to Portugal.

You see, if Madeleine’s disappearance was known about on the Monday, it would have been when the child was still perfectly well and able to scamper around a tennis court the following morning. Should she then have been extricated from the family’s holiday apartment on account of some incapacity, this might suggest that CEOP also knew about that incapacity in advance.

You can hear the chorus from wherever you sit: “Oh no they didn’t! Kate McCann was confused. The ‘photo was already available to CEOP’s ‘mccann.html’ file (at 11.58.03)! The link was only broken temporarily - until the McCanns managed to communicate the image!” That very day - Monday 30 April; the morning when Madeleine’s group of infant crèche captives actually had an hour’s mini-tennis planned for 10 .00 a.m.

A ‘pic’ prepared within the hour then. Unless of course it was taken on the Sunday evening, following that impromptu social tennis session for newly-arrived adult guests (another truth accounted for by Kate McCann in her book). It does seem rather strange that a moment in time captured immediately following a group tennis session, be it a group of adults or a group of children, should show not a semblance of any one’s presence save that of the subject and her photographer.

And what of those CEOP internet ‘home pages’ that appear suddenly to have gone ‘tits up’ in October 2007? You know, the 10 October edition that cites the latest news to the 8th of the month and the 13 October edition that forgets all about it, but instead seeks to rival Reuters with a reference to what happened no later than the 2nd. Surely that and other strange perturbations can have nothing to do with the McCanns’ return to the UK, having been declared arguidos on 7 September, nor Jim Gamble’s protestations of their innocence a month to the day thereafter, and which were quoted in the Daily Mirror of the same date (7 October):

"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."

No, of course not. Pure coincidence, nothing more.

The current ‘hot topic’ though is that ‘30 April 2007’ archival date attributed by the Wayback Machine to certain CEOP internet files; files that make explicit reference to Madeleine McCann, the little girl who was not destined to leave the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, until 3 May.

Whilst interpretation of the information they contain, both visually and in terms of their source code, suggests very strongly that the incriminating date (30 April) is in fact correct, there is a rump of detractors who remain adamant that neither of the two files, which feature heavily in the dispute, was composed, ‘crawled’ (archived), or whatever on 30 April, but that they were legitimately configured on some indeterminate later date and simply ‘misfiled’ by the Wayback Machine, which dropped a stitch somewhere along the line. As a staunch proponent of the WBM’s inadequacies has put it quite recently:

“The same process that archived with an erroneous date will have updated the index with the same erroneous date.”

Note the involvement of a single process, an (as in one) erroneous date, and the inclusion of the latter within the (solitary) index.

Since the keepers of the Wayback Machine have been alerted to these specific shortcomings, they are no doubt busily preparing an announcement to the effect that, having identified the process in question and corrected the system error responsible for appending that one false date (in nearly twenty years of operation) they have ‘fixed the problem’, and we can all now go back to work.

Unfortunately no.

The whole being the sum of its parts in this matter, archive.org will have to do rather better than that. Considerably better in fact. They will have to examine the architecture of their entire system if they are to convince anyone other than themselves that the ‘error’ which has been brought to their attention is confined to the archiving of but two files in 485 billion, since there is now further evidence that it just might have been a tad more widespread. Either that or CEOP have even more explaining to do.

The Wayback Machine is something of a technological wonder of the modern world. Its database is unimaginably large and its retrieval systems concomitantly complex. Nevertheless, at the touch of a button almost, it is possible to establish just how many files associated with a specific URL it has actually recorded over time, even those files set up and administered by CEOP – all 8779 of them according to recent estimates (see following):

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

If one takes the trouble to review this inventory, it very quickly retraces events back to….30 April 2007. And what should we find listed among all those separately identified files with their unique URL terminations? Why, two image files labelled ‘madeleine’, recognizable as ’madeleine_01.jpg’ and ‘madeleine_02.jpg’:

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

There can be no question that the ‘madeleine’ referred to here is Madeleine McCann, as these terminators are exactly those employed within the structure of the CEOP home page as visible (and archived) on 13 May 2007, a construct which, incidentally, features several references to ‘mccann.html’, another data structure that according to WBM detractors was not created until later that year. (Why on earth would anyone program a computer to access a non-existent file? I ask myself):

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

To judge from the foregoing, either The Wayback Machine could be off-line for a considerable period, while their ‘techies’ rebuild almost their entire indexing and retrieval systems, or J. Gamble Esq. had better come up with some convincing explanation as to what CEOP would have been doing with photographs of Madeleine McCann barely two days into the McCann family’s fatal 2007 vacation.

Martin Roberts

Monday Monday by Dr Martin Roberts

Update: I have re-upped this post here: MONDAY MONDAY Bumped Please address your comments at the new post please.

MONDAY, MONDAY

The Mamas and the Papas had plenty to say on the subject. The McCanns, on the other hand, had nothing to say on the subject, either when asked by police in 2007 or since (in Kate McCann’s ‘Account of the Truth’).

And now it appears they are silent once more – deaf to the question of why a computer file generated by CEOP and archived against a date of 30 April 2007 should have appealed for help in finding Madeleine McCann, who was not due to go missing until 3 May! The man who genuinely should know the answer, former CEOP supremo Jim Gamble, has also ‘assumed the foetal position’.

One cannot help but wonder whether Robert Murat booked his urgent early morning flight to Praia da Luz having read the CEOP announcement the night before. Or whether Kate really did take her famous ‘tennis photo’ on the morning of Tuesday 1 May, when Murat was heading home to Portugal.

You see, if Madeleine’s disappearance was known about on the Monday, it would have been when the child was still perfectly well and able to scamper around a tennis court the following morning. Should she then have been extricated from the family’s holiday apartment on account of some incapacity, this might suggest that CEOP also knew about that incapacity in advance.

You can hear the chorus from wherever you sit: “Oh no they didn’t! Kate McCann was confused. The ‘photo was already available to CEOP’s ‘mccann.html’ file (at 11.58.03)! The link was only broken temporarily - until the McCanns managed to communicate the image!” That very day - Monday 30 April; the morning when Madeleine’s group of infant crèche captives actually had an hour’s mini-tennis planned for 10 .00 a.m.

A ‘pic’ prepared within the hour then. Unless of course it was taken on the Sunday evening, following that impromptu social tennis session for newly-arrived adult guests (another truth accounted for by Kate McCann in her book). It does seem rather strange that a moment in time captured immediately following a group tennis session, be it a group of adults or a group of children, should show not a semblance of any one’s presence save that of the subject and her photographer.

And what of those CEOP internet ‘home pages’ that appear suddenly to have gone ‘tits up’ in October 2007? You know, the 10 October edition that cites the latest news to the 8th of the month and the 13 October edition that forgets all about it, but instead seeks to rival Reuters with a reference to what happened no later than the 2nd. Surely that and other strange perturbations can have nothing to do with the McCanns’ return to the UK, having been declared arguidos on 7 September, nor Jim Gamble’s protestations of their innocence a month to the day thereafter, and which were quoted in the Daily Mirror of the same date (7 October):

"We absolutely support the McCann family, they are to be applauded for their tireless work to keep the campaign to find their daughter in the public consciousness."

No, of course not. Pure coincidence, nothing more.

The current ‘hot topic’ though is that ‘30 April 2007’ archival date attributed by the Wayback Machine to certain CEOP internet files; files that make explicit reference to Madeleine McCann, the little girl who was not destined to leave the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, until 3 May.

Whilst interpretation of the information they contain, both visually and in terms of their source code, suggests very strongly that the incriminating date (30 April) is in fact correct, there is a rump of detractors who remain adamant that neither of the two files, which feature heavily in the dispute, was composed, ‘crawled’ (archived), or whatever on 30 April, but that they were legitimately configured on some indeterminate later date and simply ‘misfiled’ by the Wayback Machine, which dropped a stitch somewhere along the line. As a staunch proponent of the WBM’s inadequacies has put it quite recently:

“The same process that archived with an erroneous date will have updated the index with the same erroneous date.”

Note the involvement of a single process, an (as in one) erroneous date, and the inclusion of the latter within the (solitary) index.

Since the keepers of the Wayback Machine have been alerted to these specific shortcomings, they are no doubt busily preparing an announcement to the effect that, having identified the process in question and corrected the system error responsible for appending that one false date (in nearly twenty years of operation) they have ‘fixed the problem’, and we can all now go back to work.

Unfortunately no.

The whole being the sum of its parts in this matter, archive.org will have to do rather better than that. Considerably better in fact. They will have to examine the architecture of their entire system if they are to convince anyone other than themselves that the ‘error’ which has been brought to their attention is confined to the archiving of but two files in 485 billion, since there is now further evidence that it just might have been a tad more widespread. Either that or CEOP have even more explaining to do.

The Wayback Machine is something of a technological wonder of the modern world. Its database is unimaginably large and its retrieval systems concomitantly complex. Nevertheless, at the touch of a button almost, it is possible to establish just how many files associated with a specific URL it has actually recorded over time, even those files set up and administered by CEOP – all 8779 of them according to recent estimates (see following):

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

If one takes the trouble to review this inventory, it very quickly retraces events back to….30 April 2007. And what should we find listed among all those separately identified files with their unique URL terminations? Why, two image files labelled ‘madeleine’, recognizable as ’madeleine_01.jpg’ and ‘madeleine_02.jpg’:

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

There can be no question that the ‘madeleine’ referred to here is Madeleine McCann, as these terminators are exactly those employed within the structure of the CEOP home page as visible (and archived) on 13 May 2007, a construct which, incidentally, features several references to ‘mccann.html’, another data structure that according to WBM detractors was not created until later that year. (Why on earth would anyone program a computer to access a non-existent file? I ask myself):

For larger image, right click open in new tab.

To judge from the foregoing, either The Wayback Machine could be off-line for a considerable period, while their ‘techies’ rebuild almost their entire indexing and retrieval systems, or J. Gamble Esq. had better come up with some convincing explanation as to what CEOP would have been doing with photographs of Madeleine McCann barely two days into the McCann family’s fatal 2007 vacation.

Martin Roberts

Update: Comments for this post have been moved to here. Please address your comments there and not here. Thank you.

A Tale of Two Files by Dr Martin Roberts A CEOP Mystery

I'm far from qualified to opine over this latest can of worms for reasons simple. One, I have not been following the debate over this issue. Two, internet technology is not my forte.

All I can say, if it comes down to matters of trust, does one put one's trust in man or machine?

I cannot speak for machines, but I think I might offer an opinion about the man, in this instance, that man  being Jim Gamble, late of the CEOP.

Of course you can trust Jim Gamble, he's a career policeman of twenty five years plus experience.

A TALE OF TWO FILES

The furore over Steve Marsden’s apparent discovery of inappropriate computer files having been generated by CEOP in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, revolves around two entities that were archived, according to the San Francisco-based Wayback Machine, on 30 April, 2007, several days before Madeleine was reported missing – an impossibility according to some, just as it appears impossible for a file recorded on 30 April to include specific references to events the following October, under the heading: ‘Latest News’.

On the basis of these paradoxes a number of scrutineers have concluded that the Wayback Machine was at fault and subject to computer error – a ‘glitch’ as is commonly referred to by those who use computers without actually understanding how they work.

Whilst Marsden pointed up the potentially explosive significance of a premature CEOP-generated internet file with a URL that included the name ‘mccann’, it was another, more expansive document that revealed a chronological inconsistency. Although both were archived on the same date, distrust of the one promoted dismissal of the other and, with the WBM backroom staff now busily ‘tinkering’ with their own records, it would appear that what might have been a smoking gun has had its cordite fumes wafted away. Or has it?

The ‘computer done it’ school of thought would have it that some as-yet-unidentified species of error occurred in late October 2007 (on a date following those futuristic ‘Latest News’ references) which led to the CEOP home-page for that period being erroneously recorded as an archival on April 30 – a leap backward in time of six months. The smaller, yet infinitely more significant, ‘mccann’ file was deemed, by extrapolation, to have suffered the same fate.

There has since been intense scrutiny of/debate surrounding/speculation over the very coding of the files in question, in an attempt to discover what exactly happened to them, and whether Marsden’s first impressions were justified, or not, as the case may be. Equations abound, the academic fur has been flying, whilst staff at Wayback headquarters, after giving a handful of contradictory answers to initial questions, have remained resolutely silent on the matter. As has Jim Gamble, Head of CEOP at the time the puzzling files were created. Perhaps the Marketeer’s dictum (‘KISS’ - ‘Keep it simple, stupid!’) should be brought to bear.

Let us suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that the Wayback Machine did indeed suffer some calamity, of whatever origin, during late October 2007. The first question to ask is whether there has been any evidence brought forth of said disruption’s having affected all the internet files the Wayback Machine has ‘crawled’ in the eight years since (*/*) – a catastrophe almost beyond measure if so.

Answer: ‘You cannot be serious!’

So then we should re-iterate the question, but progressively narrowing the field each time, until we are left, more simply, with ‘all CEOP files ’ (ceop.gov.uk/*).

Looking For Madeleine Amazon reviewes by "Vten"

This is already the test case, since the two files which have given rise to the debate are each CEOP files, and no mistake. One, it is claimed, has been affected, the other simply tarred with the same brush. However, since the files in question are functionally independent of each other we are entitled to examine them independently.

According to the Wayback Machine, on 30 April 2007 the file ‘mccann/html’ featured a single photographic portrait of young Madeleine McCann, together with a provisional link to a second picture. If, however, we consider what that second picture eventually turned out to be, we discover it is a ‘head and shoulders’ view cropped from the now well-known ‘tennis photo’, which Kate McCann claims in her book to have taken on Tuesday 1 May. However smart a computer may appear, it cannot refer for information to an event that has yet to take place.

At a stroke it becomes obvious that the 30 April version of the internet page in question (‘mccann.html’) must have been incomplete. In point of fact, no ‘screen shot’ of this file’s 30 April output has succeeded in revealing more than one photograph, plus a ‘broken link’ icon in respect of the other. Subsequent archivals by the WBM (on 13 May, for instance) include both pictures, which are reproduced without demur.

Had this file been ‘crawled’ in October and wrongly assigned as an April 30 record, then what until recently appeared to the viewer to be the earliest known instance of the file ‘mccann.html’, should have incorporated two photographs. It did not. In reality this file probably did not even exist beyond August 2007 and is highly unlikely to have featured in any October review by the WBM.

Even if one were to trace the history of the ‘two-picture page’ backward in time, with a view to offering up the fatuous argument that the WBM found a ‘broken link’ example only slightly earlier than 13 May and proceeded to drop that into its 30 April folder instead, that contention is still untenable, since the ‘crawls’ conducted by the WBM in this instance were two weeks apart (30 April – 13 May). As far as ‘computer glitch’ proponents are concerned, 13 May should have marked the file’s very first appearance among the WBM’s records, given that CEOP did not join the party until officially invited to do so on 7 May.

Instead we are brought back to the ‘Marsden scenario’ that first set alarm bells ringing. Until such time as its ‘minders’ completely re-work their indexing in this regard (and they will) the WBM self-evidently contained a record of CEOP file ‘mccann.html’ archived on 30 April, 2007 – four days before Madeleine McCann was reported missing. Even if we dismiss its contents, the very existence of such an entity is potentially incriminating.

But…but…but…how do we explain the contradictions inherent in that other file – the CEOP home-page with its Latest News from October? How did that come to be identified with April?

Answer: By accident or design. It matters not a jot, since we have already adduced evidence to establish that not all CEOP files were affected by whatever caused their home-page to experience a premonition. Whatever befell that page structure, it was an event unique to that document and basically irrelevant to the focal issue, which requires resolution.

Instead of bombarding the keepers of the Wayback Machine with questions concerning a problem they have never experienced, we should be asking Jim Gamble to explain how and why CEOP came to be preparing a ‘find me’ campaign for a girl who had yet to go missing.

Martin Roberts

On Web Anonymity

In light of recent tragic events, those that involved the trolling of Brenda Leyland for numerous years (yes numerous) by the cult of McCann followers, prompts me to up part of a previous post on the subject of net anonymity.

I include in those trolls, former head of the CEOP and McCann shill extraordinaire, Jim Gamble. Whose role in the sordid yet tragic affair, is far from that of innocent bystander.

I could include others, those sad little people and inadequates, who think knowledge of someone's private details, and the constant quest to obtain such must be said, brings to their sad little lives, some feeling of importance. Well it doesn't, all it does is endorse the conclusion that folks have already arrived at; that you are pathetic. And to such a degree, as to render you peerless.


To the article then, featuring non other than, Tony Bennett, but more importantly, his best mucker, Peter Mac.

Cut for editing.

. . . But what did strike me about this monumental tribute to one man's mania was, controversy, controversy on a scale unimaginable, and to such a degree that one might suspect that it too was desired in its own right by this strange creature. Or am I overlooking the obvious, the controversy being just another fuel to add to the lime, producing a light of such incandescent brilliance as could only be welcomed by an attention whore of Bennett's proportions.

Struck similarly throughout these many noble causes, were a penultimate culmination of words that invariably involved a phrase such: send cheque for £s to.... and it is here we come to the essence of my little story, the reason it is being writ in the first place.

Inferring that writing behind a pseudonym and not publishing my address, somehow makes me less a writer, somehow cowardly, and that I take sensible precautions against nutjobs, and God alone knows how many of those this case attracts, showing up on my doorstep, somehow less of a man, and this by two posters both using pseudonyms by the way. Two posters on Bennett's Forum, the one Jill Havern started, but now where Bennett holds court in his personal fiefdom. Those two comments elicited a third, here it is below.

PeterMac Jan 10, 2011

Hear , hear. I support you absolutely.
Mr Bennett is possibly the only one of all the people who blog on pro-McCann or pro-Truth sites who gives his full name, address, telephone number, and email.
For that alone he stands head and shoulders above us all. (Does he really you dense fuck?)
(for the record I am Peter MacLeod, a retired Police Superintendent from Nottinghamshire, and I live in Spain at Finca la Guzmana, which you can find on the internet)

Once a thick copper, always a thick copper I guess. yes Peter Mac, Mr Bennett is the only one who gives his full name, address, telephone number, and email. and that's just the point.

Never have I seen a person's personal details given out so freely in so many places, the net is littered with this idiots little labels of self promotion, and that is exactly what they are.

I will defy anybody to search the web and find me another private individual who self promotes himself and his home address like this oddity does. Any person you like on the whole wide web, see if you can find me one.

Five comments from the original article, and as germane as any part of this post, if not more so in fact.
You might pay  particular attention to my own last comment, because that is what net anonymity is all about. Heaven forbid, that such a thing as I describe should come pass, although entirely in the realm of the possible. But it is the far simpler thing that any of us might mention in real time via social media, that then becomes a problem. I/you want to be able to say, I'm out for the day, without every scally within a hundred miles knowing my/your house is empty.


The first from the much treasured and never forgotten Linda Baki. Whose input to this travesty, without even considering the state of her health, can only be described as, mighty.

SteelMagnolia 21 February 2011 at 09:43

Posting names and addresses on the Internet is a very dangerous game for everyone. No one knows who reads these blogs, who is monitoring and what is really behind the McCann scam, for the McCanns are con artists, tricksters and allowed to continue in such mode.

It appears the PR has started and the move is onto the States where I feel a look alike of the photofit shall appear.

As we all know today's friend, is tomorrows enemy and that enemy who now has your details will more than not post them on the Internet.

Trust and friendship, hard to find in the real world, more so in cybersphere. ONLY a fool gives out private details, do we not tell our children this ?

Anonymous 21 February 2011 at 09:48

You would think a retired officer of the law would have more sense than to tell you the name of his Finca. As for Bennett, well Bennett's Bennett!! Hated and despised it would appear but it does not seem to bother him in fact I believe he enjoys the attention.

Bennett loves an audience and one day when he falls out with Jill, which is sure to happen the faithful followers will leave her high and dry.

Anonymous 21 February 2011 at 14:48

They are a load of twonks, why do you waste your talent when you are worthy of so much more? You are a writer something to be proud of.

Himself 21 February 2011 at 15:14

Because I take incredible exception to having the piss taken by a young earth creationist.

I cannot think of any analogy that comes anywhere near close to describing the scale of such an insult.

Himself 21 February 2011 at 21:03

What I cannot help but wonder in all this, is what his missus thinks of it all. Firstly that he goes orf gallivanting around the country tilting at windmills, and secondly, being left, presumably on her own, when all the while, half the world knows his address and phone number.

What's the usual MO, Mister shitferbrains, Peter MacLeod, retired Police Superintendent, for house invasion/robbery/rape/murder knowing a woman might be alone in the house, is it something like: ring ring Hello, is Tony there?

For that alone he stands head and shoulders above us all.

Now that wouldn't be too hard of a thing to do would it?

I could say you're about as much a retired Police Superintendent as I am, but that would be far too forgiving, better in fact, that I say you probably are.

The Disgusting Rivalries of Webcam Extortionists

This is a bizarre story, it's certainly an eye opener.

The Disgusting Rivalries of Webcam Extortionists: Kody Maxson, Viper, and r0

By Patrick McGuire

In my writing this week about the sexual extortion of Amanda Todd by an online blackmailer, I connected a man named by the New Jersey sect of Anonymous (which, by the way, suddenly appeared on the internet in the wake of Amanda’s suicide) to a horrifyingly wretched group of mentally ill pedophiles that convince young girls to strip on webcam, and then record it. Then they use this footage to blackmail the girls into providing them—and a large audience of pedophiles who follow the blackmailers’ conquests—with further strip shows, which they continue to record. While the mainstream media has failed to catch up to this story with the level of detail and attention it so desperately deserves, they have been very eager to follow Kody Maxson out of his court appearances for “unrelated... charges of sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor” and discuss the Anonymous leaks that blame Kody and a man who goes by the screen name “Viper” for Amanda’s suicide.

After further investigation into this emotionally exhausting and highly disturbing world of online blackmailers, I have found that this community not only follows and shares the screen captured images and videos of these girls, but monitors internal rivalries among the blackmailers. This competition has led me to question whether or not Kody is the sole perpetrator in Amanda’s blackmail, and has made me realize the size and depth of this horrible online culture.

The article I published on Wednesday reported that Kody Maxson (who is known online as Kody1206) blackmailed an underage girl named Peyton, as detailed in a video from a series called the Daily Capper. If you haven’t read that article, the Daily Capper is basically an online newscast for the pedophile world, hosted by a news anchor developed using footage from the kids’ show Crashbox, speaking with a dubbed-over computerized voice. Amanda Todd, who was known to this community for singing on webcam, appears in a Daily Capper video published on December 19, 2010.

In a video from October 31, 2010, the anchor reports: “Peyton claims that she is free of her blackmailer’s clutches. She went on BlogTV earlier this week and shared her story with the world about how Kody blackmailed her.” Peyton told her side of the story in a video the Daily Capper ran, which was recorded off of BlogTV: “A month ago, he recorded me for the first time and then I was stupid enough to keep doing it because he said he was never going to do it again... and he didn’t want to ruin our relationship.” It is this deception of an underage girl that won Kody the “Blackmailer of the Year” award from the Daily Capper. In that video, Peyton describes Kody’s actions over a chilling, electronic musical score that was added in for effect by the Daily Capper: “Now I know that everyone that told me that he was like, a sick pedo that records girls, were right. If he threatens me I can just threaten him right back.

” Kody Maxson has told the mainstream media that someone with the username Viper, who New Jersey Anonymous is also after, is to blame for Amanda Todd’s blackmailing. In a Daily Capper video from December 5, 2010, the newscaster discusses the relationship between Kody and Viper: “Many have been saying that Viper has always been a role model for Peyton’s blackmailer, Kody1206. It seems Kody was also working to win ‘Blackmailer of the Year’ by screening caps of Peyton on BlogTV.” Evidently, Kody and Viper were very much aware of each other, as they traveled online in the same pedophiliac circles, and if this video is correct, Kody saw himself as Viper’s apprentice.

In an email I received yesterday, an anonymous reader showed me a profile that Kody Maxson had registered for what appears to be a site that enables Halo players to join up in teams and compete against each other. If you look at his profile right now, you can see that his username on the site is Kody. The official administrative posts from the site are credited to a “Kody” as well, which suggests that he may have been running this gaming site. more

ACTA est Mort Oui!

ACTA Is DEAD After European Parliament Vote
Rick Falkvinge
July 4, 2012

Today at 12:56 CET, the European Parliament decided whether ACTA would be ultimately rejected or whether it would drag on into uncertainty. In a 478 to 39 vote, the Parliament decided to reject ACTA once and for all. This means that the deceptive treaty is now dead globally.

This is a day of celebration.

This is the day when citizens of Europe and the world won over unelected bureaucrats who were being wooed and lobbied by the richest corporations of the planet.

The battleground wasn’t some administrative office, but the representatives of the people – the European Parliament – which decided in the end to do its job beautifully, and represent the people against special interests.

The road to today’s victory was hard and by no means certain.


What lead us here?

Six months ago, the situation looked very dark. It was all but certain that ACTA would pass unnoticed in silence. The forces fighting for citizens’ rights tried to have it referred to the European Court of Justice in order to test its legality and to buy some time. But then, something happened.

A monster by the name of SOPA appeared in the United States. Thousands of websites went dark on January 18 and millions of voices cried out, leaving Congress shell-shocked over the fact that citizens can get that level of pissed off at corporate special interests. SOPA was killed.

actaIn the wake of this, as citizens realized that they don’t need to take that kind of corporate abuse lying down and asking for more, the community floodlights centered on ACTA.

The activism carried over beautifully to defeat this monster. Early February, there were rallies all over Europe, leaving the European Parliament equally shell-shocked.

The party groups turned on a cent and declared their opposition to ACTA in solidarity with the citizen rallies all over the continent, after having realized what a piece of shameless mail-order legislation it really was, to the horrors of the corporate shills who thought this was a done deal. Those shills tried, tried hard, tried right up until today, to postpone the vote on ACTA past the attention of the public and the activists.

Alas, they don’t understand the net. And there’s one key thing right there: the net doesn’t forget.

But the key takeaway here is that it was us, the activists, that made this happen. Everyone in the European Parliament are taking turns to praise all the activists across Europe and the world for drawing their attention to what utter garbage this really was, not some run-of-the-mill rubberstamp paper, but actually a really dangerous piece of proposed legislation. Everybody thanks the activists for that. Yes, that’s you. You should lean back, smile, and pat yourself on the back here. Each and every one of us has every reason to feel proud today.

What comes next? . . . more

Update: European Parliament Rejection Puts ACTA Future In Doubt

Netherlands First Country in Europe with Net Neutrality

Netherlands first country in Europe with net neutrality
8 may 2012
Door Ot van Daalen


On 8 May 2012 The Netherlands adopted crucial legislation to safeguard an open and secure internet in The Netherlands. It is the first country in Europe to implement net neutrality in the law. In addition, it adopted provisions protecting users against disconnection and wiretapping by providers. Digital rights movement Bits of Freedom calls upon other countries to follow the Dutch example.

The net neutrality law prohibits internet providers from interfering with the traffic of their users. The law allows for traffic management in case of congestion and for network security, as long as these measures serve the interests of the internet user. A technical error in the law might still be corrected in a vote on 15 May.

In addition, the law includes an anti-wiretapping provision, restricting internetproviders from using invasive wiretapping technologies, such as deep packet inspection (DPI). They may only do so under limited circumstances, or with explicit consent of the user, which the user may withdraw at any time. The use of DPI gained much attention when KPN admitted that it analysed the traffic of its users to gather information on the use of certain apps. The law allows for wiretapping with a warrant.

Moreover, the law includes a provision ensuring that internet providers can only disconnect their users in a very limited set of circumstances. Internet access is very important for functioning in an information society, and providers currently could on the basis of their terms and conditions disconnect their users for numerous reasons. The provision allows for the disconnection in the case of fraud or when a user doesn’t pay his bills.

Bits of Freedom, the Dutch digital rights movement which campaigned for these provisions, applauds the new law. It considers this a historical moment for internet freedom in The Netherlands and calls on other countries to follow the Dutch example.

The provisions are part of the implementation of the European telecommunications rules. A translation of the provisions can be found here, but it does not include the technical error in the law which might be corrected on the 15th. bof.nl

I Love XP: Support To End April 2014

My love for XP in fact, very recently earning me the title, Luddite. (and probably a grumble or two) What care I? Not over the grumbling of my geek that is, but rather the label he hung on me.

Being the splendid fellow that he is, and working for the very reasonable rate of free gratis, I was delivered of a new, equally splendid, PC quite recently. Needless to say, with it being a new build, replete with all the latest bells, whistles, gee gaws, and of course, Windows 7.

Now I don't think you have to be a soothsayer to imagine what comes next, the header giving some indication I'm sure.

Err, err, Geek, I don't like it, in fact, to be perfectly honest, I think it's a bollocks. Likening Windows 7 to some, not all of course, but to some modern day cars that have been designed for designs' sake and failing quite spectacularly in certain cases.

Granted, I'm more than familiar with XP, but it is good, and it's good because it's simple; well within the capabilities of us troglodytes. Whereas I can only liken Seven, on the user friendly scale, to a Phillips VCR.

So bless his little cotton socks, out came Seven, and back in went my familiar friend, the very user friendly, Windows XP.

And if like me, you love your XP, and you think you will carry on regardless after 2014, well you won't by all accounts, because the bastards in this world will attack it once the patches stop coming.

And by then (2014) XP may even be old enough to be have acquired a little retro chic. That won't protect the last few million users from the all-but-inevitable attacks criminals will unleash against the OS once the flow of patches ceases.

Still, there's a lot can happen in two years, let's worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

Windows XP support ends two years from now

Shutters to come down on April 8, 2014
By Simon Sharwood
7th April 2012

Support for Windows XP will end two years from today, on April 8th, 2014*.

Plenty bought it and plenty still run it: Gartner's July 2011 assessment of the global OS population suggested "Windows XP Home and Follow-Ons" had 68 million users, while XP Professional ran on 144 million machines.

A more recent Gartner study, the March 2012 Client OS and Office Survey reported 79% of business desktops and 45% of notebooks ran XP, based on responses from a 147-strong, self-selecting, group at its October 2011 US Symposium event. While the analyst firm notes that's not the most scientific of samples, the respondents represented organisations with a combined three million PCs in service.

Gartner's message to to those users is clear: flee migrate away from the OS ASAP, or as soon as is convenient before the end of its supported life on the date we note above.
Why is XP still with us?

The need for that warning, eleven years after XP's launch, seems odd. The specs of XP's launch version didn't hint at longevity. Processors with clock speeds of 233Mhz were supported, but you really needed 300Mhz to make XP sing. Disk drives greater than 137GB were frowned upon. USB 2.0 support only arrived with Service Pack 1 a year after launch.

Microsoft was nonetheless chuffed by XP’s slick new look and stability and felt sure the product would succeed. Your correspondent worked for a PR agency engaged by Microsoft Australia at the time of the launch, and one Redmondian colonist even suggested it would be a good idea to post a copy to every CIO in the land. The logic behind that idea was that XP's stability would prove that Microsoft's enterprise products were ready for the data centre and serious transactional applications.

That assertion seemed logical because XP was the first mainstream desktop OS Microsoft built on the Windows NT kernel**, which had rather more elegant plumbing than the Windows 9x family. But while XP was very usable it was a security mess, thanks in no small part to the decidedly leaky Internet Explorer 6.

XP nonetheless generated enormous sales and claimed colossal market share, although its tablet version was not a success.

Yet when Windows Vista came along with its unpleasant interface, XP’s modest virtues were thrown into flattering relief as users realised an upgrade to the latest version of Windows brought with it almost no tangible benefits. Netbooks then kept the OS relevant, as Microsoft realised the small machines’ underwhelming hardware would struggle to Vista.

XP, by then juiced up with a third service pack, therefore remained an option for new PCs into a tenth year.
Let the upgrade frenzy begin

Gartner believes 4% of PCs will still run XP beyond the end of its supported life, but plenty of migrations are afoot.

That's the case at Melbourne University, which has bitten the bullet and started to upgrade its desktops to Windows 7 after skipping Vista. The end of support is one motivator for the move.

But XP will live on in other places because apps written for or with it have become legacy software that users simply need to keep. A senior software engineer in a defence-oriented company, who cannot be identified for various reasons, told us that “our embedded systems use Serial-Link IP (SLIP) for remote comms and Windows 7 removed native support for SLIP, so we have a problem integration-testing our software on real hardware.”

“Things like unit tests rely on the old development environment,” he added. “So the most expedient way to do this is fire-up one of the old development PCs. We do plan to migrate the legacy code base to the new development environment (No more XP), but it's a low priority due to the rarity of occurrence.”

The OS will also continue to pop up in the virtual XP emulation mode available in the growing global fleet of Windows 7 machines. Yet support for XP will even disappear when used in that mode, leading Gartner to recommend that it “should be used sparingly and only for a limited time.”

“Relying too heavily on this method for application compatibility will add cost and management complexity, degrade performance, and delay the inevitable remediation of applications,” the firm warns in a document titled XP on Windows 7: Temporary Relief for Migration Headaches, but No Cure.

Even the virtual method keeping XP alive will vanish once Windows 8 appears in late 2012. While the new Windows will largely be Windows 7 beneath its Metro-fied skin, it appears XP mode will be omitted.

But XP won’t disappear entirely. It’s almost certainly fair to say that the XP-powered netbook acquired by your correspondent in mid-2010 is one of millions with a similar configuration. Many will still work by 2014. And by then XP may even be old enough to be have acquired a little retro chic. That won't protect the last few million users from the all-but-inevitable attacks criminals will unleash against the OS once the flow of patches ceases.

One last observation: while this story is published on Easter Sunday, 2012, Easter in 2014 falls on April 21st, 13 days after support ends. There'll be no XP resurrection.

*This story was filed from The Register's Australia bureau and timed to appear at 12:01 AM on the 8th of April, Sydney time. It may not be April 8th where you are just yet.

**We're not willing to classify Windows NT Workstation as a mainstream desktop OS. The Register

Internet Companies Warn Over Government Email Surveillance Plans

Internet Companies Warn Over Government Email Surveillance Plans

Firms concerned that coalition's proposals to monitor email and social media could be misused by autocratic regimes
Josh Halliday
2 April 2012

Internet companies have warned that the government's plans to monitor email and social media use by the British public could be used by autocratic regimes to justify state surveillance.

No internet businesses were willing to mount a public criticism of the coalition's controversial plans on Monday, but many privately raised fears over the power of authorities to see who is contacting whom online in real time.

"There is a question of jurisdiction. There is a risk that if you offer this access to Britain then you have to offer it to countries like Syria and Bahrain," said an internet industry official who declined to be identified because the proposals have not been outlined in detail.

The fears follow strong criticism from a number of MPs and civil liberties groups who argue that the plans will endanger privacy and unfettered free expression online.

Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP, said on Twitter that the Commons home affairs committee wanted to call the home secretary, Theresa May, to give evidence on the proposals. More than 14,000 people signed a petition by the internet advocacy body Open Rights Group against the plans on Monday.

The coalition's proposals, expected to be outlined in the Queen's speech on 9 May, will allow the authorities to have "on demand" access to online communication in real time.

However, the security minister James Brokenshire said the emphasis was on solving crime rather than "real-time snooping on everybody's emails".

He told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "We absolutely get the need for appropriate safeguards and for appropriate protections to be put in place around any changes that might come forward. What this is not is the previous government's plan of creating some sort of great big Big Brother database. That is precisely not what this is looking at."

One official familiar with the plans said the government wanted to bring social networks, such as Twitter and Facebook, "broadly into line" with existing legislation covering the surveillance of phone calls. Authorities would not be able to read the content of messages without an intercept warrant issued by the home secretary.

The Home Office is understood to have outlined its plans at a meeting in January with the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA), which represents companies including Google and BT, after a series of high-level meetings with the government intelligence agency GCHQ.

No detailed proposals have been seen by ISPA. The body was given only a cursory outline of what the government hopes to introduce.

Internet companies are anxious to learn what they will be required to do under the bolstered surveillance law. Internet service providers, such as BT and TalkTalk, could be required to install systems to harvest so-called packet data from internet communications, meaning security officials will be able to see who is visiting which websites and talking to whom.

"We haven't seen full proposals yet and we are hoping for more information from the Home Office soon … It appears to be something we would have to look very carefully at," said one industry official.

Another official suggested that stronger powers to secretly monitor internet communication could compromise the government's bid for transparency.

But the backlash over the plans has been capitalised on by some internet firms. Tor, the internet anonymity shield used by activists in Iran and China, said it would support users who wished to evade detection by UK authorities.

Andrew Lewman, the director of Tor, compared the Home Office plans with data retention laws in Germany that require internet providers to log the website visits of each user. He said use of Tor rose dramatically after that law was introduced.

"Once the data is collected, regardless of the current intentions, it will be used for all sorts of reasons over time," Lewman told the Guardian. "The number of crimes will expand to include all sorts of petty issues, political repression, and restrictions on speech. Eventually someone will think they can predict crime before it happens by using the data."

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said the impact of communications data on criminal investigations was "critical to the ability of the police service to protect the public".

A spokeswoman for ACPO said: "Telecommunications technology is changing rapidly and in this new world there is a need to look at how we can ensure the capability to investigate crime, save lives and prosecute offenders is maintained.

"It is a matter for government to ensure the right boundaries are set so that our approaches are justified, necessary and proportionate." Gruniad

UK Email and Web Traffic Monitoring

U.K. 'to announce' real-time phone, e-mail, and Web traffic monitoring, the Queen could announce it in early-May
By: Anthony Garreffa

Under new U.K. legislation, Internet service and broadband providers will be obligated to pass personal browsing, e-mail and call data to the intelligence services for real-time processing. Shocking, isn't it? These new "Internet firms" could also include things outside the basic three options listed above, such as social networks and search engines. This would mean everything you type into Google, Facebook, Twitter and more would be accessed, in real-time.

Access to ISP logs will be opened up to the government on-demand. Scared yet? Currently, the 'third' U.K. intelligence service, GCHQ, which is a signals and electronics station based in Cheltenham, process call, web and e-mail data, but not the contents of the data itself. ISPs, on the other hand, do process this data within their facilities and datacenters. The new legislation would force ISPs to 'mirror' all traffic through GCHQ allowing for more detailed inspection on a law enforcement level to quickly process information as it happens.

A Home Office spokesperson confirmed the upcoming legislation could be implemented as "soon as parliamentary time allows". A spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement to ZDNet:

It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. Communications data includes time, duration and dialling numbers of a phone call, or an email address. It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of Government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications.

Under current U.K. law, GCHQ as well as police and other law enforcement agencies, would require a Home Secretary-issued or court-ordered search warranty to ISPs if they wanted data to inspect on a particular suspect. The new legislation would still require a search warranty to access the specific details of calls, e-mails and Web activity. This personal content can still be requested under a search warrant presented to the ISP, but GCHQ would not process this data automatically.

The new legislation would allow the intelligence services to trace people's communications with anyone they come in contact with, who they are contacting, and how long for. The new legislation would also force ISPs to install routing hardware in their facilities to open up access to GCHQ as and when it is necessary.

The invading legislation is expected to be announced at the Queen's Speech in May. This speech is the only communication the Queen gives that is not written by her. The speech is written by legislators, specifically at Downing Street, the home and office of the prime minister. This isn't the first time something like this has been strived for.

Under new U.K. legislation, Internet service and broadband providers will be obligated to pass personal browsing, e-mail and call data to the intelligence services for real-time processing. Shocking, isn't it? These new "Internet firms" could also include things outside the basic three options listed above, such as social networks and search engines. This would mean everything you type into Google, Facebook, Twitter and more would be accessed, in real-time.

Access to ISP logs will be opened up to the government on-demand. Scared yet? Currently, the 'third' U.K. intelligence service, GCHQ, which is a signals and electronics station based in Cheltenham, process call, web and e-mail data, but not the contents of the data itself. ISPs, on the other hand, do process this data within their facilities and datacenters. The new legislation would force ISPs to 'mirror' all traffic through GCHQ allowing for more detailed inspection on a law enforcement level to quickly process information as it happens.

A Home Office spokesperson confirmed the upcoming legislation could be implemented as "soon as parliamentary time allows". A spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement to ZDNet:

It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. Communications data includes time, duration and dialling numbers of a phone call, or an email address. It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of Government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications.

Under current U.K. law, GCHQ as well as police and other law enforcement agencies, would require a Home Secretary-issued or court-ordered search warranty to ISPs if they wanted data to inspect on a particular suspect. The new legislation would still require a search warranty to access the specific details of calls, e-mails and Web activity. This personal content can still be requested under a search warrant presented to the ISP, but GCHQ would not process this data automatically.

The new legislation would allow the intelligence services to trace people's communications with anyone they come in contact with, who they are contacting, and how long for. The new legislation would also force ISPs to install routing hardware in their facilities to open up access to GCHQ as and when it is necessary.

The invading legislation is expected to be announced at the Queen's Speech in May. This speech is the only communication the Queen gives that is not written by her. The speech is written by legislators, specifically at Downing Street, the home and office of the prime minister. This isn't the first time something like this has been strived for. tweaktown.com

Phone and Email Records to be Stored in New Spy Plan

Phone and email records to be stored in new spy plan

Details of every phone call and text message, email traffic and websites visited online are to be stored in a series of vast databases under new Government anti-terror plans.
By David Barrett
18 Feb 2012

Landline and mobile phone companies and broadband providers will be ordered to store the data for a year and make it available to the security services under the scheme.

The databases would not record the contents of calls, texts or emails but the numbers or email addresses of who they are sent and received by.

For the first time, the security services will have widespread access to information about who has been communicating with each other on social networking sites such as Facebook.

Direct messages between subscribers to websites such as Twitter would also be stored, as well as communications between players in online video games.

The Home Office is understood to have begun negotiations with internet companies in the last two months over the plan, which could be officially announced as early as May.

It is certain to cause controversy over civil liberties - but also raise concerns over the security of the records.

Access to such information would be highly prized by hackers and could be exploited to send spam email and texts. Details of which websites people visit could also be exploited for commercial gain.

The plan has been drawn up on the advice of MI5, the home security service, MI6, which operates abroad, and GCHQ, the Government’s “listening post” responsible for monitoring communications.

Rather than the Government holding the information centrally, companies including BT, Sky, Virgin Media, Vodafone and O2 would have to keep the records themselves.

Under the scheme the security services would be granted “real time” access to phone and internet records of people they want to put under surveillance, as well as the ability to reconstruct their movements through the information stored in the databases.

The system would track “who, when and where” of each message, allowing extremely close surveillance.

Mobile phone records of calls and texts show within yards where a call was made or a message was sent, while emails and internet browsing histories can be matched to a computer’s “IP address”, which can be used to locate where it was sent.

The scheme is a revised version of a plan drawn up by the Labour government which would have created a central database of all the information.

The idea of a central database was later dropped in favour of a scheme requiring communications providers to store the details at the taxpayers’ expense.

But the whole idea was cancelled amid severe criticisms of the number of public bodies which could access the data, which as well as the security services, included local councils and quangos, totalling 653 public sector organisations.

Labour shelved the project - known as the Intercept Modernisation Programme - in November 2009 after a consultation showed it had little public support.

Only one third of respondents backed the plan and half said they feared the scheme lacked safeguards and technical rigour to protect highly sensitive information.

At the same time the Conservatives criticised Labour’s “reckless” record on privacy.

A called Reversing the Rise of the Surveillance State by Dominic Grieve, then shadow home secretary and now Attorney General, published in 2009, said a Tory government would collect fewer personal details which would be held by “specific authorities on a need-to-know basis only”.

But the security services have now won a battle to have the scheme revived because of their concern over the ability of terrorists to avoid conventional surveillance through modern technology.

They can make use of phone tapping but their ability to monitor email traffic and text messages is limited.

They are known to have lobbied Theresa May, the Home Secretary, strongly for the scheme. Their move comes ahead of the London Olympics, which they fear will be a major target for terror attacks, and amid a climate of concern about terrorists’ use of the internet.

It has been highlighted by a number of attacks carried out after radicalisation took place through websites, including the stabbing by a young Muslim woman of an MP at his constituency surgery.

Sources said ministers are planning to allocate legislative time to the new spy programme, called the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP), in the Queen’s Speech in May.

But last night privacy campaigners warned the scheme was too open to abuse and could be used for “fishing trips” by spies.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, a civil liberties campaign organisation, said: “This would be a systematic effort to spy on all of our digital communications.

“The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats started their government with a big pledge to roll back the surveillance state.

“No state in history has been able to gather the level of information proposed - it’s a way of collecting everything about who we talk to just in case something turns up.”

There were also concerns about the ability of phone and internet companies to keep the information secure.

And the huge databases could also be used by internet service providers, particularly to work out which advertising to target at users.

Broadband firms including BT came up with a scheme almost three years ago to target advertising, but it did not get off the ground.

However, if companies were able to exploit the information they will be compelled to keep for the CCDP, they would be much more capable of delivering advertising to computers and even mobile phones based on users’ past behaviour.

Gus Hosein, of Privacy International, said: “This will be ripe for hacking. Every hacker, every malicious threat, every foreign government is going to want access to this.

“And if communications providers have a government mandate to start collecting this information they will be incredibly tempted to start monitoring this data themselves so they can compete with Google and Facebook.”

He added: “The internet companies will be told to store who you are friends with and interact with. While this may appear innocuous it requires the active interception of every single communication you make, and this has never been done in a democratic society.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public.

“We meet regularly with the communications industry to ensure that capability is maintained without interfering with the public’s right to privacy.

“As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review we will legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows to ensure that the use of communications data is compatible with the Government’s approach to civil liberties.”

Andrew Kernahan of the Internet Service Providers’ Association said: “It is important that proposals to update Government’s capabilities to intercept and retain communications data in the new communications environment are proportionate, respect freedom of expression and the privacy of users, and are widely consulted upon in an open and transparent manner.” Telegraph

Be Careful If Big Brother Doesn’t ‘Like’ Your Post

Be Careful If Big Brother Doesn’t ‘Like’ Your Post
by Sam Rolley
February 17, 2012

It is becoming increasingly likely that posting comments critical of the Federal government on your social networking site or blog will give law enforcement officials reason to believe that you are a terrorist.




A document released online by the FBI details a new plan to develop an app that will “rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence … to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents and emerging threats.” In other words, the FBI wants to know where you are, who you are and how many of you there are if the agency determines that you may be a threat to Federal tyranny. The FBI’s new app will be similar to a recent Department of Homeland Security initiative of mining social networking sites for potential thoughtcriminals.




The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been critical of the DHS social networking spy policy and launched a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Federal Agency in late December. Among the documents obtained by the suit were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the Web for media reports and comments that “reflect adversely” on the agency or the Federal government. personalliberty

H/T ElleryMitten

UK Government Wants ‘Extreme’ Web Sites Shut Down

When I read stuff like this, it reminds me of someone's granny; Eeeh that internet thing, it's the Devil's tool!

And where you see "Witnesses'' read, ''Some scholars believe.''

Government wants ‘extreme’ web sites shut down

ISPs expected to aid censorship
By Dave Neal
Feb 06 2012



THE AUTHORITARIAN UK GOVERNMENT is asking internet service providers (ISPs) to help it rid the world of 'extreme' political web sites.

A report from the UK Home Affairs Committee has appeared on government web sites this morning and warns of an increase in such web sites and calls for more help in shutting them down.

"More resources need to be directed to these threats and to preventing radicalization through the Internet and in private spaces," blathered Keith Vaz, chairman of the committee. "These are the fertile breeding grounds for terrorism," he blustered.

According to its research the internet is one of the "most significant vehicles for promoting violent radicalism", and is even worse than "prisons, universities and places of worship", the committee's report said.

"Witnesses told the Committee that the internet played a part in most, if not all, cases of violent radicalisation," it added.

That is a bold claim, but it is enough to justify an internet witch-hunt it seems. "The Committee recommends that internet service providers themselves should be more active in monitoring the material they host, with appropriate guidance, advice and support from the Government," added the Committee.

"The Government should work with internet providers to develop a code of practice for the removal of material which promotes violent extremism."

Unfortunately, although it does not make much of it, the Committee's investigations found that actually there is not much of a link between the internet and radicalism.

"Many of our witnesses cited the internet as the main forum for radicalisation," says the report before admitting that this contradicts other government research.

"This seemed to be contradicted by more recent Home Office-commissioned research, which concluded that the internet 'does not appear to play a significant role in Al Qa'ida-influenced radicalisation'," it admitted.

"Even those witnesses who attributed a significant role to the internet tended to support that report's conclusion that some element of face-to-face contact was generally essential to radicalisation taking place, including with regards to the extreme far right."

However, it has an argument to get around this inconvenient fact, which is that the internet can influence people.

"By definition this does not deal with the issue of self radicalisation which by its very nature takes place in isolation and concerns have been expressed about the impact of 'Sheikh Google' on individuals who may be vulnerable, but have not been identified as starting on a journey of self radicalisation," it claimed.

The report was greeted with disappointment from Loz Kaye, the leader of the UK Pirate Party. "Violence is born of too little information, not too much. We need a free functioning Internet if the aim is to engage," he said.

"Yet again it seems that politicians' solution to any problem is to pass the buck to ISPs." The Inquirer

Site

How Did Anonymous Hack The FBI?

I have listened to Anonymous's release of the hacked call between the FBI and Met police, unfortunately though, I can't find a full transcript of the call. In light of that failure, I am not going to post the selective bits that are around on the net, nor for that matter am I going to embed the video. It can be found here, but truth be told, and if you will trust my judgement, you are just as well off reading the article below.

How did Anonymous hack the FBI?

The latest, astonishing feat has put the internet hackers back in the public eye - and the authorities on the back foot.
by Ryan Gallagher
05 February 2012

In the last twelve months it has attacked government websites in Syria, declared cyber war on a brutal Mexican drug cartel, and exposed an anti-WikiLeaks "dirty tricks campaign" allegedly plotted by a prominent US security firm. But on Friday, Anonymous, a diffuse network of internet hackers, reached a new level when it intercepted and leaked a conference call between FBI agents and Scotland Yard detectives.

The astonishing feat - confirmed as genuine by the FBI - was apparently carried out after the hackers breached email accounts belonging to the authorities. In doing so, they were able to snoop on communications being exchanged between forces involved in a joint international anti-hacking operation across England, Ireland, Holland, France, Denmark, Sweden and America. In a piece of surreal real-life theatre, the tables were embarrassingly and dramatically turned. The investigators became the investigated; the watchers became the watched.

The call in question, which lasts around 16 minutes, is one of the boldest leaks ever produced by the hackers, and it may also be one of the most revelatory. A fascinating glimpse into a highly classified world, it shows the extent to which the Metropolitan police is willing to collaborate with its foreign counterparts as part of cyber-crime investigations, even if doing so means interfering with the British judicial process. At one point during the call, for instance, one of the Scotland Yard detectives tells his FBI colleagues that they secretly delayed an ongoing court case involving two UK-based suspected hackers - Jake Davis and Ryan Cleary - at America's behest.

"Following some discussion with the New York office, we're looking to try and build some time in to allow some operational matters to fulfil on your side of the water," the Scotland Yard detective is quoted as saying. "We've got the prosecution making an application in chambers, i.e. without the defence knowing, to seek a way to try and factor some time in, that won't look suspicious." He goes on: "Hey, we're here to help. We've cocked things up in the past, we know that."

The FBI has previously declined to comment on whether it would pursue extradition of Cleary or Davis, both of whom are facing a series of charges in Britain for their alleged involvement with Anonymous and its affiliated offshoot, LulzSec .

The call suggests, however, that the US could indeed be building its own case against the hackers. Davis in particular, who stands accused of being the audacious LulzSec spokesperson known online as "Topiary", would no doubt be wanted by the Americans. Over a two-month period in 2011, LulzSec perpetrated a series of high-profile attacks on the websites of US-based multi-national corporations and state agencies - including the CIA and the US senate - making it a prime target for cyber-crime investigators within the FBI.

Prior to the leaked call, it was clear that Davis's legal team already suspected US involvement on some level. This was made apparent last month, during a short hearing at Southwark Crown Court, when Gideon Cammerman, Davis's lawyer, expressed concern about outside interference, asking prosecutors that any "letters of request from a foreign jurisdiction" are presented to him when evidence is formally exchanged on 30 March, prior to Davis and Cleary entering pleas on 11 May. (A letter of request is a method used by a foreign court to seek judicial assistance, such as to obtain information or a witness statement from a specified person.)

Responding to concerns raised by Cammerman, a source within the Crown Prosecution Service said that they could not officially comment on the matter of foreign involvement until after 30 March, but stressed both prosecution and defence had a "common interest in the case being tried here [in the UK] effectively," hinting that any possible US extradition request could hinge on the outcome of the British trial.

In the meantime, the key question is whether Anonymous is sitting on more hacked information as explosive as the conference call, which, depending on its content, could have potentially massive repercussions.

To some extent, the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic have now been put on the back foot. Likely rattled and aghast that their own private conversations were hacked by the very hackers they are paid to investigate, they will be apprehensive about what could come next.

Cleary's lawyer, Karen Todner, has starkly warned that "whole cases could be blown apart" as a result of future security breaches; Anonymous, as ever, has promised more revelations are yet to come.

"You think we're done? Fuck no," tweeted one of its most prominent hackers, Sabu, on Friday. "Truth is we're still in the agents (sic) mailbox right now." New Statesman

Ryan Gallagher is a freelance journalist based in London. His website is here