Category: Freedom

Categories
Freedom Technology

A Cellular Conspiracy?

Interesting reading the following few links are.
Still, I’d prefer to be able to read in silence on a long flight than deal with my neighbours’ cheesy ring tones…

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/09/technology/personaltech/cellphones_inflight/?cnn=yes

“The FCC rules have less to do with the effects on a plane’s navigation than concerns that cell phones on planes could wreak havoc with cell phone systems on the ground.”

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html

‘…What’s more, many of the reasons are unclear, especially since many airlines have FAA-approved, seat-installed cell phones of their own. It costs about $3 a minute to make an in-flight call in the United States; a 20-minute call costing $60 doesn’t exactly make company accountants jump for joy…

…”I question (the prohibition of cell phones in flight) because they have a telephone if you pay for it,” said Larry Murphy, vice president of sales and marketing for Flying Food Group…’

‘…Airlines generally abide by the FAA’s recommendation, but what they don’t tell passengers is that no agency — not even the RTCA — has come up with definitive evidence of portable electronic devices interfering with a plane’s instruments…’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_phone

Using mobile phones on aircraft

…The use of mobile phones is generally forbidden on aircraft during flight. One reason given for this is that the mobile phone could interfere with the sensitive equipment on the aircraft. This could be restated as “during development these aircraft were not designed to accept signals from mobile phones and there has not been sufficient testing to be sure that they could” as can be seen from plans to improve certification [1] (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/389/srg_sys_00002-01-300103.pdf). Some level of electromagnetic interference is theoretically possible from active radio transmitters such as mobile phones on aircraft. Exactly how much and in what way is dependent on the particular phone system in use and the plane component in question. Whether that level of interference should have any influence on electronic systems which should be designed to fly through lightning storms without falling out of the sky is an entirely different question…

…One area in which interference would be most likely is in the radio-based audio equipment used for voice communications between the aeroplane and the ground. The mobile phone transmitter is much closer to the receiver on the aircraft than the ground station, but operates at a lower power than the ground station…

…Another factor is that from an altitude, distant cells are visible to the mobile with no line-of-sight attenuation from intervening obstacles. This means that the phone could try to establish contact with a far away cell where the signal will not be recognised. This transmission will probably be at maximum power due to the lack of prior response. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission prohibits the use of mobile phones in the air for this reason. This repeated sending of maximum power messages increases the risk of interference with electronic equipment on the aircraft…

…All of the above having been said, according to the BBC “most of the evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal. There is no absolute proof mobile phones are hazardous.” [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/399154.stm) Some airlines do allow use of mobiles phones in flight, only restricting their use (and use of all other electronic devices) during take off and landing when communications with the ground are most critical…

…Some articles have even gone so far as to accuse the airline industry of pushing the ban on mobile phones in order to increase revenue from on board telephones [3] (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2074198,00.htm). A number of new phones have an “aeroplane mode” feature that presumably stops all incoming and outgoing communications while still allowing the user to play games, type notes etc…

Categories
Freedom

Don’t watch them terror videos.

A quote from journalist Jason Burke on terrorists “becoming the media” through propaganda videos. Read his article – it is very insightful.

“Propaganda, indeed any communication or creative work, only functions in a language that is comprehensible to its target audiences. The harsh truth is that the style of al-Qaeda’s attacks and the executions in Iraq – and the whole theatre of modern terrorism – is familiar to us. The question is whether the content soon will be too.”

More here

Categories
Freedom

A View on Current Political Shifts

James Gosling’s blog has this to say about the US election: “I realized I was in trouble when I noticed that I was thinking of Michael Moore as a voice of reason.”

A more vitriolic (yet inescapably true) opinion can be found at fuckthesouth.com

While IE’s market share has dropped 5% since May to 88.9%, Mozilla browsers – including Firefox – have grown by 5% and now have 7.4% share of the market. There’s a powerful force at work here.

And here’s a compelling thought – if students in the Ukraine are not scared to stand up for their rights, to voice their disapproval of a political situation, why should the rest of us in “developed” countries sit back and accept whatever our governments dish out for us. There’s a good lesson to be learnt here

Categories
Freedom Hacking Rants Security

Reinhardt Buys engages me on my public comments

Dear Shaun,

YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT MYSELF AND BUYS INC. ATTORNEYS

First of all I would like to congratulate you… your guts to take on big companies and your blog / hacklist have stirred much needed public debate and will stand out as the high water mark for free speech rights in SA for a long time.

Comments on your blog and more recent comments by yourself on 2600.co.za made no secret of your dislike for me and Buys Inc. Attorneys in general. Your public criticism on some of our hack related press statements in the past was in many aspects correct and valid… we try and explain these issues to the general public in a manner that Joe Soap will understand. Your knowledge of these matters are way above our heads! (See https://dewberry.co.za/index.php?cat=14).

However, your recent public comments about our involvement with the Telkom matter are plainly untrue, vindictive and unreasonable. (See http://lists.2600.co.za/pipermail/hacklist/2004-August/005850.html).

Following similar comments on the myadsl.co.za website, the website operator gave us an opportunity to state our side of the story. I copy our reply and some of the follow up comment hereunder.

As a keen free speech supported I trust that you will give us the same opportunity to respond to the 2600 subscriber list and on your blog…?

I have never met you and you never made any effort to approach us when you publicly disagreed with us. I truly cannot think of anything we have done to harm you or those you care for.

Maybe you should pop into our offices for coffee?

I await your response.

Regards,

Reinhardt Buys

BLC LLB (Pret) LLM (Cape)

Buys Incorporated
www.buys.co.za
Internet, Media and IPR Law
Tel: (021) 461-7387
Fax: (021) 462 -7117
http://www.buys.co.za/Buys_E-mail_Legal_notice.PDF

My reply:

Hi Reinhardt,

First of all, thanks for not just slamming me with a defamation lawsuit or something.. 😉 Just kidding!

In thinking about it, my opinion of you and your firm has been dictated purely by the media perception created in press releases and comments made on various news articles. This is wrong, and I should have taken more opportunity to engage you directly on issues instead of flaring out with a comment in a publicly accessible space.

Obviously, as you point out, coming from a more technical background, and having an extreme passion for freedoms and liberties, it is easy for me to poke holes in some of those comments. However I am the first to admit that perhaps I do step too far and I should be careful not to make the attacks personal or unreasonable. I will endeavour to uphold that standard in future.

I noticed in re-reading of my comments I called your firm ‘Buys Media Whore Inc’. This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I am just as guilty of ‘parading’ in the media, although I try to ensure that my motives in being outspoken and trying to ‘be the media’ are not for profit, but for freedoms (and probably for my fifteen minutes of fame), which may be where we differ. However, I do believe there is no reason why you should not use your media influence and expertees to promote your company wherever possible.

Untrue, vindictive and unreasonable against yourself and your firm my comments on the Telkom issue probably are. In that respect I am simply a frustrated end-user who cannot believe the arrogance of Telkom in their actions. Of course, the previous law firm they used proved they are not experts at trademark law (neither am I). Perhaps then I should have taken refuge in the hope that your firm was able to provide a more reasonable, more constitutionally correct opinion of the matter to Telkom. I will not remove the offending comments from wherever they are located, unless you specifically request me to do so, but I will be posting this email and other responses to correct my vitriolic outbursts on those forums.

Fear is probably the real force behind my actions and statements. I have a deep-seated fear that our technically illiterate judicial system will destroy Internet and other civil liberties without knowing it. As a law firm publicly involved in IT law, and expresssing your legal opinions quite widely, and having read some of Cyberlaw@SA (first edition) myself and seeing the lack of direction in IT law I got scared that your firm would be the one to help destroy those liberties by setting legal precedents. I realise now that even Adams & Adams can beat you at that, at least on trademark issues! 🙂

I apologise for having prematurely placed you and your firm in the enemy camp with my crosshair looming large. I look forward to engaging you and members of your firm in interesting discussion and debate on legal matters in future. And if I’m in Cape Town (I’m a simple Benoni boy) at any stage in the future, I will be sure to come and sponge some coffee off you fancy lawyers. Alternatively if you are ever at your Jozi office I would be eager to catch up with you there.

Thank you for extending the olive branch – you definitely have at least as much guts as myself, if not a lot more.

Best wishes,

Shaun Dewberry
www.dewberry.co.za

Categories
Computing Freedom

Buys Inc responds to criticism and public comment

Here follows Buys’ response to what was probably a lot of flak from the public (myself included). One of the forums on which a lot of comment was made was http://www.myadsl.co.za.

By Buys Incorporated Attorneys

Members of the public have been contacting our firm after certain media reports claimed that Buys Inc. Attorneys are representing Telkom in their current dispute with hellkom.co.za, telkomsucks.co.za and others. We wish to use this opportunity to clarify some of the confusion.

1. As one of the very few South African law firms that specialise exclusively in Internet and IT law, Buys Inc. provides legal services to a very wide range of local companies. One of these companies is Telkom who we have advised on many IT law issues in the past. Click here to view our full client list.

2. Telkom does not use us exclusively and regularly instruct other law firms to act on their behalf. In the dispute with hellkom.co.za and telkomsucks.co.za, Telkom elected to instruct Adams & Adams Attorneys.

3. Towards the end of last week Telkom requested a legal opinion from Buys Inc. on a very specific legal issue related to the current dispute. Our opinion was delivered to Telkom on Friday night.

4. Like all other law firms we are bound by a duty of confidentiality towards our clients and the advice we give them. When the press requested our opinion on the current matter we declined to comment because i) Telkom is one of our existing clients and ii) requested our views on a very specific legal point.

5. Like all law firms, we provide legal opinions based on the law. As stated in our code of conduct, we cannot allow our personal views to jeopardize our professional integrity and independence. Click here to view our Code of Conduct.

6. When we provide legal opinions to clients, we neither support nor endorse their actions. The fact that the actions of some of our clients are not popular with a certain section of the public is something we cannot control or change… that’s the job of PR agencies, not lawyers!

7. For example, have a look at the ITWeb page that contains the recent article on the Telkom matter (see http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2004/0408161134.asp). There are three Telkom advertisements on the page – one at the top, one next to the article and one at the bottom of the page. Does that imply that ITWeb supports Telkom? No. Does that imply that ITWeb’s reporting is not objective? I doubt it.

8. Another appropriate example is that of a medical doctor caring for a patient. Does the doctor endorse the views of the patient by providing medical advice? No. Does the doctor make a moral judgment before attending to the patient? No.

9. Buys Inc. supports freedom of speech but we also believe that constitutional freedoms should be used within the boundaries of the law. Like most other human rights, freedom of speech is not absolute. Those who host websites where the public may comment on topical issues should be encouraged and supported by all. If these websites operate within the boundaries of the law, they would probably succeed in their attempts to change things for the better. But if they operate in such a manner that they fail to acknowledge the legitimate rights of those they criticise, they cannot claim the moral high ground and is no better than those they attack.

10. In summary: i) Buys Inc. was not asked to take legal action against hellkom.co.za or any other person ii) Buys Inc. provide legal opinions to many companies, including Telkom, and would continue to do so and iii) like all lawyers, we do not endorse a certain course of action by providing a legal opinion to a client.

And the response to the above from users at Myadsl.co.za:

Im pasting a copy of Buys reply from the MyADSL’s News Page. http://www.mybroadband.co.za/news/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=248 which follows on below or click the link above.

First of all,
http://www.hellkom.co.za/ is being represented by http://www.salaw.co.za/ or Michalsons. They have offered their services for free. And perhaps everyone would like to drop these guys a mail to thank them for their support. Their email address is info@michalson.com . I dont know anything about these people yet, but they seem suitably qualified for the job at hand. It is really fantastic to see some real support in South Africa.

Also we need to take time out to thank Gregg Stirton for taking the first step and deciding to stand his ground against Telkom. mad@hellkom.co.za He is the real hero for taking so much of his time in creating the Hellkom Website. One must just view the Vents page and see the unhappy customers. At least they have some place to air their views and let off some steam and read the facts and info page. These are the people Gregg is doing it for. They are the SA Public.

Furthermore, to Buys Inc, I had a chat with RPM rpm@myadsl.co.za creator of the MyADSL website http://www.myadsl.co.za/. He said you guys were very pleasant to him. And you cleared the air on the matter at hand. This is very noble of you and we appreciate the straightforwardness and honesty. Perhaps I was a bit upfront on the matter, but desperate times call for desperate measures. I hope no offence was taken. At least you are up to speed on the current situation. I read your reply and It was very well written and thought out.

However, all been said and done, this does not let Telkom off the hook. They need to make some piecemeal offerings and do so very soon. The time for stalling is over.

Best regards,
Gary Hart