The report by the CIBER research team at University College London claims that, although young people demonstrate an ease and familiarity with computers, they rely on the most basic search tools and do not possess the critical and analytical skills to asses the information that they find on the web. The report ‘Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future’ also shows that research-behaviour traits that are commonly associated with younger users – impatience in search and navigation, and zero tolerance for any delay in satisfying their information needs – are now the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors.

And for a representative sample of Keen, p 93:

But the problem is that the Web 2.0 generation is taking search-engine results as gospel.

Maybe part of the response to Keen’s view of the Web 2.0 future is, as this study suggests, education:

The findings also send a stark message to government – that young people are dangerously lacking information skills. Well-funded information literacy programmes are needed, it continues, if the UK is to remain as a leading knowledge economy with a strongly-skilled next generation of researchers.

Education of the end-user can make up for the lack of traditional gatekeepers in terms of user generated content (though I don’t think traditional media is dead). If people are only relying on, say Wikipedia, then this is of course a problem. In part because researchers should always go directly to the source whenever possible (though what does that say about me, not having read the report?).

http://bytelevel.com/map/

It even includes the oddballs such as Bouvet Island (.bv)!

Think of this from the WTO’s point of view. They’re this fledgling organization dominated by a huge monster in the United States. People there must be scared out of their wits at the prospects of enforcing a ruling that would instantly galvanize public opinion in the United States against the WTO.

I saw Prof. Nesson speak at this year’s iSummit in Croatia about online gaming. He’s trying to lead efforts to restore a bit of sanity to the US approach and to regulate activities like online poker rather than try to ban it. He handed out packs of Berkman Center playing cards, with which I’m playing Texas Hold ‘Em.

In contrast to the US, the UK approach has been to welcome online gambling and to try to make Britain a centre for a sensibly regulated industry. The actions and reactions with the US and the WTO will have huge effects on this industry, and may encourage even more operators to the UK.

WTO ISSUES COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORT ON GAMBLING DISPUTE
The WTO, on 30 March 2007, issued the report of the compliance panel in
the case brought by Antigua and Barbuda regarding “United States -
Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting
services” (DS285).
Download:
Panel report in Word format:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/285rw-a_e.doc
Panel report in pdf format:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/285rw-a_e.pdf
Annex A in Word format:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/285rw-b_e.doc
Annex A in Word format:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/285rw-b_e.pdf
Summary of the case DS285:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds285_e.htm
More on Dispute Settlement:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm

EFF-Austin General Meeting

Thursday, February 15, 2007
6:30PM at Café Caffeine, 909 West Mary

Speaker: Derek Woodgate
Net Neutrality vs Marketplace power

With the increasing use of traffic shaping by many or most broadband providers to control P2P and other services, together with the increasing market power and control of such providers through mega-mergers, we are witnessing a growing debate on how to protect consumer rights to net neutrality.

Born out of the concept of the “dumb network”, namely one that is engineered to simply deliver the bits, passing packets according to the needs of applications, “net neutrality” is about equal access to the internet, free from any interference or discriminatory restrictions on what kinds of equipment can be attached, how the equipment can communicate and it ensures that one set of communications is not degraded for the sake of another – an entirely neutral network.

Derek will discuss the marketplace, the legislative implications and how social change, new technologies and media/entertainment and communications services are fueling the debate in a way that could negatively redefine the future of the internet.

…an open-source toolkit for a laptop computer that enables its user to “liberate” pay-per-use wireless networks and create a free, open node that anyone can connect to for Internet access. [Link].

The idea is that one person pays for use, and then shares that connection with others.

This is an area that I am currently researching for a paper on mesh networks, an early version of which is available on my SSRN page.

As a lawyer, one of the first questions that I think of when seeing something like this, is whether or not sharing WiFi like this violates the law. The next question is, even if it violates the law, how you could actually enforce the law.

As to the first question, there is the issue of the Terms of Service. If the contract that users agree to when they pay for the service states that they are not to share the connection, then using this product would be a breach of contract (assuming contract validity). As to enforcement, I don’t think that there is any good way to police this issue, and so the point may be moot in the specific fact situation of a laptop users at an airport lounge. ToS can be (and has been) used by ISPs to prevent their clients from sharing their connections — more on this related issue in my article.

What about criminal liability? The Texas Penal Code provides that ‘Theft of Service’ is:

Sec. 31.04. THEFT OF SERVICE. (a) A person commits theft of
service if, with intent to avoid payment for service that he knows
is provided only for compensation:

***(2) having control over the disposition of services of another to which he is not entitled, he intentionally or knowingly diverts the other’s services to another not entitled to them; ***

Could there be an argument that use of this device to share a pay-per-use WiFi connection is theft of services? These elements of the crime would probably be relatively straightforward:

• knowledge that the service is ‘provided only for compensation’.
• intentional or knowing diversion of the service to others not entitled to it.
• having control over the disposition of services of another (the provider’s internet connection).

What about the requirement that the second part of this last element, ‘to which he is not entitled’ [in (a)(2)]? This is where the ToS may be important. If the ToS states that the user of the services is not allowed to share them, and they subsequently share them, they have broken the agreement and thus become not entitled to the service.

This leaves the final element: ‘with intent to avoid payment for service…’

This one is a bit trickier than the rest, but I could potentially see an argument based around the service that the accused intended to avoid is the provision of services to multiple users. In this regard, I’m thinking specifically of the parallel situation with computer software licences — you pay for a number of users. In the case of the original (paid for) connection, you could (perhaps) regard this as a one-user contract, with a two-user contract conceivably at a different price point. Thus one could argue that the payment being intentionally avoided is the difference in price between one and two users.

There is a US Federal statute in the area that might be relevant, and I would be interested to know if there are laws in other jurisdictions that could be used in a similar manner. But I’ll leave those discussions for another post.

For those of you in and around Austin, EFF-Austin’s next general meeting will be on 15 February at Cafe Caffeine, 909 W. Mary St. at 6:30pm. The talk will be on net neutrality.

In competition law news, the FTC is forcing Rambus to licence its memory chips for DRAM. [InfoWorld].

Via CIPP, The Beatles and Apple have settled their long-running trade mark dispute. You could now get your Fab 4 via iTunes. [Reuters]:

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can

Revolution

Also via CIPP, the UK Government is launching IP audits for small businesses in an effort to get them to capitalise on their IP more. [FT.com]

EFF (no, not the Austin one…) is opening an office in Brussels — Erik Jossefsson, former president of FFII Sweden will be the lead person. [EFF Press Release].

Via Michael Geist’s BNA Internet News, New Jersey is cracking down on smokers who have been avoiding taxes by buying their smokes online. One man received a 10, 426 USD ( pounds) bill — after he quit smoking. [Newsday].

Sweden is opening up an ‘embassy’ in Second Life. It’s more of a marketing ploy than anything. CNet Link.

EBay decides to ban the sale of virtual goods. IGE, I’m sure, are cracking out the magnums of champagne. Discuss over at Terra Nova. CNet story.

The Norwegian Ombudsman has declared Apple’s DRM illegal. Out-Law.com story.

In net regulation news, the UK is attempting to put regulate advertising by non-EU online gambling companies in order to clamp down on shoddy sites. Out-Law.com story.

Former Austinite and EFF-Austin founder Bruce Sterling will be speaking at Freedom 2 Connect. F2C site.

Speaking of EFF-Austin, my former co-boardmember Silona Bonewald is getting great things off the ground with The League of Technical Voters. Check out their site.

In more wiki news, Wikipedia is being cited by judges back in the states. Even heavyweight Judge Posner weighs in. Out-law.com story.