justdanceitoff.com

Monday, October 19, 2009

A report accidentally published on the Internet provides insight into a secretive European Union surveillance project designed to monitor its citizens, as reported by Wikileaks earlier this month. Project INDECT aims to mine data from television, internet traffic, cellphone conversations, p2p file sharing and a range of other sources for crime prevention and threat prediction. The €14.68 million project began in January, 2009, and is scheduled to continue for five years under its current mandate.

INDECT produced the accidentally published report as part of their “Extraction of Information for Crime Prevention by Combining Web Derived Knowledge and Unstructured Data” project, but do not enumerate all potential applications of the search and surveillance technology. Police are discussed as a prime example of users, with Polish and British forces detailed as active project participants. INDECT is funded under the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), and includes participation from Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Indicated in the initial trial’s report, the scope of data collected is particularly broad; days of television news, radio, newspapers, and recorded telephone conversations are included. Several weeks of content from online sources were agglomerated, including mining Wikipedia for users’ and article subjects’ relations with others, organisations, and in-project movements.

Watermarking of published digital works such as film, audio, or other documents is discussed in the Project INDECT remit; its purpose is to integrate and track this information, its movement within the system and across the Internet. An unreleased promotional video for INDECT located on YouTube is shown to the right. The simplified example of the system in operation shows a file of documents with a visible INDECT-titled cover taken from an office and exchanged in a car park. How the police are alerted to the document theft is unclear in the video; as a “threat”, it would be the INDECT system’s job to predict it.

Throughout the video use of CCTV equipment, facial recognition, number plate reading, and aerial surveillance give friend-or-foe information with an overlaid map to authorities. The police proactively use this information to coordinate locating, pursuing, and capturing the document recipient. The file of documents is retrieved, and the recipient roughly detained.

Technology research performed as part of Project INDECT has clear use in countering industrial and international espionage, although the potential use in maintaining any security and predicting leaks is much broader. Quoted in the UK’s Daily Telegraph, Liberty’s director, Shami Chakrabarti, described a possible future implementation of INDECT as a “sinister step” with “positively chilling” repercussions Europe-wide.

“It is inevitable that the project has a sensitive dimension due to the security focussed goals of the project,” Suresh Manandhar, leader of the University of York researchers involved in the “Work Package 4” INDECT component, responded to Wikinews. “However, it is important to bear in mind that the scientific methods are much more general and has wider applications. The project will most likely have lot of commercial potential. The project has an Ethics board to oversee the project activities. As a responsible scientists [sic] it is of utmost importance to us that we conform to ethical guidelines.”

Although Wikinews attempted to contact Professor Helen Petrie of York University, the local member of Project INDECT’s Ethics board, no response was forthcoming. The professor’s area of expertise is universal access, and she has authored a variety of papers on web-accessibility for blind and disabled users. A full list of the Ethics board members is unavailable, making their suitability unassessable and distancing them from public accountability.

One potential application of Project INDECT would be implementation and enforcement of the U.K.’s “MoD Manual of Security“. The 2,389-page 2001 version passed to Wikileaks this month — commonly known as JSP-440, and marked “RESTRICTED” — goes into considerable detail on how, as a serious threat, investigative journalists should be monitored, and effectively thwarted; just the scenario the Project INDECT video could be portraying.

When approached by Wikinews about the implications of using INDECT, a representative of the U.K.’s Attorney General declined to comment on legal checks and balances such a system might require. Further U.K. enquiries were eventually referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have not yet responded.

Wikinews’ Brian McNeil contacted Eddan Katz, the International Affairs Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (E.F.F.). Katz last spoke to Wikinews in early 2008 on copyright, not long after taking his current position with the E.F.F. He was back in Brussels to speak to EU officials, Project INDECT was on his agenda too — having learned of it only two weeks earlier. Katz linked Project INDECT with a September report, NeoConopticon — The EU Security-Industrial Complex, authored by Ben Hayes for the Transnational Institute. The report raises serious questions about the heavy involvement of defence and IT companies in “security research”.

On the record, Katz answered a few questions for Wikinews.

((WN)) Is this illegal? Is this an invasion of privacy? Spying on citizens?

Eddan Katz When the European Parliament issued the September 5, 2001 report on the American ECHELON system they knew such an infrastructure is in violation of data protection law, undermines the values of privacy and is the first step towards a totalitarian surveillance information society.

((WN)) Who is making the decisions based on this information, about what?

E.K. What’s concerning to such a large extent is the fact that the projects seem to be agnostic to that question. These are the searching systems and those people that are working on it in these research labs do search technology anyway. […] but its inclusion in a database and its availability to law enforcement and its simultaneity of application that’s so concerning, […] because the people who built it aren’t thinking about those questions, and the social questions, and the political questions, and all this kind of stuff. [… It] seems like it’s intransparent, unaccountable.

The E.U. report Katz refers to was ratified just six days before the September 11 attacks that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center. In their analysis of the never-officially-recognised U.S. Echelon spy system it states, “[i]n principle, activities and measures undertaken for the purposes of state security or law enforcement do not fall within the scope of the EC Treaty.” On privacy and data-protection legislation enacted at E.U. level it comments, “[such does] not apply to ‘the processing of data/activities concerning public security, defence, state security (including the economic well-being of the state when the activities relate to state security matters) and the activities of the state in areas of criminal law'”.

Part of the remit in their analysis of Echelon was rumours of ‘commercial abuse’ of intelligence; “[i]f a Member State were to promote the use of an interception system, which was also used for industrial espionage, by allowing its own intelligence service to operate such a system or by giving foreign intelligence services access to its territory for this purpose, it would undoubtedly constitute a breach of EC law […] activities of this kind would be fundamentally at odds with the concept of a common market underpinning the EC Treaty, as it would amount to a distortion of competition”.

Ben Hayes’ NeoConoptiocon report, in a concluding section, “Following the money“, states, “[w]hat is happening in practice is that multinational corporations are using the ESRP [European Seventh Research Programme] to promote their own profit-driven agendas, while the EU is using the programme to further its own security and defence policy objectives. As suggested from the outset of this report, the kind of security described above represents a marriage of unchecked police powers and unbridled capitalism, at the expense of the democratic system.”

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

With the election campaign just beginning, Australian Prime Minister John Howard has promised AU$34 billion in personal income tax cuts over the next three years. That is on top of $31.5 billion announced in May, and $36.7 billion announced in 2006.

The new tax cuts are based on new projections for growth in the Australian economy. The Treasury estimates that the economy will expand by 4.25% in the 12 months to June 2008, up from growth of 3.75% predicted in May.

The Government has challenged the Labor opposition to announce their tax policy immediately.

“The biggest, boldest tax plan that we’ve seen in a long time is presented yesterday, it deals with participation, competitiveness, building capacity in the Australian economy, and what does Kevin Rudd say? Nothing,” treasurer Peter Costello said. “He better have an answer today.”

Costello described the government tax policy as “very responsible” and said Rudd was a “Nothing Man” because he has not revealed Labor’s tax policy.

The Shadow Treasurer, Wayne Swan, replied “The only responsible course of action here is to study the detail. We’ve said we’ll put out all our policies well before the election and we’ll do that”.

“But in terms of what the Government’s put forward, we will take our time to study the detail. That’s the only responsible and reasonable thing to do.”

Economists from Access Economics, the ANZ Bank, HSBC and Macquarie Bank noted that the tax cuts will boost demand at a time when the Reserve Bank is trying to slow the economy. The Reserve Bank has been raising interest rates to keep the inflation rate within its target range. Households with substantial mortgages could end up worse off.

Rudd has said the Opposition will reveal its tax policy in its own time – mimicking John Howard’s approach when he was Opposition Leader in 1996.

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Yesterday, the state government of New South Wales (NSW), Australia announced “Bradfield” as the name for the planned third city in Greater Sydney.

Bradfield is located at west of City of Parramatta and Sydney, in vicinity of the then currently in construction Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport. The city is to be named in honour of John Bradfield, the engineer who designed the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney rail line. The name came after a public consultation earlier last year.

In a press release on the New South Wales official website, Premier Gladys Berejiklian commented on the significance of the chosen name, “Bradfield was a renowned engineer who designed and oversaw the construction of both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Sydney’s original railway network”. “The name Bradfield is synonymous with delivering game-changing infrastructure and it sets the right tone for the area we have referred to as the ‘Aerotropolis Core’ until now”, Berejiklian added.

According to the announcement, the planned city area is more than 1 km² (100 hectares) positioned to the north of the Bringelly suburb. In the official announcement, Premier Gladys Berejiklian wrote the city would be a “high-tech manufacturing and research hub” and it would create 200 thousand jobs. Premier Gladys Berejiklian clarified the scope of the planned city, saying “[t]his area will be transformed into a thriving city centre, home to advanced manufacturing, research, science and education and we want Bradfield to be as iconic as the existing major city centres of Sydney and Parramatta. […] What are paddocks now will be a thriving, bustling city centre offering the best job opportunities anywhere in Australia.”

Minister for Western Sydney Stuart Ayres commented on the prior public consultation and the large community involvement, saying “The number of suggestions the community put forward to ‘Name the Place’ was overwhelming and we are thrilled with the level of participation and interest this project attracted. […] We thank everyone for having their say and want to assure the community the remaining suggestions will be considered as names for streets, parks and other landmarks in the new city centre. […] I look forward to Bradfield being the first name that people think of when starting a new job, creating a new business, learning a new skill and investing in NSW.”

Per a report from Sydney Metro published in June 2020, the Western Sydney International project of the airport and the metro is planned to be inaugurated in 2026.

With some comments on social media having indicated concerns over the hotter climate in the area, Wikinews has retrieved the mean maximum temperatures for the three areas — Sydney, Parramatta, and Badgerys Creek location — and has found arithmetic mean of annual of monthly mean maximum temperatures for these locations to be 23.13, 23.8 and 24.04° Celsius, according to the data from 1996 to 2020 from the Bureau of Meteorology.

According to official data from local authorities, City of Sydney was founded in 1842 and has an area of 26.15 km²; while Sydney was converted from a penal colony in the year of 1788. Parramatta was also founded in 1788, and has an area of 84 km².

Friday, September 22, 2006

A complaint made against Internet service provider (ISP) iHug by M. McNatty has been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). McNatty complained that he was not told of the special conditions of banner adverts he saw on the iHug website.

McNatty said: “I signed up [to iHug] but discovered I had shot over my limit and iHUG had reduced my download speed from 100 to 64kps. I rang iHUG and they explained that I had gone over my 1 GB traffic allotment by 230%. I explained I was on the 3 GB plan and they went on to tell me that 2 of the 3GB can only be used between the hours of 2 a.m. and 10 a.m.” He then went on to talk to the manager of iHug but was told there was nothing he could do so he asked to be upgraded to the more expensive option of the 15 GB plan.

iHug replied to the complaint by saying: “It appears that M. McNatty has briefly looked at the front page of our broadband section without either reading down the page to the what you get section or clicking on the info or join now links on our website. If he had, he would have found information about the peak and off-peak split of data allowances. He has then rung the iHug call centre, where our call centre personnel have been instructed to inform customers of the details of data allowances because many customers don’t understand how much data they will need. If the customer service representative has failed to explain how the data allowances work then that is a mistake on our part, for which I am sincerely apologetic. iHug has taken steps to resolve this by stressing to Customer Service Managers that they must remind their teams to fully explain data allowances during the sign up call.”

iHug then went on to apologize to McNatty if felt he had been misled but said: “I think it is unreasonable for M. McNatty to expect all information pertaining to a broadband application to be contained in detail on a small banner advert which is clearly design to capture interest only and lead the customer to further information.”

The ASA complaint board then reviewed the advertisement and noted that the advertisement clearly identified that information related to the offer was available on other pages and that a customer would most likely know that plans varied and would ask for clarification before subscribing.

But then said, referring to the 3 GB plan advertisement; “However, nowhere in the main offer or the immediate conditions headed, “ihug broadband – what you get”, did it inform the consumer that 2 of the 3 GB could only be used between the hours of 2 a.m. and 10 a.m., one third being peak user time, two thirds being off-peak user time. This, in the Complaints Board’s view, significantly diminished the offer of ‘3 GB data’, to the extent that the offer could be considered to be ‘exaggerated’. As such the Complaints Board said that it would be likely to mislead the consumer.”

They also noted that the wording “generous peak download allowance” was a hyperbole and overstated the product offered, which amounted to misleading the customer.

The Complaints Board said: “A website advertisement was not limited by a time constraint such as a television advertisement, or restricted by space available, and thereby there was no apparent reason why this paramount condition could not be more obvious in relation to the offer.”

The complaints board then said that if special condition reduced the offer in value then those conditions need to be obvious. They noted that the ad does say conditions do apply. “However, as the condition in this instance diminished the offer in a major way, the Complaints Board was unanimously of the view, that it should have been disclosed in an obvious manner, as part of the initial offer or in close proximity to it,” said the complaints board.

The board then noted that the advertisement was in violation of the second rule in the Code of Ethics which states “Truthful Presentation – Advertisements should not contain any statement or visual presentation or create an overall impression which directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive or mislead the consumer, makes false and misleading representation, abuses the trust of the consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such, is not considered to be misleading).” The board did uphold the complaint.