I.

The Google Books Library Project is an effort by Google to scan and make searchable the collections of several major research libraries. The project, along with Googles Partner Program, comprises Google Books (formerly Google Book Search). Along with bibliographic information, snippets of text from a book are often viewable. If a book is out of copyright and in the public domain, the book is fully available to read or to download.

Authors Guild sues Google over library project

The Authors Guild on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against search engine Google, alleging that its scanning and digitizing of library books constitutes a "massive" copyright infringement. As part of its Google Print Library Project, the company is working to scan all or parts of the book collections of the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Stanford University, the New York Public Library and Oxford University. It intends to make those texts searchable on Google and to sell advertisements on the Web pages. "This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law," Nick Taylor, president of the New York-based Authors Guild, said in a statement about the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status. "It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied." In response, Google defended the program in a company blog posting.

"We regret that this group chose to sue us over a program that will make millions of books more discoverable to the world--especially since any copyright holder can exclude their books from the program," wrote Susan Wojcicki, vice president of product management. "Google respects copyright. The use we make of all the books we scan through the Library Project is fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews." This Authors Guild lawsuit doesn't mark the first objection to the Google program. Other groups, including the Association of American University Presses, have also criticized it. Last month, Google said it would temporarily halt its book scanning in the project in response to the criticisms. It said at the time that it also was making changes to its Google Print Publisher Program, in which books are scanned at the request of the publisher so people can view excerpts. The individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks damages and an injunction to stop the digitizing, are former New York Times editorial writer Herbert Mitgang, children's author Betty Miles and Daniel Hoffman, the 1973-1974 Poet Laureate of the United States. The Authors Guild represents more than 8,000 authors and is the largest society of published writers in the United States.

 http://news.cnet.com/Authors-Guild-sues-Google-over-library-project/21001030_3-5875384.html I was pleased to see the measured tone of the White House response to the citizen petition about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (PROTECT IP Act)and yet I found myself profoundly disturbed by something that seems to me to go to the root of the problem in Washington: the failure to correctly diagnose the problem we are trying to solve, but instead to accept, seemingly uncritically, the claims of various interest groups. The offending paragraph is as follows:

"Let us be clearonline piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders."

In the entire discussion, I've seen no discussion of credible evidence of this economic harm. There's no question in my mind that piracy exists, that people around the world are enjoying creative content without paying for it, and even that some criminals are profiting by redistributing it. But is there actual economic harm?

In my experience at O'Reilly, the losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content. Most of the people who are downloading unauthorized copies of O'Reilly books would never have paid us for them anyway; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of others are buying content from us, many of them in countries that we were never able to do business with when our products were not available in digital form.

History shows us, again and again, that frontiers are lawless places, but that as they get richer and more settled, they join in the rule of law. American publishing, now the largest publishing industry in the world, began with piracy. (I have a post coming on that subject on Monday.)

Congress (and the White House) need to spend time thinking hard about how best to grow our economy - and that means being careful not to close off the frontier, or to harm those trying to settle it, in order to protect those who want to remain safe at home. British publishers could have come to America in the 19th century; they chose not to, and as a result, we grew our own indigenous publishing industry, which relied at first, in no small part, on pirating British and European works.

If the goal is really to support jobs and the American economy, internet "protectionism" is not the way to do it.

It is said (though I've not found the source) that Einstein once remarked that if given 60 minutes to save the world, he would spend 55 of them defining the problem. And defining the problem means collecting and studying real evidence, not the overblown claims of an industry that has fought the introduction of every new technology that has turned out, in the end, to grow their business rather than threaten it.

Written Analysis: Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly essential to modernization in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, government must provide a petition or a law that can penalize any person or groups that violate any constitution or rules that have been enacted. Supreme Court or any government officials who is responsible for these must strictly implement the penalty for those who will violate the law. Unauthorized access to information is undesirable. Whenever any information about a person or a person's data is stored, privacy needs arise.

I dont understand all the issues behind, but my general understanding of the matter is that the violation has already been committed. Being the most usable and source engine of the world, Google must provide the exception or limitation about getting information from their site. This news about Google Book Search changes everything for us users. Sincerely, being able to legally view 20% of a book from home,

on Google is pretty cool. And in fairness to the copyright holders, the only way one can look at the entire thing on a computer is from the local library. Seems reasonable enough. But despite this news, there are still those who feel strongly that any move to digitize books over keeping them in a printed format is nothing short of dangerous. In fact the concern is over the integrity of the written word, among a few other related concerns. Most people however, appear to think this is nonsense.
I.

P2P (Peer to Peer Network) and Private Copying 1. Piracy

Articles State of Piracy in the Philippines Manila (Philippines) Not many of us in law school would deny owning a copy or two of pirated media, be it a VCD, DVD, or a song downloaded from Limewire or BitTorrent. In a survey conducted among 100 law students, 44 responded in the affirmative when asked if its the cheap price alone that motivates them to patronise piracy. Other factors include the competitive quality of pirated discs, availability, and that theyre easily returnable in case of defect.

In the same survey, 60 respondents claim that even if the retail price of pirated products are totally eradicated, they would rather resort to other means of obtaining copies such

as

peer-to-peer

file

sharing

instead

of

buying

the

originals.

Were

Being

Watched

Every year the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) conducts a review of countries included in its Priority Watch List, among which is the Philippines. The IIPA is a private sector coalition formed in 1984 to represent U.S. copyright-based industries. It works closely with the U.S. Trade Representative in the annual Special 301 reviews and examination of trade conditions.

According to IIPAs 2006 Special 301 Report, released early this year, copyright piracy in the Philippines has caused estimated losses to U.S. copyright industries in the amount of $123.6 million in 2005. These industries include motion pictures, records and music, business and entertainment software, and books.

Continued inclusion in the watch list puts Philippine trade privileges at risk. The Philippines currently enjoys the benefits of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, which offers duty-free imports of Philippine products into the U.S. In 2003, $894.7 million worth of Philippine products entered the U.S. duty-free. In 2004, at least $890.5 million worth of products were exported under the same exemption. This favorable condition might be removed if the Philippines fails to meet the discretionary criteria of U.S. law, one of which is the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights.

Increased

Supply

of

Pirated

Products

Imports of pirated optical discs from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have dramatically increased since 2004. This upsurge in supply has led to the lowering of prices of pirated products so as to ruin the legitimate market. Pirated VCDs and DVDs now sell for a measly P25 to P70, vis--vis the originals which sell for P100 to P700. Legitimate video and music retail stores have to compete with the black market by lowering their prices, eventually incurring losses that lead them to close shop.

Not only are pirated products imported, they are also produced locally. Book piracy, for example, is prevalent. This includes illegal photocopying, pirate offset printing, and books burned on CDs. On the other hand, the increased availability of broadband Internet has also increased illegal downloads, distribution of burned CDs and DVDs, and unauthorized exploitation of popular entertainment software titles.

In terms of optical disc production, the IIPA suspects the existence of at least 16 optical disc factories and 38 operation lines in the country, with an estimated overall production capacity of 133 million discs per year. It also believes that covert production facilities, often protected by law enforcement and local government officials, remain in existence both in remote areas of Luzon and within the major cities. One of the main pirates burning content onto CD-Rs operates just one floor above the residence of the director of the NBI.

State

of

Copyright

Enforcement

Despite the issuance of the implementing rules and regulations of the Optical Media Act and the establishment of the Optical Media Board (OMB) headed by Edu Manzano, much remains to be desired in the state of copyright enforcement. OMB continues to conduct raids to stop pirate production, distribution, and retail activities, much like its predecessor, the Videogram Regulatory Board (VRB), has done. However, the IIPA laments that these raids are largely non-deterrent, as stores closed due to raids often reopened the following day. While the OMB carried out the largest bust in a Quiapo Mall in December 2004 resulting in the seizure of over US$8 million (with a street value of P476.25 million) worth of pirated products, these statistics also indicate the massive scope of the piracy problem.

Exacerbating the poor state of enforcement is the lack of IP expertise among the regional prosecutors and the judges of the Special Commercial Courts. To remedy this situation, these courts will soon be replaced by special IP courts that will handle intellectual property-related cases only, as per the Supreme Court en banc resolution dated July 26, 2005. The resolution was based on the proposal of IPO Director General Adrian Cristobal Jr.

As of March 2005, 1,184 IP cases were pending, 993 of which is in Manila.

Moreover, the role of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in IP enforcement has been unclear. In 2001 the IPO was moved from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to the Office of the President, where it can coordinate with the Philippine National Police and Bureau of Investigation. In 2004 it was moved back to the DTI. This move seems to have no effect.

Pending bills in Congress aim to amend the IP Code in order to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties (WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty) fully, and pass cybercrime legislation covering all copyrighted materials.

Written Analysis: Piracy is an infringement of intellectual property rights (IPR), which is defined as rights that allow people to own their creativity and innovation in the same way they can own physical property. The owner of intellectual property (IP) can control and be rewarded for its use, and this encourages further innovation and creativity to the benefit of us all. In our country, the law in place is the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293), which generally protects copyright, trademarks, and patents. In modern years, internet piracy or "file sharing" of copyrighted material has gained much popularity. It is a topic that has continually started a debate and has even received global attention. Although on the face act of file sharing may seem harmless, it

is far from it. Every year, film and record production companies as well as software and video game development companies suffer from billions of lost in profits. This loss comes as a direct result of internet piracy. Many agree that file sharing is immoral and consider it to be no different than absolute stealing. On the other hand, there are those that support file sharing and claim that their actions are easily acceptable and moral. File sharing, is simply the process of making available and distributing files via the internet. Many freely developed applications have been made available that simplify this process, providing the ability to easily search for, download, and upload any piece of digital content imaginable. These applications are commonly referred to as P2P or peer-to-peer applications as they allow individuals (peers) to directly connect with other peers to share files. Although P2P networks are most likely the most common and accessible to the average internet user, there are hosts of other applications and methods that provide the same services and in many cases faster access to more at ease. As stated before, on average users have access to all types of content; this content includes but is not limited to: film, music or audio, software, video games, pictures, and documents.

2. Privacy

P2P Software Causes Security Breach October 3rd, 2007 by dm Breaches

Personal information on a few thousand ABM Amro Mortgage Group (unit of Citigroup) customers has been leaked out to anybody in the world through peer-to-peer (P2P) software. The names, Social Security numbers, and mortgage information of some 5,200 people which was stored on an employee laptop was shared via the LimeWire P2P software. While it is unclear how many times the information has been downloaded over the P2P network, the fact that a computer containing a large amount of personal information was allowed to run P2P software is inexcusable. In all likelihood, Citigroup (or ABM Amro Mortgage) have some sort of restrictions (administrative policy or an IT set of software restrictions) which prohibit P2P sharing in general and in all likelihood the employee who used the laptop in question did so without authorization. Even so, the problem remains at Citi and their IT security personnel for failing to prevent or detect such software earlier. Placing the blame on the individual user is not an excuse as it is Citis reputation (and possibly checkbook after claims by these 5,200 affected people are filed) on the line. According to Pike & Fischer, in testimony at a July House subcommittee hearing on P2P risks, LimeWire Chairman Mark Gorton said that a "small fraction" of users override safe default settings that come with the program, despite the companys warnings and precautions. The company is working on a "new generation of user interfaces and tools designed with neophyte users in mind," making it "even easier for users to see which

files they are sharing and to intuitively understand the controls available to them," he said. Even if LimeWire is successful in preventing users from inadvertently sharing their business documents folders, a company which takes its intellectual property and information security and privacy seriously should, in most cases, take proactive steps to weed out P2P software from its networks. Written Analysis: The use of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications is growing dramatically, particularly for sharing large video/audio files and software. Peer to peer networks are common thing in the internet world. There would very little number of people around the world who dont know them or havent used them in their day to day activities. Since we all living in the age of super-fast internet the importance of these sites have gone high. We use peer to peer like different sites for multiple purposes like downloading songs, movies ,softwares ,play games and many more.

Social networks are special. Good example for this type of application is the Facebook. Only my selected friends can see what I publish on Facebook. Peer-to-peer networks have no master. Everybody is equal. There is no central repository. That should be a great privacy features, but peer-to-peer networks are not exclusive. I can choose what

to publish. Thats what the essence of privacy. Anyone does not have the power to control someones works without the permission of the owner or even the publisher.

II.

Copyright on Works of Multimedia in Music and Film Six music blogs hosted by Google's blogging services have been accused of violating the company's terms of service by allegedly posting unauthorized copyright material and have been

booted from the sites. Google CEO Eric Schmidt sits between Universal Music Group CEO Doug Morris (left) and Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment, at the Vevo launch party. (Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET) The blogs that were hosted by Google's Blogger or Blogspot services are: Living Ears, I Rock Cleveland, Pop Tarts, Masala,To Die By Your Side, and It's a Rap. Certainly, Google and four major music labels are friendlier than ever. Google agreed to help build Vevo, a standalone music video service within YouTube designed to be a showcase for professionally made music videos. That aside, there's not much new in Google bouncing sites for alleged copyright violations.

The company has long said it will obey the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires Internet service providers to remove copyright-infringing works. Google has said it will always forward DMCA complaints to the accused bloggers. After multiple violations, ISPs are required to boot the alleged offenders. Don't forget that Viacom, parent company of Paramount Pictures and MTV, has alleged in a $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube that those companies are not protected by the DMCA. Viacom argues that Google is responsible for copyright violations committed when users upload unauthorized copies of films and TV shows. But one of the big problems with Google's latest copyright sweep is that some of the banned blog operators say they are innocent. "As a music blogger I do understand that I may run the risk of going afoul of DMCA rules and regulations," someone claiming to be from I Rock Cleveland wrote in a post at a Blogger message board. "However, I assure you that everything I've posted for, let's say, the past two years, has either been provided by a promotional company, came directly from the record label, or came directly from the artist." Google declined to comment for this story. "We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property," Obama said. "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people...It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century.

But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor." The president's comments come as his administration continues to revitalize an improving but still ailing U.S. economy. They echo statements made often by leaders in the U.S. film, music, video game, and software industries. For a while these sectors have claimed piracy and Internet file sharing mean the loss of U.S. jobs and poison the economy. Critics say that the job losses are more due to poor business decisions made by the studios and music labels. They have cited research that shows intellectual property accounts for 20 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and nearly 40 percent of U.S. economic growth. The music sector has seen a major decline in jobs over the decade since Napster made file sharing popular. The industry has contracted to four major record companies and with EMI Music, the smallest major label, in deep financial trouble, there's a possibility we'll see more shrinkage. Sony Pictures, the film studio owned by the giant Japanese consumer electronics company, recently announced its second round of layoffs within the past year. In the president's speech, he signaled his administration plans to help crack down on worldwide piracy. "There's nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it," Obama said. "We just want to make sure that it's licensed and that American

businesses are getting paid appropriately. That's why the (U.S. Trade Representative) is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The president's stands on these issues were welcomed by some copyright owners and representatives of the entertainment industries. "We applaud the president's recognition that it's U.S. ingenuity and creativity that is helping to drive the economy," said Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel. "We think that what should follow from this is the need for much stronger action in enforcement and by intermediaries who allow their infrastructure to be used to distribute stolen digital content or counterfeit products. The intermediaries he's referring to are video-sharing sites, auction sites, shipping companies (which help distribute physical counterfeited goods), and Internet service providers. ISPs especially have been under pressure from the film, music, and video game sectors to do more to protect intellectual property. There is a push for ISPs to adopt a so-called graduated response to illegal file sharing. This plan would include warnings and possibly also suspension or termination of service. This is believed to be one of the first times Obama has publicly come out in support of ACTA, the controversial proposed trade agreement that would set standards for

protecting intellectual property. Some of those that are said to be participating are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and the United States. Exactly what ACTA is proposing is vague and representatives have kept their negotiations mostly closed to the public. But among some copyright reformists the fear is that ACTA will call for Internet service providers to boot accused illegal file sharers from their networks. On Wednesday, the European Parliament rejected ACTA negotiators' closed-door policy. In a vote of 633 to 13, the parliament demanded that ACTA's documents be made accessible to the public. As for the U.S. attempts to thwart piracy overseas, those efforts have met with mixed results. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) saw some success prodding Russian officials to derail Allofmp3.com and other accused pirate sites in that country. The USTA also lobbied Sweden's government for a long time to file copyright charges against BitTorrent search engine the Pirate Bay, accused of helping millions around the globe find unauthorized copies of films and music. Last year, the operators of the Pirate Bay were found guilty of copyright infringement and sentenced to a year in jail. That case is on appeal. Despite these high-profile cases, piracy thrives in places such as China, and some Eastern European countries. Mega upload is one service that continues to help distribute millions of U.S. films across the globe without the permission of the Hollywood

film studios. Illegal streaming sites are cropping up all over and many times investigators working for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) don't even know where the operators are located. The increase in piracy over 2008 was due largely to higher PC shipments and sales, especially in emerging markets such as Brazil, India, and China, reported the study. One of the biggest markets for pirated software, China, saw the value of illegal software jump to $7.6 billion last year, $900 million more than in 2008. In an ironic positive twist during last year's recession, software piracy actually fell in 54 of the 111 economies covered in the report and grew in only 19. In the United States, the rate of software piracy stayed the same at 20 percent, the lowest in the world. But in light of the nation's huge PC market, pirated software in the U.S. cost the industry $8.4 billion in profits. "Given the economy, 2009 piracy rates are better than we expected," BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman said in a statement. "But incremental improvements are not enough. Few if any industries could withstand the theft of $51 billion worth of their products."
http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/music-industry-considers-lawsuit-against-

google-over-piracy-search-results/

Written Analysis: Copyright is often attributed to artistic and literary works such as films, music, books, photos, drawings, broadcasts, software, and multimedia. It exists from the moment of creation of the work, which must be both original and recorded in some tangible medium. Although registration is required for trademarks and rigts, no formalities are needed in order for copyright to exist.

The bigger fundamental issue is not the effect of technology on copyright but the effect of new technologies on business practice. Every time a new technology comes along that affects the music industry it changes the industry, music is going to become much easier to purchase.

The idea of ownership of something, whether it has a physical form, does still make sense as intellectual property. There are a number of laws and agreements all over the world to protect intellectual property rights. The right to copy or duplicate materials can be granted only by the owners of the information. This is called the copyright. Many documents on the Internet contain a statement that asserts the document is copyrighted and gives permission for distributing the document in an electronic form, provided it isn't sold or made part of some business project. Most of the copyright or regulation includes

a provision so that individuals may make copies of portion of a document for short-term use. If information is obtainable on the Internet, and there is no charge to access the information, it often can be shared in an electronic form. But it doesn't mean you can copy images or documents and make them available on the Internet, or make copies and share them in a printed form with others. On the other hand, many of the folks who create or work at providing material available on the Internet expect to for their work.

Thefts on software hurts and disappoint not just software companies and the IT sector, but also the broader economy at the local, regional, and global levels by cutting out service and distribution firms. Lowering software piracy could create new jobs or opportunities to those who engage in business. Therefore, we must control or respect the laws for the benefit of every individual or nation.

III.

Fair Use and Works of Government On Sunday, the Washington Post published a story which suggested the RIAA is

expanding its copyright-infringement lawsuits against end-users to encompass files ripped from an audio CD to a user's hard drive. In other words, most of the files on the 100+million iPods sold, not to mention the countless files on computer hard drives and other devices. A lot of readers took the story at face value, and expressed dismay that the RIAA would target such copying for personal use. Isn't that fair use?

Turns out that the story's wrong: as the Patry Copyright Blog (and others) point out, if you read the full legal brief, you'll see that the RIAA's objecting to two things in combination: the fact that the user converted the CD audio to MP3 files, AND the fact that the user put these files in a folder to make them available to a file-trading service. So this actually appears to be the "making available" argument, which the RIAA used successfully in the only file-trading case it's won against an individual (so far). But even if the story were correct, why is everybody so quick to assume that making a copy of an audio CD onto a hard drive is fair use? The doctrine of fair use is far from clear-cut. For example, there's been enough case law on parody that it's generally deemed to be covered by fair use. But the issue of making personal backups of digital data is still the subject of significant debate. And the recording industry has been fairly consistent in arguing that ripping MP3s is making an unauthorized copy. The point: just because something's technically easy, widely accepted, and seems "right," that doesn't mean it's legal. That said, I believe the RIAA's tactic of suing customers is heavy-handed and will do more harm than good to the long-term health of the recording industry. http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/11/publishing-digital-fair-use.html Written Analysis: One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies. One of the more important

limitations is the doctrine of fair use. The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law. The difference between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no exact number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without authorization. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. Fair use does not specifically point out the right of everyone to use ones work thus, it tackles the equality of the users.

IV.

Top Ten Internet and Software Threats

Virus and a worm A virus is a program that replicates, i.e. it spreads from file to file on your system and from PC to PC. In addition, it may be programmed to erase or damage data. Worms are generally considered to be a subset of viruses, but with certain key differences. A worm is a computer program that replicates, but does not infect other files. Instead, it installs itself once on a computer and then looks for a way to spread to other computers. In the case of a virus, the longer it goes undetected, the more infected files there will be on the computer. Worms, however, create a single instance of their code. Moreover,

unlike a virus, a worm code is stand-alone. In other words, a worm is a separate file while a virus is a set of code which adds itself to existing files. DoS attack A Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack is designed to hinder or stop the normal functioning of a web site, server or other network resource. There are various ways for hackers to achieve this. One common method is to flood a server by sending it more requests than it is able to handle. This will make the server run slower than usual (and web pages will take much longer to open), and may crash the server completely (causing all websites on the server to go down). A distributed-Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack differs only in the fact that the attack is conducted using multiple machines. The hacker typically uses one compromised machine as the master and co-ordinates the attack across other, so-called zombie, machines. Both master and zombie machines are typically compromised by exploiting a vulnerability in an application on the computer, to install a Trojan or other piece of malicious code. DRIVE-BY DOWNLOAD In a drive-by download, your computer becomes infected just by visiting a website which contains malicious code. Cybercriminals search the Internet looking for vulnerable web servers that can be hacked. On such servers, cybercriminals can inject their malicious code (often in the form of malicious script) onto the web pages. If your operating system

or one of your applications is un-patched, a malicious program is downloaded to your computer automatically when you access the infected web page. ROOTKIT This term describes a collection of programs used by a hacker to evade detection while trying to gain unauthorized access to a computer. The term originated in the Unix world, although it has since been applied to the techniques used by authors of Trojans that run under Microsoft Windows to conceal their actions. Rootkits have been used increasingly as a form of stealth to hide Trojan activity. When installed on the system, rootkits are not only invisible to users, but they are designed to escape detection of security software as well. The fact that many people log into their computers with administrator rights, rather than creating a separate account with restricted access, makes it easier for cybercriminals to install a rootkit. MALWARE Malware - short for malicious software - is an umbrella term that refers to any software program deliberately created to perform an unauthorized and often harmful action. Viruses, backdoors, keyloggers, password stealers and other Trojan horse programs, Word and Excel macro viruses, boot sector viruses, script viruses (batch, windows shell, java, etc.) and Trojans, crimeware, spyware and adware are but a few examples of what is considered malware.

It was once sufficient to call something a 'virus' or 'Trojan horse', but infection methods and vectors evolved and the terms virus and Trojan no longer provided a satisfactory definition for all the types of rogue programs that exist. PHISHING Phishing is a very specific type of cybercrime designed to trick you into disclosing personal financial details. Cybercriminals create a fake website that looks just like a banks website (or any other web site where online financial transactions are conducted e.g. eBay). They then try to trick you into visiting this site and typing in your confidential data, such as your login, password or PIN. Typically, cybercriminals send out a large numbers of e-mails containing a hyperlink to the fake site. ADWARE Adware is the general term applied to programs that either launch advertisements (often pop-up banners) or re-direct search results to promotional web sites. Adware is often built into freeware or shareware programs: if you download a freeware program, the adware is installed on your system without your knowledge or consent. Sometimes a Trojan will secretly download an adware program from a web site and install it on your computer. Web browsers that arent up-to-date often contain vulnerabilities. Such browsers are vulnerable to hackers tools (often referred to as Browser Hijackers) that can download adware to your computer. Browser Hijackers may change browser settings, redirect

incorrectly typed or incomplete URLs to a specific site, or change the default homepage. They may also redirect searches to pay-to-view (often pornographic) web sites. Typically, adware programs do not show themselves in the system in any way: there will be no listing under Start | Programs, no icons in the system tray and nothing in the task list. They seldom come with a de-installation procedure and attempts to remove them manually may cause the original carrier program to malfunction. SPYWARE As the name suggests, this is software that is designed to harvest your data and forward it to a third party without your consent or knowledge. Such programs may monitor key presses ('keyloggers'), collect confidential information (passwords, credit card numbers, PIN numbers, etc.), harvest e-mail addresses or track browsing habits. In addition to all of this, spyware inevitably affects your computers performance. BOTNET The term used for a network of computers controlled by cybercriminals using a Trojan or other malicious program. Written Analysis:

A virus really sucks! It ruins every Pcs or device. It damage any files and makes my PCs operate so slow like a turtle.

Amongst all kinds of malicious web based programs that present large danger to the personal computers, the Trojan horse virus is indeed the most fatal among the group for me. This kind of threats, openly appear to my drive whenever I encounter some threats or viruses in my drive. On the other hand, what is Trojan virus? Many individuals want to know regarding this virus. Trojan virus is a malware that may expose your computer to all sorts of destruction and problems. The computer system based Trojan virus cover itself into a dishonestly safe looking small piece of an application. Yet in reality it may begin leaking very important details to outsiders once it is approved access to personal computer. This information may include key logs, credit card information or other data. An immoral minded hacker may so quickly use these Trojans to his benefit and access all of the at risk data from another location.

Sometimes, its been hard for me as in the fields of the IT industry, to cope up with the problem occurring to my system. I do not know all preventive precautions need to apply to avoid some problem that I openly encountered. But behind this issue, the important thing is on how someone knows how to prevent or avoids some circumstances that might happen on them whenever they would encounter this thing.

V.

Ethics in the Internet

By Michael A. Covington The trouble with the world, said Will Rogers, is not ignorance. It's the things people "know" that aren't so. That's certainly true of the Internet. To many people, it's a personal soapbox, a refuge from law and order, or a gigantic video game. But the real Internet is none of these things. As its name implies, it's a network of networks. The Internet is not a company or organization and is not regulated by the FCC or any other government agency. It's a loose federation of computer sites that agree to link their computers together. The Internet started in the 1960s as a Defense Department experiment, and until 1990 it was purely a network of universities and research labs. Nowadays, most people access the Internet through commercial access providers such as CompuServe and America Online, which were originally separate networks. That's the key to Internet ethics: you never know exactly who's paying the bills, so you are always someone else's guest. The fees that you pay to America Online, for instance, only pay for America On Lines equipment, not the rest of the network. That's radically different from the way telephone companies and post offices work. If you mail a letter or make a phone call to England, part of the postage or telephone charge will go to the British post office or telephone company. But the Internet doesn't work that way.

When you send email to a CompuServe user, CompuServe pays the cost of delivering it. Other sites along the way may also incur expenses. Junk mail and spamming That, in turn, explains the current furor over junk mail and "spamming" (massive posting of ads in irrelevant discussion forums). It's not that people object to advertising; there have always been places on the net where ads are welcome. The problem with junk mail and spamming is that they impose massive expenses on unwilling victims. It's as if pesky telephone solicitors were calling collect. Spamming started in April 1994 when two Arizona lawyers, Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, posted an ad on 8,000 newsgroups offering their services to help immigrants get "green cards." This provoked thousands if not millions of angry complaints as every news site in the world suddenly found 8,000 copies of Canter and Siegel's ad on its disks. The Internet community was frustrated at not having the physical or legal means to stop the spammers. About a year later, there was a wave of spamming from the Albuquerque area, but it ended as the perpetrators apparently realized that getting a million people angry at you is much worse than being sued or jailed. Since then, those who oppose spamming have sharpened their weapons. Many argue that spamming and junk email are illegal under 47 USC 227, the law that forbids junk faxes; this hasn't been confirmed in court, but if it's not true, it ought to be.

And in a noteworthy court decision in November 1996, America OnLine won the right to refuse to deliver unsolicited email sent to its subscribers by a junk mailer, Cyber Promotions, Inc. The court ruled that mass mailers don't have a constitutional right to clog up other people's computers. Today, service providers don't tolerate spamming; they realize that the resulting flood of complaints will render their machines inoperative. Some spamming still takes place, but it almost always involves fake addresses and other petty deceptions. If you encounter unwelcome advertising in a newsgroup, discussion forum, or email, don't post a reply in the same forum; that just compounds the problem. Don't reply to the "from" address, either; it's likely to be fake, and it may be the address of an innocent victim, or a site that the perpetrator wants to flood with complaints. Check the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.misc to see what others know about the incident. If the spamming appears to involve illegal activity or fraud, contact the National Fraud Information Center (http://www.fraud.org). Crackers and viruses The classic Internet crime -- breaking into computers -- is less common than it used to be. When Robert Morris went to jail for it in 1988, people noticed, and "cyberpunks" quietly abandoned this destructive sport. Most states now have laws in place specifying harsh penalties for unauthorized tampering with other people's computers. Even without specific laws, computer tampering is prosecutable as malicious mischief, just like

tampering with any other kind of property. What's more, it's usually easy to catch the perpetrator. Even computer viruses are on the decline, for several reasons. Windows 95 and OS/2 are inherently somewhat less vulnerable to viruses than DOS. Many PCs run virus checks daily. And the user community is well aware that it's only a matter of time before a virus author is caught and prosecuted. Contrary to widespread rumor, viruses can't infect your PC simply by arriving in e-mail. But some viruses do arrive as e-mail messages that say "Look at this file" or "click on this link." If you don't know what it is and where it came from, don't click on it. But don't pass along virus warnings as chain letters to other e-mail users. In ten years of looking for them, we at The University of Georgia have never received an accurate virus warning this way. If you get a virus warning, pass it along only to the security department of your Internet service provider. It's very likely to be a hoax or prank, maybe even a malicious one, and you shouldn't let it waste thousands of other people's time. Scams and pyramids The most common Internet crimes, in fact, are frauds and con games. One of these is the so-called Make Money Fast pyramid scheme: send $5 to the first person on the list, take that person's name off, add yours at the bottom, and email it to 100 of your friends. Thousands of dollars will supposedly pour into your mailbox.

There's no way this scheme could work; money doesn't come out of thin air, so there's no way everybody could receive more than they send out. That's why the law considers pyramid schemes to be theft or fraud. What usually happens is that a few people make money at the beginning, but thousands more, farther down the line, get nothing. These schemes are illegal throughout the U.S. and practically everywhere else. Why would anyone be stupid enough to advertise an illegal pyramid scheme publicly on the Internet? Good question! One reason is that many pyramid schemes falsely claim to have found loopholes in the law. They often cite nonexistent laws or the laws of some other country, or they tell you they're selling a report or mailing list. Another reason is that people on the Internet are naive. There's a widespread misconception that the Internet is above the law, and that if you do something illegal on the net, the police will never see it, or you can't be prosectued because the crime happened in "cyberspace." That, of course, is nonsense. But some people still think the Internet is separate from Planet Earth. You'll even see messages like, "Don't tell my boss about my cocaine habit." Naturally, business fraud and false advertising abound on the Internet. The type on your screen looks the same whether or not the words are honest, and people are easily taken in. The FDA has recently expressed concern about medical quackery on the Internet. Hoaxes abound, too, as does out-of-date information. Every few weeks we hear (falsely) that the FCC is about to ban religious broadcasting, and a dying boy's appeal for postcards has been circulating, often with false addresses, since 1989. The

University of Georgia forewarns people about these hoaxes, and many other net ethics issues, with an online quiz at http://www.uga.edu/compsec/quiz. Forgery on the net Forgery is presently a serious problem. In September 1996, an ad for child pornography appeared in thousands of newsgroups. It gave the name and address of a man in New York who turned out to be an innocent victim -- somebody else was trying to frame him, or at least flood his computer with angry email. That same month, students at the University of Georgia received, by email, official-looking threats of disciplinary action that turned out to be fake. If something on the Net looks like it might be fake, it probably is. There's no guarantee that an email message or newsgroup posting actually came from where it says. Some software lets the sender give any name and email address whatsoever. To spot fakes, look at email headers. Each piece of email or newsgroup posting arrives with a path indicating how it reached you. If the message wasn't sent from the site it claims to have come from, something is amiss. This test isn't bulletproof; it's possible to fake part of the path, but hard to fake all of it. Dirty pictures? What about pornography? In my experience it's a small problem that has gotten big publicity. Because the Internet is a totally open communication system, it will inevitably contain some pornography along with everything else. It's not like a school library; it's

more like a city street. Pornography does not normally intrude into other communications; you have to go looking for it. Although there have been occasional cases of obscene spam, I view them as basically part of the spam problem. Still, Internet users have to obey obscenity laws like everyone else. Enforcement so far has been lax but would be easy to tighten up because web pages are easily traceable to their owners. Obscenity laws restrict what you publish or redistribute, not what you view, and they apply only to material that meets a legal test of obscenity -- they do not ban all sexual content or bad taste. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 muddied the waters by trying to prohibit "indecent" communications, not just obscene ones. This is a much heavier restriction, and parts of the law were immediately declared unconstitutional by a Pennsylvania district court. The problem is that the framers of the Act seem to have thought that service providers control the contents of the Internet. As we saw earlier, they don't and they can't. But decency remains a serious issue if the Internet is to be usable by schoolchildren, and private organizations are stepping in to do what government can't (and shouldn't): promoting voluntary standards of decency and rating the suitability of web pages and newsgroups for children. At least two companies, Cyber Patrol and Surf watch, presently do this. Teachers and parents can set up their Internet software so that students can only access approved materials.

Other companies and organizations will soon be doing the same thing. It's a job for private organizations, not government, because different people have different standards of decency. A church-related elementary school in Texas, for example, will want a different rating scheme than a public high school in San Francisco. Rival organizations will also keep each other honest; if one of them produces unreliable ratings, customers will switch to another.

Written Analysis: Ethics are summary rules that manage our relationship with each other. They are necessary in every area of life that requires human communication. We always hear terms like work ethics and social ethics. Well, the internet, being the most gigantic communication medium known to man, is certainly no exception. Malicious acts such as spam, fraud, hacking, and intellectual property abuse are obvious violations of the internet ethics. However, the concept of internet ethics is much broader than the Do nots. It also covers the Must Do and Nice to Do patterns of behavior.

Using the Internet often comprises the use of social networking sites, email facilities and the browse of various other websites. Internet privacy comes on the scene when it comes to website users giving out their personal details on the Internet. For

certain websites, which facilitate online shopping, the users are made to input their credit card numbers. Respect must come all the way. Laws were implemented to follow not to violate it. The problem is, young computer users are spreading rapidly. They believe they'll be applauding as computer geniuses if they smash into someone else's computer. These people aren't geniuses; they're more like shoplifters. Both morally and intellectually, they have some growing up to do, and in the meantime, they shouldn't expect to escape responsibility for the harm they cause.

Final Project In Operating System

Written Analysis

Submitted to: Mr. Chris Reyes

Prepared by: Jovy P. Masangkay BSCS 321

Final Project In Operating System

Written Analysis

Submitted to: Mr. Chris Reyes

Submitted by: Mary Ann L. Vergara BSCS 321