How many UK banks will fall foul of this?

By on 19 April 2012 in General, Legal

I am the attorney for a family member in England. That is to say, I hold an Lasting Power of Attorney explicitly executed by them last year.

The reasons one might give an LPA are explained here.  Setting up an LPA is an extremely sensible thing to do, and I commend it to anyone who is resident in England, Wales, Scotland or N. Ireland. (The law is rather different in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). Registration of the LPA gives effect to the powers under it.

I attempted to open a savings account in the UK today for the benefit of the person whose registered LPA I hold.  In fact what happened was I came across a list of Best Buy savings rates and one of them was the Principality Building Society.

But the Society explicitly denied the application to open the ‘E-Saver 5′ account as their terms and conditions exclude people who, unable to operate an account themselves, have given an LPA to a trusted family member of friend. I was told I could open a different account, on a postal application, but that the terms and conditions of the account would be different (and the interest rates would, I expect, not be as good!)

Unfortunately for the Principality Building Society, and any other bank having a similar condition, it appears that this is unlawful. To be precise it seems to me to contravenes the UK’s Equality Act 2010 , since disability is a ‘protected characteristic’. It’s unlawful to offer services on different conditions to disabled people as to able bodied ones.

I telephoned the Society, and the first person I talked to seem to me to be a bit offhand. I then spoke to a manager who was courteous, but confirmed their position and seemed to indicate that it was introduced “because of FSA moneylaundering rules” which I find rather hard to understand.

However, they’ve taken note of my complaint, and are investigating. An update will be posted here.

If anyone else has been affected similarly, please feel free to contact me.

Comments { 1 }

Glass houses

By on 12 April 2012 in Domain Names, ICANN

ICANNIt’s easy to throw rocks at ICANN, which has once again good-naturedly blundered into a hornet’s nest. So I won’t.

But see http://ta.gg/5oL for one take on this.

No complex information system can be guaranteed problem-free. Everyone who manages or runs such systems is in a glass house, and it behoves us to be constructive in our criticism.

I spend a lot of my professional life running game-theory situations about what to do to fix systems (including human systems) that break under unexpected loads and I think it’s a little harsh on ICANN to scream about this. There’s a tinge of schadenfreude in this afternoon’s commentary, I think.

You see, ICANN’s greatest problem is really one perception. It has set it itself up, over an evolutionary period of 15 years (gosh, is it really that long?) as, to use a common phrase I hear, as “the galactic lords of the Internet”.

And a common, but unspoken, thesis among ICANN people (and by that I do not distinguish between staff and participants)  is that ‘Daddy knows best’.

But those of us who know (and still have a great deal of affection for) ICANN know it as being (these days) entirely well-meaning, but not always as sharp as it might be.

One rumour is that the site was attacked by Anonymous. There’s no shame if that’s true — they had the resources to take the UK interior ministry’s website down last week, after all!

But the reality seems to be emerggin, is that ICANN in its insistence on micromanaging the business models of TLD applicants, wanted  EPP schemas in the applications.

Now EPP is based on XML which like HTML has lots of < and > characters. And the latest information is that ICANN’s application system may not have been able to handle those Yes, really! (If they can’t handle that, what about Unicode characters like you find in IDNS!)

If this is true, it tells me one thing.

ICANN didn’t test its system as it should have done.

That is to say, its likely that no dummy application was made by ICANN before releasing the system to go live with one of the most important systems on which several million dollars worth of applicant’s businesses were required to rely?

It begs a question as to whether an organization that is happy with this level of testing should be regarded as suitable for being awarded the contract to run the IANA and one of the 13 root-servers on which we all rely. But that’s a matter for others to ponder, not me.

I’m really not going to throw rocks. They have enough to cope with, without me sniping. They need a little space to get their act together now. So maybe we should leave the poor so-and-sos be?

But, really …  tsk tsk.

Comments { 0 }

Poachers and Gamekeepers

By on 12 March 2012 in Domain Names, General, ICANN

Rod Beckstrom, ICANN’s CEO is today highlighting certain apparent structural issues with the ICANN Board and conflicts of interest.

And you know what, a lot of what he is saying is making sense!

But why has it taken him till the lame-duck phase of his reign for him to speak up?

Back in the early days, ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn similarly criticised the structure of the original ICANN, which led to the abolition of elections and the creation of the Nominating Committee under the banner “ICANN 2.0″.

But he did this early on, and actually achieved the changes to ICANN that produced the current structure. Whether you liked them or not (and the abolition of elections was something that was, perhaps, to be regretted), Lynn had the time to follow through, and implement.

Sadly, Rod’s contribution just sounds like the plaintive cry of an albatross flying off into the distance.

Comments { 1 }

“No proposals met the requirements” – ICANN’s IANA function contract in doubt?

By on 10 March 2012 in General

As reported at domainincite.com and .NXT the US Government has scrapped the current IANA contract procurement process, reportedly saying in the process that ICANN’s submission didn’t meet the requirements of the global community.

The effect of this, although ICANN have another six-month stay of execution, has to be to cast medium-to-long-term doubt over ICANN’s role as IANA manager.

It would also might be perceivable by some (whether intended that way or not) as somewhat of a sour note for departing CEO Rod Beckstrom to end his time at ICANN on

Whether any of the criticisms that have been leveled at Mr Beckstrom during his tenure have substance or not, it would appear that one success he should have expected to bank upon would have been ICANN to be awarded  the IANA contract, a job it’s effectively been doing since it was formed.

The apparent message  that ICANN is ‘not fit-for-purpose’ in respect of the IANA contract does not augur well.

It’s also a shame that ICANN’s failure to get a grasp on the global community’s IANA needs may result in demotivating the very staff that I know from personal experience provide dedication above and beyond the call-of-duty.

Whoever Rod’s replacement as CEO may be, she (or he) will have to put “getting a grip” as being the very highest priority on taking post.

After all, gTLDS use IANA equally as ccTLDs. And can ICANN REALLY have the moral or other authority to sign contracts with newTLDs if its future as the  IANA is in this much doubt?

Comments { 0 }

Rush Limbaugh’s “Ratner Moment”

By on 6 March 2012 in General, Music and Culture

Rush Limbaugh is a widely-listened, right-wing radio personality in the USA.

Wikipedia describes him as “an opinion leader in American conservatism”.

Recently, he took to attacking university student Sandra Fluke for her testimony before Congress on contraception and healthcare. Apparently he characterised her as a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute’. Of course, she’s no such thing.

Let’s leave to one aside the difference in the balance of free speech rights between the USA’s First Amendment and Europe’s Article 10. (Although, it seems to me that had a radio DJ in the UK done something similar, I would venture to suggest he might be receiving stiff letters from Messrs Sue Grabbit and Runne without any possibility of responding like Pressdram Limited, and by now Mr Limbaiugh might possibly be  having some mild difficulty in having to explain to a judge exactly why he shouldn’t pay a large libel award to Ms Fluke).

No, what is interesting about this case, is that this seems to be the ‘Gerald Ratner’ moment for Limbaugh, and perhaps the whole ‘right-wing shock-jock culture’ in the USA.

For those who aren’t from the UK, or are too young, Ratners was the most successful High St. jewelers in the British Isles until in an intendedly humorous speech to the prestigious Institute of Directors, its CEO Gerald Ratner jokingly  described his own company’s products as ‘total crap’ which resulted in the complete collapse of the business.

In my opinion, this is probably Limbaugh’s ‘Ratner moment‘.

Apparently, despite an apology (itself a remarkable course of action for Limbaugh) advertisers are deserting the former darling of the Right in droves

Rush, I feel for you. (Not!!).

And some of us do know total crap when we see (or hear it). Apparently the American public is beginning to, as well.

 

 

 

 

Comments { 0 }

Censorship, fundamental rights and the DNS (part 1)

By on 2 February 2012 in Domain Names, General, Legal

It seems clear to me that the next field of engagement over fundamental rights is going to involve the Domain Name System. The recent skirmishes over SOPA (the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, recently holed below the waterline by Pres. Obama) seems to confirm this view.

The DNS is the technical system at the heart of what nearly everyone who uses the Internet does.

It enables people and  applications to locate things on the Internet. Things such as website addresses, email servers and many other things. Watch the video at youtu.be/lsutsPeCbak.

The DNS is run by a diverse group of people and organisations which evolved from the Internet’s early research within academia. This group includes universities, government agencies and private businesses and is co-ordinated at its apex by a California organisation called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

A recently hot topic in the DNS world is something called ‘Notice and Takedown’.

That is to say, “someone” (in the British Isles this is most usually the owner of some intellectual property or an organisation such as the Internet Watch Foundation which monitors the Internet for illegal content such as child abuse images or extreme pornography) will send a Notice to an ISP or domain name registrar to inform them that a domain name (or web address) is being used by what is becoming known in the industry as ‘bad actor’.

The recipient of such a Notice is then expected to take the appropriate action; the expectation being that the domain name concerned is blocked, filtered or ‘taken down’.

Much of the activity, as you might expect, in this regard has come from IP rights-owners as well as anti-phishing & anti-spam organisations.

Now your author’s anti-spam credentials cannot be doubted but it is submitted that there are significant dangers in the understandable wish of  registrars, ISPs and others to ‘do the right thing’. One insufficiently considered action could pose great reputational or even existential risk to the ISP executing takedown. On the other hand, there are equally significant risks to inaction as well.

There is a certain amoun of protection in Europe law for ‘mere conduits’, for example, under the e-commerce Directive.

But what if a registry (rather than a registra) receives a notice drawing its attention to the fact that a domain name is being used for bad purposes?

Such bad behaviour doesn’t have to be illegal (that is to say, criminal) conduct. It can equally well be an infringment of the civil rights of a third party, such as a defamation.

In England, defamation is a very great risk for any person or organisation that can be said to publish or assist publication. Ask any newspaper editor.

The UK libel laws are archaic and arcane. This basically means that it is extremely risky and extremely expensive to be either a Claimant or a Defendant, whether willingly or unwillingly.

Indeed, it’s no surprise that one of the early cases on the principles of notice and takedown are set out early on in an internet  libel case in England .. Godfrey -v- Demon Internet.

The effects of that regime on intermediaries has been ameliorated by subsequent European legislation — the e-commerce Directive but nonetheless, it is clear that not only are there risks to an ISP or registrar or registrar in taking positive action over a domain name that is alleged to be being used for illegal (criminal) or unlawful (civil) purposes, there are risks in NOT taking action.

I predict this debate will continue for several years, and is likely to engage the law enforcement, legislative and judicial authorities in a number of countries at the highest levels.

Comments { 0 }

How does it feel to be a criminal?

By on 14 December 2011 in General

My home phone rings.

Not even my relatives call this, as they usually ring me on my mobile phone.

The caller ID shows the call as INTERNATIONAL (no number), and the call has a terrible VOIP quality.

‘Mr Roberts? Mr Neegel Roberts??’

‘Yes, who is this?’ I say.

‘This is Windows IT Support of London calling. Your PC is going to crash in the next half an hour’  comes the response.

At this point it is worth noting that I don’t HAVE a Windows machine.

‘Oh really?

‘Yes. You are going to be losing all your folders and files’.
At this point I say to him:

‘How does it feel to be a criminal?’

 

‘Your Windows computer is in danger, Mister Neegel!’  (He hasn’t understood what I’ve said’).

‘I mean, I know you guys need any job you can find, down there in Bangalore, or Mumbai or wherever you are calling from … … …  but how does it feel to be a criminal, calling up people with scare stories and trying to get them to give you access to their computer??’

At this point he says to me:

 

‘How does it feel to be a bastard, Mr Neegel Roberts?, eh you tell me?’

‘I practice’ is my response.

 

‘F*ck off, f*ck off, F*CK OFF, you bastard!!!!!’ he tells me, eloquently, and disconnects the call.

I guess he wasn’t from Microsoft after all.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments { 1 }

Does Christine W. exist or does Barclays Bank use fake names?

By on 29 November 2011 in General

Following the takeover of the business of another financial institution, I found that I now have an account and card with Barclays Bank. I needed some information from them fairly urgently, so I contacted them a week or two ago.

In reply, I received a letter dated 28th November signed by a certain Christine W……

The telephone number on her letterhead was a UK 0844 number. As I had a query about the contents of her letter, not unreasonably (in my opinion) the obvious course of action was to telephone her at the number on her letter.

The person who answered the telephone said he’d never heard of her. He also told me he was unable to transfer my call to her.

When I asked why I could not speak to the person who had written me the letter, on the telephone number she had on her letterhead, he was somewhat at a loss as to how to answer. He eventually tried to tell me was “because we are globally certified”.

Whatever that means.

Eventually, after a long wait of 20 mins it was patiently explained to me by his supervisor that as they were in India, they couldn’t transfer me to the person who had written me the letter.


Nigel’s First Rule of Customer Satisfaction: Any employee who does something for a customer should have task ownership and take responsibility for the contents of their answer and should be ready to deal with any followup.

I’m now getting a nagging feeling that maybe “Christine W.” doesn’t actually exist. Perhaps they’ve taken a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book? I intend to find out whether that’s the case or not.

If she does exist, I look forward to speaking with her eventually about my original (and routine) inquiry.

But how do you think should I react if it turns out that she doesn’t exist? (It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve come across letters signed by non-existent people).

After all, in these more security conscious days, Barclays Bank would certainly get more than a little upset if we were to use a fictitious name when we deal with them …

Christine, are you out there? Talk to me please!

PS: if anyone from Barclays Bank management is reading this, particularly if you are the Christine who wrote to me yesterday, please use the email form to contact me.

Comments { 0 }

Posthumous pardon for Alan Turing

By on 27 November 2011 in General, Legal, Technical Tips

Unless you are a Computer Science academic, you may not know something that was once a national secret of the highest classification … that it was Alan Turing, along with colleagues, who invented the first computer.

This was the work, carried out in secret in the 1940s from which all PCs, laptops and smart phones that we use today owe their inheritance.

His work during the Second World War at Bletchley Park, which culminated in the building of the code-breaking computer Colossus and breaking of the enemy ciphers, including “Ultra” and “Shark”, shortened the war by approximately two years and saved hundreds of thousands of military and civilian lives, both British and German.

It was only in the latter part of the 20th Century were the contributions of the codebreakers recognised, because of course, it was their duty to keep Mum.

And they all did.

Sixty years on from the early Fifties, it is almost impossible to imagine what our society was like, that it then persecuted such a national hero for who he was. That the police and the Courts used the law to administer dangerous drugs in attempt to change his behaviour.

If one thought about this, one might well conclude that “chemical castration” in order to attempt to change a person’s orientation is the State acting in a way that differs in degree but not in kind from some of the things the Second World War was fought to end.

If you live in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, or if you are a British Citizen resident abroad, please sign the e=

Comments { 0 }

Manwin’s squeaky wheel

By on 19 November 2011 in Domain Names, General, ICANN, Legal

ICANN has been taken to an Independent Review Proceeding by Manwin Licensing International.

Independent Review is a form of arbitration, which is provided for in ICANN’s By-laws.

What is ironic, is that this suit appears to be filed on behalf of a number of major players in Internet 

pr0n

That is, the people behind such hit websites as ‘YouP*rn’ and ‘Br*zzers’ among others. (No, I’m not going to hyperlink them — Google is your friend if you really are curious ).

Internet porn has been major beneficiaries of the US First Amendment and the constitutional law doctrine that protects distasteful speech (such as ‘Net porn itself, or demonstrating about military presence in Afghanistan or similar at soldiers’ funerals!)

But it seems to be sauce for the gander tine when someone else wants to exercise their rights of free expression (that is to say, expression in the form new TLDs, and specifically in the form of .XXX) in a way which the pornsters don’t like.

In Europe the equivalent of the First Amendment is Article 10, which all Governments are under a legal obligation positively to protect.

It says: “Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Pretty clear.

It’s worth pointing out that free expression is not unlimited.

Restrictions can be placed on it, for example, balancing and protecting the rights of others. (Libel laws are an obvious example; there are many others).

The difference in approach can be see that, in the Land of the Free protesting at a soldiers funeral and causing distress to the bereaved is constitutionally guaranteed expression (Snyder v Phelps) where as in the UK you’d probably get locked up for Behaviour Likely To Cause a Breach of the Peace.

Burning the flag is perfectly acceptable behaviour in the USA, while burning poppies on Armistice Day attracts a criminal conviction, albeit attracting a fine. (Poppies are worn in remembrance of the dead on Armistice Day, our equivalent of Veterans Day).

However, the default position in Europe as in the USA, remains, that you have the right of expression, unless a qualifying factor is present and can be shown to be.

Article 10 goes on to say say: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.

So surely this would mean that presumption must be that proponents of newTLDs can express themselves in the way the want to unless restrictions are necessary in a democratic society.

Censoring .XXX does not protect health or morals — there’s plenty enough internet porn under .COM, and I don’t think Manwin are arguing here for the content restrictions that this caveat might allow, anyway. They probably don’t want to open that door!

The only other aspect in 10(2) that they could pray in aid is the protection of the rights of others — in this case the very real property rights of Manwin and their allies. After all, intellectual and intangible property are equally property as any other kind.

And it’s a reasonable point, particularly as Luxembourg headquartered Manwin is, on the face of things, a European company, and Manwin therefore inherently has these Convention rights

But the starting point of Article 10 is that the expression must be allowed, and it’s only after considering the balancing exercise of considering the harm to Manwin’s Article 1 (Protocol 1) property rights, could the censorship they seem to be seeking be lawful.

And, this, I suggest, will be an uphill struggle.

Although Manwin’s property rights are in essence, and in law, exactly the same property rights that, for example, Google and Facebook have in their brands, Manwin’s task is made no easier by the unredeeming nature of their own content.

And the harm that they claim — well, why should they have special treatment above the thousands of WIPO cases over other, non-porn relating cybersquatting. A proper UDRP process and timely access to the Courts, is really all they can demand, and .XXX, and the forthcoming newTLDs will, at ICANN’s insistence, deliver this.

In conclusion, it seems to me that Manwin’s Independent Review Claim is just a case of a squeaky wheel not realising it is already sufficient lubricated, and demanding more oil.

Comments { 0 }