Google Doesn't Want To Disclose Korean YouTube Uploaders; Turns Feature Off Instead

from the letter,-not-the-spirit dept

Some new internet regulations recently went into effect in South Korea, forcing sites with more than 100,000 users per day to confirm users' personal information before they upload content or leave comments, so they can ensure people post content under their real names. The cutoff was lowered from sites with 300,000 daily users, and the new, lower bar caught YouTube Korea. But instead of complying with the system, Google has instead disabled uploading and comments on its Korean site (via PaidContent). Google's stance on censorship of its search results in China garnered it a lot of bad press; the fact that YouTube Korea lags behind other local video sites in popularity probably made this latest decision a bit easier. Apparently, though, people can easily get around the ban by using versions of YouTube aimed at other countries -- highlighting the frivolity of these sorts of laws given the global nature of the internet. Unless countries want to go as far as setting up Great Firewalls of their own, users will easily circumvent the rules, should they so desire.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It Fraud If You Collect One Penny Legally Over And Over Again?

from the legal-conundrum dept

If you've ever needed to associate your bank account with some online service (such as PayPal), you know the drill: you provide the necessary info to the service, and a few days later, it makes two small deposits into your account (usually between 1 and 5 cents or so). You then have to report back the amount of the deposits to prove you own that account. It's a relatively cheap way for the services to confirm the account details. However, to one man, it was also an opportunity to make some cash. He set up automated scripts to basically use just such a system to open thousands of accounts and collect approximately $50,000 of these micro-transactions. As the guy noted for at least one of these accounts (with Google's CheckOut system), he read through the terms of service and this did not appear to violate the terms. In fact, it does make you wonder how illegal this really was. The fact that the guy used fake names (of various Mike Judge characters, which seems like a nod to the "skim a penny" computer hack from Judge's movie Office Space) probably hurts his case -- but it still raises some questions. If there are no limits on accounts and no other terms of service that prevent this sort of action, what exactly about it is illegal? Is there a certain number of accounts that you can open before it's considered fraud? Or does it have to do with his intent -- which was solely to get the microdeposits, rather than to use the accounts?

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ATMs Aren't So Secure Either

from the transparency dept

Back in March, I responded to the common argument that since automatic teller machines are widely used and seem to be secure, secure electronic voting must be doable as well. I pointed out a couple of problems with this argument, but I took as a given that ATM machines are in fact, secure. But Matt Blaze recently discovered that ATMs aren't that secure either. When Blaze tried to withdraw cash from a Philadelphia cash machine, he encountered a bunch of problems. The information on the screen was screwed up, the machine gave him $10 more than he'd requested, and the machine failed to give him his receipt. Even more worrisome, when he went into the bank to suggest that they check out the machine and see what might have been wrong with it, the assistant manager actually argued with him, assuring him that the machine was working just fine and Blaze must be imagining things. Incredibly, when he tried to show her a screenshot he had taken with his cell phone, she cut him off by pointing out that photography isn't allowed in the bank.

Obviously, part of the problem here is a bank employee who has a bad attitude. But it also illustrates a couple of additional problems with the "ATMs work so why can't e-voting?" argument. First, people have a habit of trusting machines more than people. When elections are conducted with pencil and paper, everyone understands that some of the human beings might have hidden agendas and need to be watched closely. In contrast, people tend to assume that machines are completely objective and unbiased, and so they're less likely to notice problems with machines even when (as in the case of this bank manager) the evidence is staring them in the face. Second, if it turns out that the ATM screwed up, Blaze will at some point get a statement from his bank telling him how much money the bank thinks he withdrew, and he can object if it differs from what he actually got. There isn't (and due to voter privacy concerns, can't be) a similar process for e-voting. If a paperless voting machine screws up, there's no way to double-check the results after the fact.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..