Yet ANOTHER Reason to Hate Facebook

Oh okay, this isn’t REALLY about Facebook so much as it is about relative freedoms. It seems that in Morocco, you can get into big trouble pretending to be a member of the royal family. It just so happens that Moroccan computer engineer Fouad Mortada did his pretending on Facebook, and earned himself three years in prison for his efforts.

He said he was arrested on February 5, blindfolded and taken to an unknown building where he was beaten and insulted, according to a Web site set up by his supporters. ( Reuters Published: February 23, 2008, 8:40 AM PST)

The arrest occurred after Fouad Mortada set up a Facebook account in the name of Prince Moulay Rachid. The excuse for such an (to me) extreme reaction was the possibility that Martada was terrorist-connected and seeking to harm the Prince.

A quick look at Facebook revealed that there is more than one profile in the prince’s name. Who know if any of them are the real thing? Do YOU know how to tell?

Now, it’s odd – I thought I’d never been to Facebook before – but, according to them, I had an account (no page – just an access account) so perhaps it was a whim of some kind I don’t recall. If not, that’s SCARY. But – it’s not unthinkable I had a whim of some kind at some point.

Here is one part that bothers me: I said I was a student – they insisted I had to use my student e-mail. Hmmmm – why do they CARE? Well – perhaps it’s a networking thing, since in the process of resetting my password – (since I didn’t recall haing an account I CERTAINLY didn’t recall a password!) I discovered that I had missed yet another live performance of The Vagina Monologues siiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

If the plight of Fouad Mortada tugs at your heart – you can sign a petition at his support website. You can also find a well written blog post from a Moroccan point of view here, and a statement by Mortada himself here.

With luck – your e-signature may even matter. I mean, REALLY folks – they know this guy’s no terrorist! A little over $1,300 and three years in jail – even a Moroccan jail – isn’t the stuff punishments for terrorism are made of. It’s a bit over the top for what is, at most, a tacky prank – don’t you think? Okay, okay, from an Islamic point of view it’s blasphemy. But isn’t blasphemy in the eye of the beholder?

Gee – I wonder how much trouble the Moroccan government had getting traces of the fake Facebook page erased?

UPDATE:   ***Fouad was released by a royal pardon, on the evening of March 18, 2008**

If You’re a Contractor . . .

. . .to whom does your work belong? What about the content and concepts you discuss in company email?

Johnathan Cobb – a former contractor for Google – claims that ideas that he discussed on internal email are his – and that Google has stolen his concept for a Sky component for Google Earth. Cobb is asking $25M in punitive damages. In her brief article Did Google Steal the Sky for it’s Earth? Elinor Mills quotes an internet law expert as saying these rules are unclear. One commenter opinion is that Cobb was foolish to put his ideas in writing on the Google servers – and predicts that when the case goes to court (if it does) Cobb will be SOL.

Personaly – I have a number of questions I wish I could ask:

Is Google Sky really close to an idea of Cobbs?

If so, can he prove it?

Assuming that Cobb right, and the Sky function for Google Earth really is based on his idea – isn’t it more of a bother to go though the bad publicity and the court process than it is to simply compensate Cobb? (Yeah – I know, naive of me . . .)

Did Sally Ride Science or Sally Ride herself receive compensation for this spot?

And oh – not that anyone wants to steal them, but who owns the posts on this blog?

Added 5/7/08   — When this was written, there was a lot of flack over how difficult is was to remove FACE BOOK entries and accounts.  Since then, facebook.com has made it a bit easier to remove information you regret having added.  but BE WARNED — social networking sites are PUBLIC, even if you set your entries to “private” there are instances where your info is easily accessed (eg: if someone has lined to you in a post that is not set to “private.”  Take care, friends.  Future employers, among ohters, use FACEBOOK to get an idea of who you “truly” are.

Can Internet Providers be Required to “Pat Down” Packets?

According to the BBC News, lawmakers in the UK want to make it mandatory for ISPs to check packets of information going through their servers to check for copyright infringement. UK ISPs are saying there is no way thy can monitor enough of the packets that travel through their servers to find the majority of illegal file sharing. Though there have been numerous lawsuits over copyright infringement and illegal file sharing in the past, those caught in the act are still in the minority – this newly proposed legislation seeks to change that by holding the ISPs liable.

What about the privacy of the individuals involved? Just how easy, and how frequent, is this “packet peeking?”

Despite the international stir, Torrent Freak suggests this UK proposal isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The reference to the paper is more literal than you may think: The proposal is known as a “Green Sheet.” It is a suggestion, without the force of law behind it. However, even if this proposal were more substantial, Torrent Freak goes on to say that:

1) It isn’t reasonable to hold ISPs liable for every packet that travels though their servers.

2) It isn’t practically possible for ISPs to act as this kind of cyber-police.

3) Insecure WiFi and packet encryption make it impossible to tell what packets may hold copyrighted material.

4) In addition to the protests from ISPs – the use of file-sharing type clients which are used to share personal photos, and other material to which the sender own the copyright or has permission to share – would make public outcry that their privacy is being invaded just as strong.

5) And, perhaps most of all, this proposed rule flies in the face of pre-existing EU laws which say that member states are not required to share personal information about files sharers as well as “Article 10 of the European freedom of expression laws, which gives every European the ‘freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’”

While I understand that copyright infringement is a crime, and the music industry in particular claims loss of sales in the multi-million dollar range, I’m more concerned about the privacy issues involved here.

How do you think this problem should be approached?

Fair Use?

Instructors and students “borrow” pieces of other works for educational purposes all the time. The World Wide Web has made research, quotation and citation easier than ever before. It has also made the rules governing fair use – for educational or other purposes – more complex.

Law is not a static thing. Like society, it is an ever evolving thing with statues and case law constantly being re-interpreted. It’s human nature to interpret things in a way that best serves the interpreter — but in the study of law, it’s best to be both objective, and somewhat skeptical.

One company that has a reputation for being very particular about how their intellectual property is used is Disney (though they are not alone)

This reputation inspired Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University to create the following video by splicing Disney clips. Published by the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and icensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License this short film is free to download, post, and redistribute.

Why is this legal? It is for educational purpose and it is parody. It also uses very small clips from a number of Disney works. Other aspects of the “Fair Use” defense may apply. Do you notice any?

Professor Faden raises the question of the length of copyrights (“virtually forever”) and suggests that our society actually suffers a loss of creative input since, historically, creative works have frequently been inspired by, and build upon, previous works.

What do you think?