FCC's DTV race car crashes... again

FCC's DTV Race Car Crashes... again [Reuters] 

Last month, the FCC announced that it was paying $350,000 to become a lead sponsor for NASCAR's #38 driver, David Gilliland. The FCC sponsorship was ostensibly to bring public awareness to next year's digital television transition. In it's first race, the DTV car crashed into the wall at Martinsville Speedway. Then, adding insult to injury, the group Citizens Against Government Waste gave the car the dubious honor of "porker of the month" for the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for the sponsorship.

But the tale of the DTV car doesn't end there. In the most recent NASCAR race, held on Sunday, the FCC's DTV car endured a second fiery crash. Thankfully, Gilliland again was uninjured. 

Broadcasters and cable operators have provided hundreds of millions of dollars of free airtime to educate Americans about the impending digital transition. Surveys show that nearly all Americans are aware of the transition, but many still need to know what they need to do to continue to receive television signals on February 17, 2009. Rather than crashing race cars into walls, the federal government should be focused on educating these Americans about the options available to them in order to make a successful transition to digital television.

And if I were David Gilliland, I'd be wondering if that paint job has a hex on it.

App verification comes to Facebook's platform [CNET News] 

Here's a welcome note for Facebook users, like myself. Facebook is introducing an application verification process that will give users peace of mind that the applications they install on their Facebook profile are safe and stable. Facebook has been the victim of recent malware attacks, with some malware applications on the site posing as safe. Facebook application developers can pay a fee and submit their application for approval. If the application is approved, Facebook will post a seal on the application's web page verifying for users that it is safe to install.

Privacy Laws Trip Up Google in Parts of Europe [New York Times] 

Google has quite a few neat products, but some of them may be running afoul of privacy laws in several European countries, according to this article. One in particular is the Street View feature of Google's mapping tools. Street View allows users to access a 360 degree ground level view of many points on the globe. Countries like Switzerland and Germany have laws that may prohibit the Street View feature, which has forced Google to block the feature in those countries. 

McColo takedown: Internet vigilantism or online Neighborhood Watch? [Computerworld]

Some computer researchers are questioning the recent takedowns of notorious spammers McColo and Intercage. Both takedowns were the result of anti-spam advocates and a Washington Post reporter contacting the respective ISPs to inform them they were hosting high volume spammers. The ISPs made the decision to terminate the spammers' Internet connection. The question that some are asking is about the lack of law enforcement in these recent takedowns. Is it proper for "web vigilantes" to track down spammers and ask ISPs to disconnect them? Or should some form of law enforcement be involved?

The problems of the fact that the spammers on the Internet don't recognize legal jurisdictions, makes it difficult for law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions to coordinate efforts to takedown spammers. And, quite often, the independent researchers who are tracking spammers are dedicating more resources toward the issue than law enforcement. While we're all glad to have less spam in our inbox, this is an important question for policy makers, network managers, and spam trackers to ponder.

By the way, we continue to see a reduction in the amount of spam coming into our email servers since these bandits were shut down.

Comments

[Chris Buechler]

The reason McColo was disconnected wasn't because they were doing illegal things - they were doing things against the terms of service of their providers. Hence law enforcement involvement just isn't necessary in this instance.

Now, should law enforcement be involved in stopping these guys long term? Absolutely (if it's possible to get the real perpetrators, as you said, that's very difficult). They're going to be back online somewhere in short order and we'll be up to record spam levels again before long.

I wouldn't call security professionals "web vigilantes." We see things that law enforcement can't see, and there are far more of us collectively than there are qualified law enforcement personnel. It's fighting a losing battle in a sense since it never gets to the root of the problem, but every responsible IT security professional, including myself, will report hosts doing bad things to the host's ISP on a routine basis. We can only hope that law enforcement is diligent in going after the perpetrators.