China’s New Cybersecurity Law

China has formulated its new cybersecurity law that will come into force on June 1, 2017. Dubbed “Golden Shield”, it regulates internet access and data traffic which will be within the domain "order and security of the cyberspace" legislation. In short, information will be censored as it was before. That being said, the exact scope, impact and extend of the new law is not entirely clear. All in all, the new cybersecurity law encompasses 79 articles which you can read here.

The new law consist of seven chapters containing rules and regulations for two types of data, namely regulations for the protection of personal data, and regulations for the protection of critical information infrastructures. To clarify, critical information infrastructure relates to data connected with energy, transport, water supply, finance, public service and e-government infrastructures.

The new law determines that the hardware or software of foreign companies relating to critical infrastructures must be examined beforehand by Chinese officials conducting security audits. It is unclear if such audits would also include the disclosure of source codes. This is a major concern, since China has shown in the past that it has a keen interest in looking at source codes of foreign companies such as Apple.

Furthermore, the new law mandates that personal data and other important critical information infrastructure data must be stored within the Chinese territory. Internet users are also required to register with their real name. This means that Internet providers or providers of messenger services may not allow users who use an alias or screen name to register.

According to the new law, denying or revoking a license may result in penalties. In addition, the Ministry of Public Security may, in the event of suspected threats to the critical information infrastructure, freeze the accounts and other assets of foreign companies or persons.

Amnesty International mentioned in its annual report of 2016 that China for the first time conducted an internet security assessment of internet law. The law originally focused on maintaining national security and the social order. It provides for the possibility of prohibiting the use of Internet by individuals and groups, when such use would impact national security. As a result, freedom of expression and privacy could be restricted.

To read the full law in English, click here. The English translation is courtesy of China Law Translate.

Highest court in Austria: "Average readers assume that media contributions are not neutral"

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberste Gerichtshof or OGH) has ruled on the obligation of newspapers to label “convenience” articles as sponsored content. Under Austrian law, articles that are published in return for advertisements do not have to be labeled as such. 

According to the Court, the "average reader" does not assume that media are neutral, explaining that such an obligation only applies to paid publications, but not to publications of “mere convenience”.

This case involved a legal dispute between two free newspapers. One of the free newspapers complained that the other free newspaper was publishing editorial articles in return for paid ads without indicating that the articles are sponsored.

The court ruled that "The average, attentive and critical reader today assumes that editorial contributions in periodical media are not “neutral” and therefore not completely objective. When published articles are written by journalists, including well-known and reputable ones, those articles reflect their personal opinions, be it in political, scientific or economic aspect."

If, however, money is spent on the concrete publication of contributions, then these must continue to be marked as "advertisements", "advertising", “paid content” or "sponsored" under Austrian law.

With its ruling, the Supreme Court has reversed the previous rulings of two lower courts that each confirmed that “convenience” articles must be labeled as sponsored content.

The PR Ethics Council in Austria criticized the judgment as being "highly problematic". According to Gabriele Faber-Wiener, chairperson of the PR Ethics Council, "the ruling will open the door for intertwined business interests and readers will be deceived."

(Image: © Hubertl / Wikimedia Commons / License CC-BY-SA 4.0)

How The Police Caught Speeders In 1895

Alexander Gütermann was the proud owner of a “Benz-Motor-Pferd”, a belt-driven car. He could afford it - he was the owner of Gütermann Ltd, a manufacturer of sewing yards and twines and threats. In comparison, if he would have lived today, he would be driving a Tesla. He loved to speed and did not care much about the maximum speed limit of 6 kilometer per hour. The police gave him several times an official warning.

That did not stop Alexander to take his car on the sunny afternoon of May 15, 1895 for a spin in Waldkirch, a small town near Freiburg. He was happily speeding when the police caught him in the act.  So how did the police measure his speed before radar speed guns were invented? Well, more by keen observation; Alexander was driving at such a high speed that “curtains of the local pub were fluttering”. The fiend! He got a speeding ticket of 3 DM, not a small sum at the time. (It was the daily wage of a miner at the time).

In case you wonder, he never crashed the car. It can still be admired in the PS.Speicher bicycle & car museum in Einbeck, Germany. In 2015, it even took part in the traditional car rally from London to Brighton.

The original speeding ticket is show below.

The German academic who ghostwrites for academics - Clever business, but morally…

Want to graduate but don’t want to write your thesis? No problem! If you study in Germany, you can hire the enterprising Ms. Eva Nowak. She runs a thriving business ghostwriting theses. Ms. Nowak started with helping graduates with their academic research. She soon found out that writing their theses (for a fee of course) presented a unique business opportunity.

She currently has a staff of Ph. D. academics in various fields, including law and social science. The work involves research and writing without (oh, irony) copying existing theses and sources that are IP protected.

Ms. Nowak operates in a grey area; it’s her students that are facing repercussions when caught, not her since she only facilitates. Interviewed on German television, one of her customers justified her hiring Nowak to help her graduate with flying colors a follows: “My dad passed away, I have three small kids. It was impossible to keep up.”

Nowak emphasized that people turn to her not because they are lazy, but since circumstances forced them. She did not address the ethical issue at any time during her TV interview.

I have my own take on this. For one, writing a thesis is a wonderful exercise that forces you as an academic to focus, study, research, analyze, execute, follow up, write, present and defend. It build skills that are priceless is anyone’s career.

Taking the “Nowak Shortcut” gives the “cheater” an unfair advantage over all those that put their own efforts in their theses. Furthermore, the ethics of such a person are questionable to say the least, so any university or employer should think twice before hiring such a person.

As for Ms. Nowak, she does not lose any sleep over it. She rakes in Euro 40 per page, which totals Euro 4,000 for a standard 100-page thesis. Not bad, since the turnaround time is 4 weeks. I calculate her monthly income at Euro 16,000 up.

My advice to universities and employers: let potential employees sign a statement that they never, ever, used ghostwriting and/or third party services to obtain and/or contribute to their academic credentials including, but not limited to, ghostwriting their theses…..all at the risk of being fired and facing a hefty penalty fee.

This blog post was written by Debra De-Jong, who wrote her own thesis all by herself (as it should be).

(Image courtesy of RTL Nord) 

How Stairway to Heaven turned into Highway to Legal Hell

Randy Wolfe used to be the guitarist of Spirit and composed the number Taurus for the band in 1967. Wolfe aka Randy California was also hired by other bands to write songs. In 1971, Led Zeppelin made music history with its “Stairway to Heaven” which was written by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page. The track features on Led Zeppelin’s untitled fourth studio album, often referred to as “Led Zeppelin IV”.

Michael Skidmore, a trustee for the late Randy Wolfe, is suing Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement. Skidmore claims that Plant and Page wrote “Stairway to Heaven” for Led Zeppelin after hearing Spirit perform Taurus while both bands were touring together in 1968-1969. According to Skidmore, Led Zeppelin never gave Wolfe any credit for his contribution. Skidmore states that the first two minutes of Stairway to Heaven are identical to those of Taurus. According to the lawsuit, Wolfe complained about the similarities of the songs in 1997 shortly before his death in an interview.

US district judge Gary Klausner found that there are indeed enough “substantial”’ similarities to warrant a court case. He pointed out those first two minutes are “arguably the most recognizable and important segments” of the songs.

“While it is true that a descending chromatic four-chord progression is a common convention that abounds in the music industry, the similarities here transcend this core structure,” the judge wrote. “What remains is a subjective assessment of the ‘concept and feel’ of two works ... a task no more suitable for a judge than for a jury.” (Skidmore also wanted to sue Led Zeppelin bassist John Paul Jones and Warner Music Group, but those claims were thrown out of court).

Led Zeppelin’s lead singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page don’t have a choice; they must appear in court (scheduled for June 14) to defend themselves against the claim that they infringed Wolfe’s copyright. For now, they take the view that Wolfe was a songwriter-for-hire and had no copyright claim to begin with. Furthermore, they point out that the chord progressions are so common, that those cannot be protected by copyright anyway. They have a point: “Sonata di Chitarra, e Violino, con il suo Basso Continuo” written by Italian Baroque guitar player and composer Giovanni Battista Granata (1620-1687), features the Stairway to Heaven melody.



Even if the jury would decide in favor of the Wolfe, Skidmore as the trustee would only get up to 50% of any damages awarded, due to the terms and conditions of the contract that Wolfe signed way back in 1967. According to Skidmore and his lawyer Francis Malofiy, it’s all about getting credit. “This case, from our perspective, has always been about giving credit where credit was due, and now we get to right that wrong.” It’s not that simple - once an artist is credited, he or she is automatically entitled to part of the proceeds.

For Led Zeppelin, its iconic Stairway to Heaven had turned to a Highway to Legal Hell courtesy of a bar-brawling lawyer.

Snapchatter beware - Making a screenshot of other people's Snapchat pictures and videos could be illegal

Snapchat, the social media platform that deletes posts after 10 seconds, is a firm favorite of people sending pictures and videos to friends. However, a follower could make a screenshot of an embarrassing selfie or pic, which means that it will be around forever.

Needless to say, this is highly embarrassing for the “victims” - if they wanted it to be around, they would have used Facebook, Instagram or Flickr. But there is more to it; making a screenshot could also be illegal.

Ed Vaizey, the UK's Culture Minister, stated that if a Snapchat user saves someone else's picture and shares it again without their permission, they are leaving themselves open to being sued under British copyright law.

This makes sense, since selfies and images are protected by IP laws. Once someone shares Snapchat content of other users without their permission, that person infringes on their copyright and therefore could be sued.

As the minister explained: "Under UK copyright law, it would be unlawful for a Snapchat user to copy an image and make it available to the public without the consent of the image owner. The image owner would be able to sue anyone who does this for copyright infringement.”

Snapchat photos are automatically deleted after 10 seconds. The Snapchat privacy policy states that if Snapchat is able to detect that a recipient has taken a screenshot of an image, they will try to inform the original poster. Needless to say, Snapchat advises users to avoid messages which they would not want to be saved or shared.

Bottom line: it’s better to be safe than sorry. Do not post, share or pin any image that could be considered to be sexual, obnoxious or embarrassing. Be aware that reposting, sharing or repinning such an image without permission makes you liable. In the UK, that would mean up to two years imprisonment. The current maximum penalty for copyright infringement in the UK is up to 10 years in prison and an 'unlimited' fine.

Ergo, caveat usarius Snapchati!

Rabobank Persuades the Courts to Ban Publication of Its Art Practices

It reads like a great novel – The Pledge (De Verpanding) by Paulien Derwort. The book claim that "everything seems legitimate when hunting for the artworks”.

;

According to the book, Rabobank committed art theft, encouraging its bank employees to hunt for the art collections of its art dealer clients. The narrative tells the true story of two clients of the Foundation Residual Debt Fair Share. The art dealers fell victim to the Rabobank department which 'deals' with entrepreneurs in financial distress. Ms. Derwort claims in the book that Rabobank used all kinds of tricks to fleece those clients resulting them being stuck with mounting debts..

The book concentrates on two entrepreneurs ran into financial trouble:. Mr. Wim Koperberg, an art dealer, and Ms. Tessa van Veen, who runs the Collection Hopster Van Goudzwaard Foundation together with her husband. They claim that Rabobank was able to dissolve their complete capital, and plundered and stole. “If I would have any money left, I would have sued them for theft, fraud. Abuse of ‘care obligation’, abuse of lien, and unethical behavior.”

The plot thickened when “bank critic” George van Houts.decided to release the names of Rabobank employees in question, stating that ”These gentlemen believe that they are acting on behalf of Rabobank, turning off their conscience. They believe that they remain complete anonymous ... Where have we heard that before? "

Needless to say, Rabobank took action, and sued Van Houts. During the court hearing, one of the Rabobnk employees stated that he and his colleague were “angry and hurt” by the publication. He stated that his job is “intensive and involves making tough decisions”, and that he works as an Rabobank employee and not as a private person. He told the court that he feels that it is unacceptable that his name and that of his colleagues is “dragged through te mud” based on so many false facts.

The District Court agreed and ruled that the book “De Verpanding” should not have mentioned any individual Rabobank employee by name. The ruling forced the publisher not only to recall all copies already in bookshops, but also those already purchased by readers.

Due to the controversy, the book has been sold out and is a collector’s item.The reputation of the Rabobank department has suffered; more people have come forward claiming to be victimized by “the bloodhounds”.