16.9 C
London
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Home Tags Injunction

Tag: injunction

Promoters are expected to earn up to $1 billion tonight from pay-per-view buys.
Phazzer is the third such firm that Axon (formerly Taser) has defeated in court.
Vancouver tech company seeks to de-list a website selling alleged counterfeits.
After trial victory, company also ups damage demand from $500 million to $1 billion
A court showdown over an injunction looms, and it’s not looking good for Uber.
9th Circuit: local law actually “complements and reinforces” federal law, policy.
"In 42 years, I've never seen a record this strong. You are up against it."
Two activists criminally charged with allegedly violating privacy of people filmed.
Premier League wins court injunction requiring server-level blocking.
But legal expert says an injunction is an uphill climb following civil verdict.
EnlargeSpencer Platt/Getty Images reader comments 48 Share this story His name is now scribbled all over the Web, and the ex-MI6 man who is alleged to have compiled a dossier containing unsubstantiated and lurid claims about US President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly in hiding. However, despite the details being readily available online, the UK's ministry of defence—following a long-standing practice—politely requested the British press to carefully consider the potential consequences of disclosing the individual's name.
In a letter to editors and publishers, retired RAF Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, who holds the post of defence and security media advisory secretariat, said on Wednesday: In view of media stories alleging that a former SIS [secret intelligence service; MI6] officer was the source of the information which allegedly compromises president-elect Donald Trump, would you and your journalists please seek my advice before making public that name. The guidance was given through fear that revealing the identity of the ex-MI6 man "could assist terrorist or other hostile organisations." Nonetheless, the BBC and other major British news organisations have disclosed details of the individual, whose name and current directorship at a London-based private security firm was initially published in the US press and heavily shared on social media. But such a decision by the BBC and others is a stark departure from the past when publications and broadcasters that received a so-called D-notice (defence notice), later replaced by a DA-notice (defence advisory notice), would often fall into line with the MoD's request in a very British spirit of collaboration. Enlarge / Google quit the D-notice committee in response to the Snowden revelations. NOVA/PBS The D-notice first came into play in 1912, two years before World War I broke out, when Whitehall mandarins decided that an organisation should be created that addressed matters of national interest. Members of the press were included on the advisory panel, and they remain so to this day. However, the makeup has changed a little: the likes of Google representatives have sat on the committee, for example, though, the US ad giant withdrew its voluntary support in light of Edward Snowden's damning disclosures about the NSA. Historically, publishers and editors have largely responded in kind to the frightfully polite requests from the MoD. Members of the committee have long argued that it doesn't amount to censorship from the British government, instead insisting that they are simply exercising restraint with stories that may, on reflection, damage national security.

But Vallance and his predecessors can only gently nudge the press to consider the sensitive material they have in their possession before publishing it. Where disputes arise between the government and publications, Vallance works independently as a go-between to "help resolve disagreement about what should be disclosed" before any legal action is taken against the press to suppress information by way of a court injunction. But today, the relevance of the D-notice—as it continually tends to be described—seems to be slowly ossifying, and we can see this from the decision by the likes of the BBC to publish the name of the ex-spy at the centre of the uncorroborated Trump dossier story, which claims that Russia has compromising information about the president-elect. In 2015, in acknowledgement that it was becoming increasingly difficult to put a lid on sensitive information being shared online, the UK government renamed the DA-notice to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA)—a system which currently costs £250,000 a year to run.

The inclusion of the word "security" is perhaps there to try to make it crystal clear to the media that supposedly risky disclosures endanger not only military and spook-types, but also British citizens. But, while it continues to try to sign up more digital and social media representatives, the DSMA committee has admitted that there is "no obvious answer" to the challenges presented by the Web.
It has previously argued that the "mainstream media" remains the superior source for news, regardless of gossipy tittle-tattle—no matter how inflammatory or lacking in reality—that is shared online.

Events in recent months, though, seem to suggest that the line is more blurred than ever before because it is far less clear who is setting the news agenda. We're in for a long four years if the answer turns out to be Trump's Twitter account. This post originated on Ars Technica UK
Router biz sued by Uncle Sam for hardcoded passwords, exploitable bugs and more America's trade watchdog is suing D-Link, alleging the router and camera vendor failed to implement basic security protections in its gear. The FTC said that its complaint was based on D-Link's failure to take "reasonable steps" to secure its products, putting the privacy of citizens everywhere at risk as a result. "Hackers are increasingly targeting consumer routers and IP cameras – and the consequences for consumers can include device compromise and exposure of their sensitive personal information," said FTC Consumer Protection Bureau director Jessica Rich. "When manufacturers tell consumers that their equipment is secure, it's critical that they take the necessary steps to make sure that's true." Among the transgressions the FTC cites in its legal complaint [PDF] are: This despite D-Link advertising its products as having "advanced security" protections and using secure connection protocols. As a result, the FTC says, D-Link illegally misrepresented its products and put the privacy of its customers at risk. The FTC also notes the danger D-Link's security lapses presented to people who were not their customers, as the poorly-secured routers and cameras presented prime targets for hackers looking to build IoT botnets. The suit alleges six violations of the FTC Act of 1914: one count of unfairness and five counts of misrepresentation for security event response policy, router promotional material, router GUI, IP camera promotional material, and IP camera GUI. The complaint seeks costs and damages as well as an injunction to further penalize D-Link should it continue to violate the FTC Act. In a statement, the hardware maker said: "D-Link denies the allegations outlined in the complaint and is taking steps to defend the action. The security of our products and protection of our customers private data is always our top priority." ® Sponsored: Customer Identity and Access Management