may the force be with you

America Online says people and organizations will continue to be able to e-mail its users for free. AOL's adoption of GoodMail Certified Email pay-to-send-mail service will simply add to user options.

AOL has no intention of swaying from its certified e-mail course, and at least one analyst firm said it shouldn't feel any pressure to do so.

In a statement following the press conference of the coalition of organizations rallying against AOL's proposed use of GoodMail's Certified Email pay-to-send service, AOL said, "Implementation of this timely and necessary safety and security measure for our members takes place in the next 30 days. Mark it on your calendars."

Ferris Research analyst Richi Jennings commented that "Those that run e-mail services are perfectly entitled to act on user spam complaints. As the saying goes, "My server, my rules."

The coalition, characterized AOL's move as an "e-mail tax" that "disempowers" regular people and a "step toward dismantling the free and open Internet." "The very existence of online civic participation and the free Internet as we know it are under attack," according to Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.

"Balderdash and piffle," replies Jennings. "Nothing's really changed. If users are complaining about some e-mail, service providers will block the sender, whether or not they pay some sort of a bond or fee. There's no substantive change here. If you're an existing sender with a good reputation, you should have nothing to worry about . . . well, nothing new anyway.

"We believe more choices, and more alternatives, for safety and e-mail authentication is a good thing for the Internet, not bad," said an AOL spokesman. Everything that AOL has in place today free for e-mail senders remains –- and will only improve."

Regarding the coalition's claim that spammers will now be able to pay for access to inboxes, AOL said just the opposite is true.

"Certified Email prevents and blocks spammers from sending e-mails to online users," said the AOL spokesman. Goodmail’s program is 100-percent opt-in; Goodmail strictly disallows those who have not previously secured the expressed consent of consumers from signing up for Goodmail tokens. Given AOL’s phenomenal public track record on spam, no one can credibly assert that AOL would sign up for a pay-to-spam program. Get real."

See the current blog posting How Does An Optional Service Become An "E-mail Tax?" for more on AOL's response and reaction to the development.

source:http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181500372

Finland's radiation watchdog is to study the effects of mobile phones on human proteins by direct tests on people's skin, to see if handset transmissions affect their health.

A pilot study, to be conducted next week, will expose a small area of skin on volunteers' arms to cell phone radiation for the duration of a long phone call, or for one hour, research professor Dariusz Leszczynski said on Friday.

Researchers will then take a skin sample to study and compare it with one taken before the radiation exposure, he told Reuters.

Cell samples used in previous laboratory tests by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority were all from women, and to keep the data consistent, 10 female volunteers will be used in the new study--all of them employees at the watchdog.

In previous tests, Leszczynski's group found evidence of mobile phone radiation causing cell-level changes such as shrinkage, but he said it was still impossible to say if that had significant health effects.

"Cells function in a different way when they are in the body than in laboratory surroundings. Now we want to confirm whether radiation causes cell level changes in humans as well," he said.

The results of the study are due by the end of the year, and Leszczynski's team hopes to show if radiation has any impact on the body's natural barrier that prevents toxins and other dangerous proteins that might be in the bloodstream from reaching brain cells.

Some researchers suspect brain cancer has become more common as a result of cell phone use, but there is no clear evidence to support that, Leszczynski said.

"If harmful proteins get through to the brain, it could have an indirect link with cancer, but this is pure speculation," he added.

Finland, home to top global mobile maker Nokia, has one of the most mature telecom markets in the world, with almost everyone having a mobile handset.

source:http://news.com.com/Testing+cell+phone+radiation+on+human+skin/2100-1039_3-6045521.html

Ruling will allow toy retailer to establish independent online store

Toys “R” Us Inc. prevailed in a bitter lawsuit against online giant Amazon.com Thursday when a New Jersey judge ordered the two companies to sever their partnership, clearing the way for the toy retailer to establish an independent Internet store.

Toys “R” Us executives hailed the ruling and said they intended to move quickly to create a new and independent Web site.

"We have been preparing for today's decision and expect to provide seamless online access for our customers to the world's greatest toy store at www.toysrus.com," John Sullivan, senior vice president of the toy company, said in a statement.
But Amazon indicated it is considering an appeal. Spokeswoman Patty Smith said the online retailer "strongly disagrees with the judge’s ruling in this case” and is in the process of reviewing a number of options.

The two retailers signed a 10-year strategic partnership in 2000 — at the height of the Internet stock bubble — that made Amazon.com the exclusive online retail outlet for Toys “R” Us toys, games and baby products.

Whether the agreement also made Toys “R” Us the exclusive provider of such products on Amazon.com was at the heart of the lawsuit, filed in 2004, and a counterclaim filed by Amazon.

The deal originally was hailed as a model for future bricks-n-clicks partnerships, and came as some industry watchers expected online retailers to overwhelm traditional bricks-and-mortar merchants. Based on testimony in a trial last year, the arrangement worked well for both sides for the first several years, improving the ability of Toys “R” Us to compete with eToys and Walmart.com while eliminating toy inventory problems that had been plaguing Amazon.

But Toys “R” Us executives grew increasingly unhappy as the prominence of their virtual store was diminished and Amazon.com signed agreements with rival retailers including Target as well as independent sellers known as zShops.

In a 131-page opinion, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Margaret Mary McVeigh ruled that Amazon had breached its agreement, although she did not award any monetary damages, saying Toys “R” Us was unable to prove it had paid a premium for exclusivity on the site.

In her opinion, McVeigh took a rather dim view of the trial testimony of some Amazon executives, including that of the company’s billionaire founder Jeff Bezos, saying she had “no doubt his knowledge and understanding (of the Toys "R" Us agreement) went much deeper than revealed.”

When pushed on the witness stand, “certain information ‘just came back to him’” she said in the ruling, while another of Bezos’ explanations was referred to as “rather childlike.”

McVeigh also rejected Amazon’s efforts to defend itself by asking her to throw out e-mail evidence that may have included hearsay. She said she found it “incomprehensible … that a corporation dealing primarily in Internet commerce finds Internet communications to lack reliability.”

And she repeatedly complained about the ambiguous use of language in memorandums, contract agreements and discussions, concluding that “the language as drafted whether intentional or inartful gave Amazon the words to play the game their way.”

Although the ruling does not include monetary damages, the loss of Toys “R” Us as a partner could have a significant financial impact on Amazon. The toy retailer, which was sold to a private investment consortium last year for $6.6 billion, says it is the nation’s largest online retailer and had been paying Amazon a base fee of $50 million annually plus a percentage of its sales.

And trial testimony indicated that Amazon has invested heavily to fulfill toy orders, especially during the crucial Christmas season. According to the ruling in the case, Amazon.com has 14 fulfillment centers operating 24 hours a day except for Christmas and New

WASHINGTON - With the Senate voting Thursday to renew the USA Patriot Act, the measure moves to the House, which is expected to pass the legislation next week.

On or before March 10, President Bush is expected to renew the law that broadens the power of the U.S. government to obtain private records and to conduct wiretaps and searches, despite the deep bipartisan misgivings of some in Congress.

The Senate voted, 89-10, to renew the Act after adding new privacy protections designed to strike a better balance between privacy rights and the government’s power to hunt down terrorists.

One bright spot for Bush
The Senate vote marked a bright spot in Bush’s troubled second term as his approval ratings dipped over the war in Iraq and his administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Renewing the act, Bush and congressional Republicans said, was key to preventing more terror attacks in the United States.

Bush applauded the Senate for overcoming “partisan attempts to block its passage.” The House was expected to approve the two-bill package next week and send it to the president, who would sign it before 16 provisions expire March 10.

“This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people,” Bush said in a statement from India.

Critics held their ground. A December filibuster led by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and joined by several libertarian-leaning Republicans, forced the Bush administration to agree to modest new curbs on the government’s power to probe library, bank and other records.

Feingold bloodied but unbowed
Feingold insisted those new protections are cosmetic. “Americans want to defeat terrorism and they want the basic character of this country to survive and prosper,” he said. “They want both security and liberty, and unless we give them both — and we can if we try — we have failed.”

Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president.

“Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president,” said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. “What we tried to do on a bipartisan basis is have a better bill. It has been improved.”

Not enough even for the bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa. After prolonged negotiations produced a House-Senate compromise, Specter urged his colleagues to pass it even as he promised to introduce a new measure and hold hearings on how to fix it.

For now, Bush and his Republican allies savor a significant victory. For months, their tough-on-terrorism image has been tarnished by the revelation that the president authorized a secret domestic wiretapping program.

Tangled path to renewal
The report in December gave Democrats ammunition for their charge that the Bush administration had run amok in its zeal to root out terrorists.

With the help of some Republicans, they blocked a vote on whether to renew the law before 16 provisions expired on Dec. 31.

GOP leaders were unable to break the gridlock, so Congress opted instead to extend the deadline twice while negotiations continued. In the end, the White House and the Republicans broke the stalemate by crafting a second measure that would curb some powers of law enforcement officials seeking information. Both will be sent as a package to Bush.

This second bill — in effect an amendment to the measure renewing the 16 provisions — would add new protections to the 2001 antiterror law in three areas.

It would:

• Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.
• Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.
• Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.

Passed in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the original Patriot Act expanded the government’s surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers.

Act’s new provisions
The renewal package would make 14 of 16 temporary provisions permanent and set four-year expirations on the others.

The renewal includes several measures not directly related to terrorism. One would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter.

Another focuses on port security, imposing new criminal sanctions and a death sentence in certain circumstances for placing a device or substance in U.S. waters that could damage vessels or cargo.

Byrd’s warning
Feingold’s chief ally, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said the package was not enough to check what he described as a presidential tendency through history of “always grabbing more power.”

“The erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault,” warned Byrd, the dean of the Senate. “Rather, it is a gradual, noxious creeping cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by reassurances of greater security.”

The “no” votes came from Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Feingold, Byrd and seven other Senate Democrats: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not vote.

source:

The same Bush administration review panel that approved a ports deal involving the United Arab Emirates has notified a leading Israeli software company that it faces a rare, full-blown investigation over its plans to buy a smaller rival.

The objections by the FBI and Pentagon were partly over specialized intrusion detection software known as "Snort," which guards some classified U.S. military and intelligence computers.

Snort's author is a senior executive at Sourcefire Inc., which would be sold to publicly traded Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. in Ramat Gan, Israel. Sourcefire is based in Columbia, Md.

Check Point was told U.S. officials feared the transaction could endanger some of government's most sensitive computer systems. The company announced it had agreed to acquire Sourcefire in October.

The contrast between the administration's handling of the $6.8 billion Dubai ports deal and the Israeli company's $225 million technology purchase offers an uncommon glimpse into the U.S. government's choices to permit some deals but raise deep security concerns over others.

Senate hearings over the ports deal were expected to continue Thursday.

The ongoing 45-day investigation into the Israeli deal is only the 26th of its type conducted among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. The panel, facing criticism by Congress about its scrutiny of the ports deal, judges the security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

In private meetings between the panel and Check Point, officials from the FBI and Defense Department objected forcefully to permitting any foreign company to acquire some sensitive Sourcefire technology for preventing hacker break-ins and monitoring data traffic, an executive familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press. This executive spoke on condition of anonymity because government negotiations are supposed to remain confidential.

Under the sale, publicly announced Oct. 6, Check Point would own all Sourcefire's patents, source-code blueprints for its software and the expertise of employees.

William Reinsch, a former senior U.S. official who participated in reviews under President Clinton, said the Israeli sale involves more dire security issues than the administration's recent approval for a Dubai-owned company to take over significant operations at six major American ports.

"This raises a lot more important issues," said Reinsch, a former Commerce Department undersecretary. "The most important case is where we're making an irrevocable technology transfer to a foreign party. Port operations raise security issues, but the ports are still in the United States."

The review panel privately notified Check Point on Feb. 6 it intended to fully investigate the transaction's security risks, the executive said. That was days before the furor erupted over the Dubai ports deal. Check Point disclosed the news to investors Feb. 13, but the announcement drew little attention despite escalating scrutiny and interest in Washington over such reviews.

The same panel had approved the ports deal Jan. 17 after a routine, 30-day review. In a highly unusual move, UAE-based DP World offered earlier this week to submit to a broader 45-day investigation to avert an impending political showdown between President Bush and Congress. That formal investigation has not yet started.

Check Point and Sourcefire declined to comment. Officials at the Defense Department, FBI and Justice Department also declined to comment.

source:http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?editorialsid=7219

"According to an article in USA Today, Caller ID spoofing has become much easier in the last few years. Millions of people have Internet telephone equipment that can be set to make any number appear on a Caller ID system. And several websites have sprung up to provide Caller ID spoofing services, eliminating the need for any special hardware. For instance, Spoofcard.com sells a virtual 'calling card' for $10 that provides 60 minutes of talk time. The user dials a toll-free number, then keys in the destination number and the Caller ID number to display. The service also provides optional voice scrambling, to make the caller sound like someone of the opposite sex."

source:http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/02/2311218

A teenage blogger claims to have discovered a flaw in Google's Gmail service that allows JavaScript to run, potentially allowing a malicious hacker to gather e-mail addresses or compromise an account. The supposed flaw may already have been fixed, however.

The teenager identifies himself in his blog as a 14-year-old named Anthony. His entry about Gmail is here.

He wrote that he was trying to e-mail JavaScript code from a Yahoo account to a G-mail account. The code will run in a preview pane, he wrote. But if the code is mailed from one Gmail account to another, it is filtered out, he said.

Some visitors to the blog reported being able to replicate the findings, but others said later that they were not able to and that the supposed flaw had been fixed. Google representatives in London could not immediately comment, saying the report would be forwarded to their technical staff.

source:http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/030206-teen-flaw-gmail.html

"Comcast, the largest USA Broadband provider is being accused of VoIP blocking, just days before they release their own VoIP offering. According to a long standing thread on the Vonage Forums, many Comcast ISP users are unable to use Vonage. Tempers are flaring: 'Although you will see all manner of opinions on this thread, there seems to be a sentiment that - politely put - Comcast could really be doing a better job of carrying Vonage bits.' Looks as though this could be the beginning of the broadband quality wars, with Comcast taking the first step."

source:http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/02/139241