Consultation Paper on Electronic Evidence to be published today

The Law Reform Commission will be publishing a Consultation Paper on Documentary and Electronic Evidence today. The Irish Times has a summary of the contents:

The LRC states that in general there be no difference between the rules concerning manual or computer-generated documents and records; all business records, whether manual or computer-generated, should in general be presumed to be admissible and that the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, which allows banking records to be admitted as evidence in court, should be updated and extended to apply to records from all financial institutions.

For mechanically generated recordings, such as videos or CCTV, it should be clarified that any defects in their quality should not rule them inadmissible but should be simply a question of the weight given to the recording.

It also recommends that an expert group be established to develop standards and guidelines for the verification of electronic and digital signatures, and that the existing law which presumes that “public documents” are admissible should be updated, because much of the relevant legislation predates the foundation of the State.

Hosting defence applies to user comments: English High Court

In a significant decision, Karim v. Newsquest Media Group, Eady J. has accepted that online newspapers can rely on the E-Commerce Directive hosting defence in respect of user comments, meaning that they should generally be exempt from liability in respect of those comments provided that they take them down when notified that they are potentially defamatory.

The plaintiff in this case was a solicitor who had been struck off following mishandling of client funds. The defendant's websites reported the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal in an article titled "Crooked solicitors spent client money on a Rolex, loose women and drink", and a number of users made further allegations about the plaintiff in the comments attached to the article. The defendant took exception to both the article itself and the user comments and issued proceedings against the defendant without prior notice. On receiving the proceedings, the defendant took down the articles and comments the same day.

The plaintiff's case comprised two components - the article and the attached user comments - and the defendant applied for summary judgment in respect of both.

As regards the article, the court had no difficulty in finding that it was covered by absolute privilege as a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of legal proceedings under s.14 of the Defamation Act 1996, and that portion of the claim was struck out.

As regards the user comments, the defendant argued that it was protected by the hosting defence, as transposed into UK law by Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations of 2002. This provides:

Where an information society service is provided which consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that storage where -

(a) the service provider -

(i) does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the service provider that the activity or information was unlawful; or

(ii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information, and

(b) the recipient of the service was not acting under the authority or the control of the service provider.

Although no authority was cited on this point, Eady J. stated that he was "quite satisfied" that the defendants could rely on this defence, going on to hold that the users were not acting under the "authority or control" of the defendant. This portion of the claim was therefore struck out also.

This appears to be the first time that an English court has dealt with this question, though it reaches the same result as the Irish decision in Mulvaney v. Betfair (t/a The Sporting Exchange).

As with that decision, it is good news for online publishers dealing with user-generated content, suggesting that the courts will adopt a wide interpretation of the hosting defence. But as with Mulvany v. Betfair, it might be unwise to celebrate yet. This is a first instance decision (albeit a decision of one of the most prominent judges in this field) and was based on the arguments of one side only. It does not consider the arguments which might be put forward to limit the hosting defence, and rather glosses over the question of whether posters in a moderated forum could be said to be acting under the authority or control of the host.

Experience from the US has shown that online immunities tend to be extensively challenged as plaintiffs seek to work around them. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has, in particular, been repeatedly litigated and occasionally evaded by plaintiffs. (Eric Goldman analyses some of the approaches taken by plaintiffs: 1|2|3.) It's safe to say that similar challenges to the hosting immunity are likely in Europe until such time as the European Court of Justice issues a definitive interpretation of its scope.

(Via The Register)

EU guidance on unfair commercial practices - confirms rules apply to social networking, blogs

The Commission has just published a lengthy working document (PDF) with guidance on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. This confirms that the Directive applies to blogs and social networking sites and gives some examples of banned practices - such as the use of fake comments or "astroturfing":

Social media, which include blogs, social networking sites, have become important avenues for commercial practices, especially hidden ones. They are sometimes used by traders to promote and advertise their products.

For example, several Member States have reported that cosmetic companies have paid bloggers to promote and advertise their products on a blog aimed at teenagers, unbeknownst to other users. In such cases, the authorities considered that the bloggers concerned were engaging in hidden commercial practices.

Unfair commercial practices may also occur on price comparison websites. An obvious case is when an online price comparison service belongs or is linked to a trader and is used to advertise its products. For example, the site "quiestlemoinscher.com" (literally "whoisthecheapest.com"), a grocery price comparison service created by a French major supermarket company, was considered by French courts to be a trader's website and a tool for comparative advertising...

[T]he Directive tackles the particular situation of "hidden" traders or traders representing themselves as consumers. Under Annex I of the Directive (the "black list"), the following practice is prohibited in all circumstances: Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.

For example, "hidden" traders may be:
– a hotel website including flattering comments supposedly by consumers which are actually drafted by the hotel owner;
– a bookshop advertising its "customers' choice" books where customers have never been consulted and the choice is made by the bookseller.

Of course, none of this should come as any suprise to Irish readers. The Directive was implemented in Ireland by the Consumer Protection Act 2007, and both Daithi and Damien had good posts around that time pointing out that the Act would prohibit businesses from posing as consumers or (covertly) paying bloggers to post about them.

Responsibility for enforcing the Consumer Protection Act lies with the National Consumer Authority. Given how common fake comments have become, I'm surprised that they haven't put out any guidance on this topic. It may be that it will take a complaint from an annoyed blogger (is there any other type?) or forum moderator before they take any action in this area.

Incidentally, it must be said that the approach taken by the Directive and national law (which is limited to paid posts or "advertorials") is much more sensible than the approach which the FTC has taken in the United States, where it now requires bloggers and twitterers to post details of any supposed conflict of interest - even a review copy of a book! - on pain of a $11,000 fine. Jack Shafer has more on the FTC rules (PDF).

Time for national steps to tackle cybercrime

The Irish Times has a good report of the recent IRISS Conference on Cybercrime. The comments of Paul Gillen were particularly interesting:

Det Insp Paul Gillen, head of the Garda computer crime investigation unit, said he was very concerned about the possibility of distributed denial-of-service attacks against Irish sites.

"I’m scared that Ireland will suffer what Estonia suffered," he said, referring to incidents in April and May 2007 when many Estonian government websites and critical systems were taken offline. "Ireland’s capability to react to something like that would worry me," said Det Insp Gillen...

Despite newspaper reports and regular warnings from banks, the phishing problem has got worse, added Det Insp Gillen. "We still have people who are willing to sit down and give their user name and password and are willing to write 100 PIN numbers from a code card that the bank gave them – and then they’ll go back to check they’re the right ones," he said. "Somewhere along the way, we’re obviously failing at getting the information out to the general public to make them more aware of hi-tech crime."

According to Det Insp Gillen, phishing scams usually happen in four stages: the hack is performed to infiltrate a person’s PC and steal their login details, or else the victim is tricked into revealing their pass codes by an e-mail that seems to have been sent by their bank. Criminals then gain access to the person’s bank account over the internet and use the codes to transfer money to an account in another part of the country.

Gangs then use "money mules" – other people who withdraw funds from ATMs. "The money mule is the first person to raise their head above the trench to have the back of their collar grabbed,” said Det Insp Gillen, who said gardaí have had some success stopping this.

"Everyone in this structure receives a percentage of the take in the crime," he said. "We’re dealing with highly organised crime here. The only way we’re in a position to deal with it is if IT security professionals, academics, law enforcement and a Cert join into a community to develop a task force, because everyone has information that could be a piece of evidence."

So what is currently being done to deal with the problems identified at the conference?

One promising development took place in August when the Minister for Communications announced that a report outlining a national cyber security strategy would be in place by the end of the year. (According to the Press Office in Communications, the report is currently being finalised.)

On the legislative front, however, the picture is gloomier. Irish law still has no general offence to deal with denial of service attacks (PDF) or online interception and implementation of the Cybercrime Convention and the Framework Decision on Attacks Against Information Systems is long overdue.

There is a Criminal Justice (Cybercrime and Attacks against Information Systems) Bill on the legislative agenda - but there's no date given for when we might see a draft. Given that we were initially promised implementing legislation in 2003 (PDF, p.25) and again in 2006, one might be forgiven for being sceptical as to whether any reform of the law relating to cybercrime will take place in the lifetime of this Government.

Software development agreement did not transfer copyright

OUT-Law have a report of an interesting recent English case - Infection Control Enterprises Limited v Virrage Industries Limited and Aidan Cartwright [2009] EWHC 2602 (QB) - concerning ownership of commissioned software which was intended for resale by the client. As is increasingly the trend, the client didn't succeed in their claim that there was an implied term that they would acquire the copyright.

I discussed the legal issues involved in these types of cases in a 2007 article in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice - "Copyright in Custom Code: Who Owns Commissioned Software?" Fortunately this decision doesn't appear to have proved me wrong.

Telenor Pirate Bay blocking decision - English translation

In an important (but surprisingly poorly publicised) decision two weeks ago a Norwegian court dealt a blow to music industry attempts to force ISPs to police their users, holding that Telenor was under no obligation to block access to The Pirate Bay. An English translation of that decision is now available (PDF link) and makes interesting reading. One particularly significant portion of the ruling stresses that it is not appropriate to assign a censorship function to private entities, and that if filtering is to be required then legislation would be necessary:

If the plaintiffs' claim is heard, this will, in the court's view, give a situation difficult to handle in practice. Reference is made to the fact that the content on The Pirate Bay, and also other websites, can be changed and is in fact constantly being changed. The court further states that Telenor as an Internet provider does not have a duty to monitor or investigate what Internet is used for, so that the Internet providers must be notified of alleged illegal actions. Thus, Telenor and other Internet providers, as private companies, must assess whether or not to stop a relevant website or service. This task normally belongs to public authorities, and the court finds that in the present situation, it is unnatural to assign such responsibility to private companies. If this solution is to be chosen, a closer study will be required. As we have been informed, the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs has already initiated a legislation process on these matters.

BT Ireland caves in on "three strikes" demands?

According to today's Irish Times the music industry's litigation against BT Ireland has been settled. Terms of the agreement weren't revealed, but my assumption would be that BT have agreed to implement a three strikes system for disconnecting users accused of filesharing, following the Eircom model. Surprisingly however there hasn't yet been a press release from IRMA or BT. Does anyone have more information?

Edited to add: Thanks to the anonymous commenter for pointing out that this simply follows BT's deal to move its consumer division to Vodafone.

Irish law on hacking tools / dual-use software

In my last post I mentioned the iPhone dessid app which generates WEP keys from the SSIDs of Eircom routers - making life easier for individuals who wish to piggyback on the wifi of others.

What are the legal issues associated with using or providing this app? Unsurprisingly media coverage of the software has reported that unauthorised access to wifi may constitute a criminal offence, something Eoin O'Dell has previously teased out in a series of posts (1|2|3).

A more difficult question however - and one which hasn't yet been considered - is whether simply providing the app might itself constitute a criminal offence.

So called hacking tools have been specifically criminalised in some jurisdictions. In the UK for example section 37 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (which was eventually brought into force in October 2008) amended the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to create a new offence of making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in computer misuse offences - an offence which would be committed where a person supplies a program "intending it to be used" or "believing that it is likely to be used" in an unauthorised access offence.

That offence is wide enough to capture dual-use tools - programs such as this one which have legitimate as well as criminal uses - and consequently the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidelines to prosecutors in relation to when prosecutions should be brought, looking at factors such as whether software is "available on a wide scale commercial basis and sold through legitimate channels", is "widely used for legitimate purposes", is "circulated to a closed and vetted list of IT security professionals or [is] posted openly" or has been "developed primarily, deliberately and for the sole purpose of committing" an offence.

Unsatisfactory though the UK law and guidance might be (a point made by, amongst others, Richard Clayton) it does at least attempt to legislate specifically for computer crime. Irish law on the other hand has no offence specifically tailored for this situation, leaving us to wonder whether new situations might be forced within the confines of old offences. I wrote about this point recently for Reich (ed.), Cybercrime and Security, and here's a short excerpt:

While Irish law does not specifically deal with these matters, it may be possible to prosecute in individual cases using section 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. That section provides:

“A person (in this section referred to as the possessor) who has any thing in his custody or under his control intending without lawful excuse to use it or cause or permit another to use it— (a) to damage any property belonging to some other person … shall be guilty of an offence.”

Bearing in mind that the definition of property under the 1991 Act includes data, this section would seem to be wide enough to criminalise possession of e.g. a virus or Trojan horse where accompanied by an intention to damage property. It should, however, be noted that this section does not criminalise creation, possession, sale or distribution per se – in every case it must be shown that the defendant had an intention to use the item to damage property. This appears to create two related problems for prosecutors. From an evidential point of view it is likely that they will face a difficulty in demonstrating that an accused person had the necessary intention. Moreover, the intention which must be shown is an intention to damage property – a mere intention to carry out an unauthorised access would not suffice. If, for example, A were found to be in possession of a username and password belonging to B, this would not be an offence under section 4 if A’s intention was merely to view B’s data.

Applying this analysis to the dessid app, it seems to me unlikely that distributing this or similar software would be an offence under section 4. First, that section requires an intention to cause or permit a person to use it to commit an offence. Mere foresight that an offence might be committed would not seem to be enough. Secondly, section 4 applies only to things to be used for the purpose of criminal damage - so that distribution of software for some other illegal purpose (such as unauthorised access) would not fall within its remit. (A further obstacle might lie in the narrow wording of section 4 - is software a "thing" within the meaning of that section?)

Unauthorised access? There's an app for that

APPLE IS benefiting from sales of a piece of software that provides free access to up to 250,000 home broadband networks without the owners’ knowledge.

The software for Apple iPhones, called “dessid”, which costs €1.59, exploits a flaw in the hardware Eircom provided to its broadband customers and which first came to light in September 2007.

The problem occurred because each Eircom customer’s wireless network broadcast a unique eight-digit code as its network name. The password was derived from these digits.

To my mind, the real issue behind this Irish Times story is not that you can buy an app which allows you to piggyback on the wifi of Eircom customers (there's a handy web page that will still work even if Apple pulls the program from the app store) - instead it's that Eircom have agreed to disconnect users accused of filesharing, despite knowing full well that their own wireless modems are insecure and that people will be wrongfully disconnected as a result.

Data breach consultation paper now out

The Data Protection Review Group has now published a consultation paper (pdf) on reforming Irish law on notification of data breaches. Pages 33-38 on possible regulatory options are particularly useful, though the group is clearly hampered by the fact that any national reforms might soon be out of date as a result of changes at European level.

Garda databases still open to abuse?

From today's Sunday Business Post:

A garda undermined a series of major anti-crime surveillance operations by passing details of car registrations belonging to undercover detectives onto a gang of armed robbers.

The garda is the subject of an internal investigation which is looking into a number of officers who are suspected of being on the payroll of separate Dublin criminals. The garda was in regular contact with a crime figure who is facing charges related to serious criminal activity.

When the criminal gang suspected that they might be under surveillance, they supplied the garda with a list of car registrations they had encountered. The garda checked the car details on the force’s Pulse IT system and informed the gang if the cars were part of the Garda fleet.

In several cases, the garda was able to identify vehicles that were being used by an undercover Garda unit. To avoid detection, the officer got junior uniformed gardaí to log into the Pulse system using their own passwords - as the system records a digital imprint of every log-in by a member using their unique password, The Sunday Business Post understands.

Update (8.11.09) - The Sunday Independent has more on abuse of Garda databases.

Moriarty-Tribunal.ie v. MoriartyTribunal.com - Denis O'Brien takes the PR battle online

Today's Sunday Business Post has an interesting article about Denis O'Brien's latest salvo in his ongoing PR battle against the Moriarty Tribunal investigation into how he came to be awarded Ireland's second mobile phone licence.

The official website of the Tribunal is moriarty-tribunal.ie and O'Brien has now launched a full frontal attack on the findings of the tribunal at moriartytribunal.com, which bills itself as presenting "the true picture of the Moriarty Tribunal's 8 1/2 year inquiry into the awarding of the second mobile phone licence" - including confidential correspondence between the Tribunal and parties.

Is a UDRP claim on the cards? Probably not (though there has been one case where an Irish public body has unsuccessfully invoked the IEDRP). Nevertheless, I'll be interested to see whether the Tribunal will object to the use of such a similar domain name.

UK Government abandons plans for mandatory web filtering

Just over a month ago the Independent on Sunday reported that:

The Home Office is drawing up plans for what, in effect, would be the first form of state intervention in Britain in relation to the internet.

British ISPs would face heavy fines for failing to block sites containing images of child sexual abuse, according to the contents of a leaked Home Office document seen by The Independent on Sunday...

The leaked Home Office letter says a clause in the Police, Crime and Private Security Bill in the Queen's Speech would "compel domestic ISPs to implement the blocking of illegal images of child sexual abuse".

This was far from new policy - since 2006 the Home Office has consistently said that it would legislate for mandatory filters unless ISPs "voluntarily" filtered against the IWF blacklist. But according to The Register, it has now rather abruptly changed its position:

The government has abandoned its long-standing pledge to force 100 per cent of internet providers to block access to a list of child pornography websites.

The decision to drop the policy will be finalised at a meeting on Monday to be attended by internet industry representatives, children's charities and Alun Michael MP.

The former minister had aimed to pressurise small ISPs to implement the Internet Watch Foundation's (IWF) blacklist with the threat of legislation, but the Home Office has now backed down. A lobbying campaign argued costs were too high for small companies to bear and that the blocking technology can be easily circumvented by determined paedophiles.

Instead the Home Office will attempt to use consumer pressure to encourage the remaining ISPs to filter:

For the first time the IWF will publish the list of ISPs who are certified as having implemented its blacklist. "Hopefully consumer and public pressure will encourage the ISPs who aren't on the list to comply," said Carr. A Home Office spokesman said: "We will continue to urge ISPs to implement blocking, and ask consumers to check with their suppliers that they have done so. The Government recognises the work done by most of the internet industry to tackle this problem."

Why the about-face? One factor may have been that the Home Office didn't enjoy wide support for its plans even amongst official bodies. The Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) recently said that he was not convinced of the need to introduce mandatory filtering, while apComms had come out strongly against mandatory web filters. Key to both views was the recognition (which was slow in dawning at the Home Office) that web filters are increasingly irrelevant to the wider problem. Or, as The Register put it:

One likely factor in the softening of stance of both the government and charities is the fact that on the frontline of online child protection, websites carrying images of abuse are no longer seen as a priority.

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is focussed on paedophile peer to peer networks as they are much more likely to carry recent images, potentially indicating ongoing abuse. The IWF's website blocking is seen as yesterday's issue.

Coincidentally, Germany is also having second thoughts about mandatory filtering, with post-election negotiations for a new coalition government featuring demands that the proposed filtering system be halted.

apComms come out for worldwide IWF system; against mandatory internet filtering

apComms - the influential UK All Party Parliamentary Communications Group - have now issued the Report from their inquiry "Can we keep our hands off the net?". This inquiry commenced in April and focused on five questions:

#1 Can we distinguish circumstances when ISPs should be forced to act to deal with some type of bad traffic? When should we insist that ISPs should not be forced into dealing with a problem, and that the solution must be found elsewhere?
#2 Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites?
#3 Is there a need for new initiatives to deal with online privacy, and if so, what should be done?
#4 Is the current global approach to dealing with child sexual abuse images working effectively? If not, then how should it be improved?
#5 Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute?

The full report is an interesting document, and is squarely at odds with current government policy in several areas. Here's what it has to say on filesharing, for example:

We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.

What interests me most is what apComms have to say about dealing with online child pornography. Here they've adopted what seems to be a sensible approach (no doubt influenced by their advisor, Richard Clayton) warning against over-reliance on filters, rejecting government policy to introduce mandatory filters and instead recommending an international extension of IWF-type voluntary cooperation on notice and take-down systems:

We recommend that the Government does not legislate to enforce the deployment of blocking systems based on the IWF lists. This has the potential to damage future attempts to fix problems through self-regulation, and will thus, in the long term, be counterproductive...

It seems quite clear from the evidence that we received that a great deal more could be done to promptly request ISPs to remove child sexual abuse image websites. The IWF are clearly doing a good job along these lines within the UK, but they tell us that they are unable to extend this activity to key countries such as the US and Russia.

In our view, this is an unacceptable situation. If the IWF are unable to perform this important function on a global basis, then some other organisation will need to be given the task. Although there is no particular reason why such a global body should be UK based, the long history of leadership in this area makes the UK a natural candidate to develop a new approach.

We recommend that the Government, in consultation with the EU Commission, establish whether the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) should extend its “notice and take-down” mechanisms to the whole world, and if not, work to establish such a global system.

More from Andres and The Register.

Judgment in Irish Pirate Bay blocking case now available

The Courts.ie website now has the full text of the judgment by Charleton J. in EMI Records v. Eircom where an order was made against Eircom requiring them to block access to The Pirate Bay. This decision is of limited precedential value - it was made on the consent of Eircom and is an ex tempore judgment only. Nevertheless it's worth reading for an insight into how Irish judges will respond to claims that websites should be blocked.

The judgment itself doesn't refer to the terms of the order against Eircom, but I've previously put up the relevant portions of the order.

IRISS Conference on Cybercrime in Ireland

This promises to be a very interesting event:

IRISS Conference 2009

IRISS will hold its first annual conference on the 19th of November 2009 at the D4 Berkley Court hotel. This all day conference will focus on providing you with an overview of the current cyber threats facing businesses in Ireland and what you can do to help deal with those threats.

Experts on various aspects of cyber crime and cyber security will share their thoughts and experiences with you while a number of panel sessions will provide you with the opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to you most. There will be a number of expert speakers on cyber crime including representatives from;

* The Irish Reporting and Information Security Service
* An Garda Siochana,
* The Data Protection Commissioner's Office
* The European Network and Information Security Agency
* OWASP (The Open Web Application Security Project).

In parallel to the above speaking sessions Ireland's first Cyber Security Challenge, HackEire, will be held to identify Ireland's top cyber security experts. HackEire will see 10 teams, up to a maximum of four people per team, compete against each other in a controlled environment to see which team will be the first to exploit weaknesses in a number of systems and declare victory. The purpose of the HackEire competition is to demonstrate how attackers could gain access to your systems and allow you to learn from the event on how to prevent such attacks from impacting your network.

The conference will be open to anyone with the responsibility for securing their business information assets. There is no charge for those who wish to attend.

(via Michele)

Employment law issues that didn't exist when I was in law school

From OUT-LAW:

Employers must gain control of their employees' online behaviour and virtual attire according to business research firm Gartner. It said that companies should establish dress codes for employees' avatars.

JC Decaux should backpedal on iPhone app threat

I'm quoted in today's Irish Times on the threats made by JC Decaux against Fusio resulting in their taking down their Dublin Bikes App.

Leave aside for a moment the PR stupidity of this strategy.

Ignore if you will the dubious legal basis of their claim. (Without going into the finer points of copyright in facts, database rights, clickwrap agreements or possible passing off, the vague nature of their complaint - "Following our conversion, I confirm that you do not have the rights to use the information published on the web site http://www.dublinbikes.ie/. In particular the data concerning the stations is the property of JCDecaux and cannot be used without our prior authorisation" - makes it clear that they have little idea what they are talking about.)

Think instead about the issue of principle. A body which is operating in partnership with Dublin City Council is attempting to stop an Irish company from providing - free of charge - facts to the public about the service which they offer, without giving any justification for doing so, and without offering an alternative of their own. (I'm happy to see that at least some of our politicians understand the absurdity of this.)

I spoke to the press office in Dublin City Council today, who made it clear that they regard this matter as nothing to do with them. But why not? DCC were happy to work with Fusio to develop the app. Is there no provision in their contract with JCD establishing an obligation to provide information to the public about the service? Will they make sure that future contracts address this type of situation? (And - while I'm on the topic of the contract - why does JCD own the domain dublinbikes.ie? Is there any provision in the contract for the domain to revert to DCC on its expiry?)

Ryanair screen scraping: New litigation

I've blogged before about Ryanair's case against Travelfusion and Bravofly in respect of screen scraping. According to RTE News, this case has now been joined by a fresh set of proceedings in the High Court by Ryanair against Ticketpoint, Reisebuero and Billigfluege, alleging that they are using screen scraping to resell Ryanair tickets at higher prices.

According to the news report, Ryanair is complaining that the three companies are "applying a service charge and credit card charges to the prices". I wonder who they got that idea from?

Lori Drew decision published - Breach of terms of use as a criminal offence

When Lori Drew was prosecuted for bullying via MySpace which led to the suicide of Megan Meier many people were worried about the prosecution theory of the case. The basis of the charge was not the bullying itself but rather that by failing to comply with MySpace's terms of use Lori Drew had committed an offence of unauthorised access to a computer. If accepted, this theory would have criminalised failure to abide by terms of use - terms which most users never read and which are often vague and imprecise in their scope - and effectively permitted site owners to provide that a breach of their rules would now be a crime. As Andy Grossman put it, the effect would be that "every site on the Internet gets to define the criminal law. That’s a radical change. What used to be small-stakes contracts become high-stakes criminal prohibitions."

Consequently there was some relief two months ago when the trial judge indicated that he would quash the jury's guilty verdict, but his short oral statement of reasons on that day didn't go into detail as to why the prosecution case was flawed. The full written judgment has now been published, and shows that the trial judge applied the void for vagueness doctrine to find that a prosecution based on simple breach of terms of use would not give fair warning to users as to what actions might be criminal and would criminalise vast numbers of users without providing even minimal guidelines to govern prosecutions.

Would a similar result be reached in Ireland? The position is complicated slightly by the peculiar wording of the relevant offence - which speaks of "access without lawful excuse" rather than "unauthorised access" - but the same underlying principles would apply. The domestic caselaw - in particular King v Attorney General [1981] IR 223 - has established the proposition that the ingredients of an offence must be set out with precision and clarity and this has since been reinforced by ECHR jurisprudence requiring accessibility and foreseeability in criminal offences (e.g. CR v. United Kingdom). In light of those principles, it seems likely that the Irish courts would follow the reasoning in the Lori Drew case.

Some key portions of that ruling are worth quoting:

If a website’s terms of service controls what is “authorized” and what is “exceeding authorization” - which in turn governs whether an individual’s accessing information or services on the website is criminal or not, section 1030(a)(2)(C) would be unacceptably vague because it is unclear whether any or all violations of terms of service will render the access unauthorized, or whether only certain ones will.

For example, in the present case, MySpace’s terms of service prohibits a member from engaging in a multitude of activities on the website, including such conduct as “criminal or tortious activity,” “gambling,” “advertising to . . . any Member to buy or sell any products,” “transmit[ting] any chain letters,” “covering or obscuring the banner advertisements on your personal profile page,” “disclosing your password to any third party,” etc... The MSTOS does not specify which precise terms of service, when breached, will result in a termination of MySpace’s authorization for the visitor/member to access the website.

By utilizing violations of the terms of service as the basis for the... crime, that approach makes the website owner - in essence - the party who ultimately defines the criminal conduct. This will lead to further vagueness problems. The owner’s description of a term of service might itself be so vague as to make the visitor or member reasonably unsure of what the term of service covers. For example, the MSTOS prohibits members from posting in “band and filmmaker profiles . . . sexually suggestive imagery or any other unfair . . . [c]ontent intended to draw traffic to the profile.”

Moreover, website owners can establish terms where either the scope or the application of the provision are to be decided by them ad hoc and/or pursuant to undelineated standards. For example, the MSTOS provides that what constitutes “prohibited content” on the website is determined “in the sole discretion of MySpace.com . . . .” Additionally, terms of service may allow the website owner to unilaterally amend and/or add to the terms with minimal notice to users.

Because terms of service are essentially a contractual means for setting the scope of authorized access, a level of indefiniteness arises from the necessary application of contract law in general and/or other contractual requirements within the applicable terms of service to any criminal prosecution.

Treating a violation of a website’s terms of service, without more, to be sufficient to constitute “intentionally access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access” would result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into ... criminals... If any conscious breach of a website’s terms of service is held to be sufficient by itself to constitute intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization, the result will be that section 1030(a)(2)(C) becomes a law “that affords too much discretion to the police and too little notice to citizens who wish to use the [Internet].”

Eric Goldman has analysis of the decision and its implications for legal responses to cyberbullying - suggesting that the decision is likely to encourage lawmakers to introduce new offences of online harassment.