2nd Annual Wireless Security Conference 2007

I haven't been updating the blog over the last 2 weeks. I don't really have much of an excuse other then I've not had much time (and I've been rather ill too). I shall also keep this entry short (as I only had a few hours of sleep last night and am completely knackered!)

Today and tomorrow I will be attending the Annual Wireless Security Conference held at the Orchard Parade Hotel. The day's presentations ranged from a historical overview of wireless connectivity and the security features put in place from then to now, to common hacking activities and available protection procedures that can be implemented. Top Technology lawyer, and my former "boss", Bryan Tan also made a presentation of the current legal issues surrounding this area (and as expected was swamped with endless questions after from various people wanting free legal advice!)

The speakers were clearly of varied experience levels (some were down-right boring - one in particular did not even look at the audience almost the entire time!), but one thing was clear - they all felt that Internet connection today (wired or wireless) was highly vulnerable to a myriad of attacks (it IS so common that most of us don't realise we're attacked all the time!).

All the speakers were unanimous in their assertion that WEP (a basic form of protection which comes with most routers and modems that we pick up from the shops) are very easily broken. In fact, there was even a lively debate between 2 of the speakers on how fast it can be broken (although both seemed to agree that it could be done in under a minute!). They all of course advocated WPA2 (the latest Internet security offering) but suggested that it would be insufficient on its own (Internet security needs to be approached from many different directions. What I thought was troubling is that although WEP is common (and provided with most hardwares) it is seldom switched on by most home users! In other words, most home networks (wired or wireless) have no form of Internet security whatsoever!

What I also found interesting was that there are so many tools available on the Internet (many apparently opensourced ie free) which can perform these attacks automatically. This means that almost anyone (even a non-techie like me) could potentially become a "hacker" (of course I use this term in the more colloquial, non-traditional, way - I hope I don't upset any technology experts who perhaps would prefer I use the term "cracker" or something else).

I also learnt today that there is no full-proof security procedure or strategy and that perhaps we should always be mindful of the security risks that are present on the Internet. This means that keeping sensitive information on laptops and emails should be avoided. Fears concerning online financial transactions like trading online or even Internet Banking may be therefore genuine.

Anyways, I shall leave the subject here for now and ponder over it somemore (as I lay in my thinking zone... "where the magic happens"... aka my bed) and add more comments tomorrow.

ciao..

Internet ‘suicide helper’ found not guilty

Another troubling article in yesterday’s The Times.

It reports of how a computer analyst in London had posted a message on the Internet offering to help suicide attempts was cleared of breaking the law. He suggested that he would be “only too happy to help” and that his methods would involve drugs and asphyxiation.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence (they had to be more than merely preparatory) despite emails to respondents such as:

"Take heart, your troubles will be over very soon. You will never have to worry about letting anyone down again.”

“I can guarantee that it won’t hurt. It will be just like falling asleep and travelling to a far better place.”

“You will soon be free of all your pain ... Just bring your medication. I will do the rest.”

“Things do look bleak for you don’t they? It could soon be over. I have a quick and painless method.”

“My Dear Daniel, there’s no need to be afraid, it will just be like drifting off into a long peaceful sleep.”

This, and a programme I caught last night on Discovery Channel’s Crime Night which featured a sadistic killer who enjoyed S&M porn (in the case reported in the Times article police office seized 2 photographs depicting people with bags over their heads) and took pleasure in watching his victims die (I wonder whether there’s a name for this kind of mental illness), got me thinking – suicidal people could be a perfect target for killers like these. And the Internet the perfect tool for them to get in touch with them (and perhaps escape liability). As far as we know, this particular person did not actually kill anyone (he probably would have been convicted if he did). But what I find most disgusting is that people like these, who may have such sinister motives, could kill while hiding under the banner of compassion!

Man wrongly declared brain-dead for organ transplant
The Straits Times, Apr 13, 2007

I came across this article today about a man who was wrongly declared brain-dead by 2 doctors at a hospital in California, after his family agreed to donate his organs for transplant upon his death. This is apparently the second case of its kind in recent months.

The previous case involved a surgeon allegedly trying to hasten a 26 year-old patient’s death by ordering high volumes of pain medication to be administered to him.

These 2 cases have surfaced amid a national organ shortage.

I find such reports very disturbing. I have been collecting news reports like this one for many years (yes, there have been many such reports) because of my research into assisted suicides and medical law during law school. My interest in these particular areas have led to me writing a paper every year on different aspects of these issues.

These 2 reports highlight some major issues which I find are vital and in need of change. I list some of them here in brief (bear in mind these are from memory, I have not the time to check that they are valid today). First, is the fact that 2 doctors’ opinion is usually sufficient to establish an ‘acceptable medical practice’ and therefore is usually sufficient to cover doctors from liability.

Secondly, I believe that the current measure for whether a person is legally dead should be updated. Currently it refers to the patient’s responsiveness to certain stimuli. But medically speaking, it is what is called ‘brain-step’ death. The problem with this definition is that many people in comas would be considered dead, legally. This, unfortunately, is the standard that many doctors use today. I think it should be the law that follows the medical definition rather than allowing doctors to operate on a lower standard than that of currently established by medical science.

Third, this debate typically raises issues such as ‘quality of life’. This then becomes the benchmark to determine whether or not a person should live. Doctors have taken the responsibility to make such assessments. And so they see a patient in a ‘permanent vegetative state’ (PVS) – which incidentally nobody can ever be sure that any particular case is permanent – the doctor makes the decision that if this person is going to be a vegetable for the rest of his life, he will not be able to enjoy a sufficiently good quality of life, and therefore should die.

My contention is that it is something that doctors are not necessarily the best qualified to make – how can they make an assessment on whether the patient would be able to enjoy a ‘sufficiently’ good quality of life (Can they look into the future?). What does ‘sufficiently’ mean anyway? In addition, why should that factor actually determine whether the patient should be kept alive in the first place?

Finally, is the idea of ‘double-effect’ which refers to whether the doctor orders the administering of large dosages of pain killers such as morphine to hasten the death of the patient. This is another way whereby doctors are able to get away with euthanasia through the back door.

I guess the most troubling reality is the majority of us assume that doctors are here to heal us. That they have taken the Hippocratic Oath (apparently they don’t do this nowadays) – the oath to protect life – or that they are driven by altruistic motives. We like to think that they are all noble, always seeking their patients’ best interests.

It is understandably devastating when we hear of doctors trying to kill their patients or hasten their deaths. Something sounds very wrong here. Yet this presumption continues. Only in the rare circumstances when a family member gets suspicious does such dealings ever see the light. This was what happened in the case of Dr Harrold Shipman who killed his patients after forging their wills, adding himself as a beneficiary. In most cases, however, the doctor is able to get away (especially through hospital cover-ups etc - I'm sure it happens quite often) or other legal technicalities.

The world’s becoming a stressful place... and its only going to get worse!

Much has been said about striking a balance between work and life (balancing working life with relaxation, family and play) and how ‘there are more important things in life than just work’. In fact, the subject came up yesterday when I was talking to my cousin. Coincidentally, I came across some articles this morning concerning the subject (I didn’t specifically looked for them).

The Times ran a story last month about a helpline set up for stressed judges, who are finding themselves increasingly isolated and struggling to cope. Now, it turns the attention over to lawyers.

This new report says that “the industry has become much more competitive, with every partner move and deal scrutinised by a ferocious legal press. There is increasing pressure to achieve prominence in awards and legal directories. Lateral hires among big firms are common and partnership is no longer guaranteed for life, leaving many partners feeling they have to watch their backs… Clients are increasingly global, operating across time zones with little regard for [the] working hours [of the country you are located], weekends or holidays. Eager to drive down costs, they are at the same time less loyal and more demanding. Senior lawyers feel this pressure acutely… Companies are becoming more acquisitive and deals more complex; society is becoming increasingly litigious; and the amount of actual law to keep on top of has piled up.”

I can definitely attest to the truthfulness of this assessment. An observation of the work-ethic of the partners in the firm and the BOSS is a clear example. Not only do they stay at the office up to, at least, 1030pm every night, but I still receive emails from my boss at 3-4am in the morning!

The article also says that there is a sense of despair that emanates particularly from lawyers in publicly funded fields such as crime. Their work carries with it stresses greater than in many jobs – the emotional turmoil of comforting the relatives of a client sent to prison, the trauma of looking over evidential photographs of dead bodies. This is further compounded by the fact that fees necessarily are low (especially when one considers that fact that many of these criminals were driven to commit these acts because of money). Worse still if you are a criminal lawyer with a heart! (its not unknown for clients to haggle with you on price!) All these leaves many practitioners feeling financially squeezed and undervalued.

Of course it will be argued that in our Singapore justice system, the criminal practice should be relatively routine and therefore less stressful. Not so. Even in situations where someone pleads guilty, there is still a lot of work that can be done (or rather needs to be done). The lawyer could try to get the charges dropped or lessened. Now before your alarms bells start ringing uncontrollably, consider the following: professional ethical responsibility, the penalty being proportionate to the offence, etc. (anyways, we digress…)

Perhaps advances in technology is the one single factor that has made the greatest impact – both positive and negative – on the working lives of lawyers. Mobile phones, e-mail and BlackBerrys promises greater flexibility in working hours and location, but the trade-off has been that clients now expect their advisers to be in contact at all times. In fact, the BlackBerry, often regarded as a “perk of the job” by outsiders, are viewed by many lawyers as more of a leash. As reported from another source, a partner at the Boston firm recently e-mailed a stern memo to his department, reminding lawyers that their BlackBerries should be kept on after hours, on weekends, and, in the case of ''essential" attorneys, during vacations.

Edward Cooper, head of employment at Russell Jones & Walker, says, “Better technology has led to increased convenience… but also clients expecting much quicker turnaround. One leads to greater quality of life, the other leads to greater stress as the demands increase – and technology does not shorten reading or thinking time.”

In the days before e-mail and even faxes, lawyers communicated with clients via post or telex, which carried with it a certain time delay, an inbuilt buffer. Now, clients expect a response almost immediately. “There’s an expectation with e-mail that once you’ve pressed send, [the lawyer] is there to receive it,” says Peter Nias, head of tax at McDermott Will & Emery.

These factors and comments have led many to echo the words of Lee Ranson, a real estate partner at Eversheds: “I suspect that talk of a work-life balance is much exaggerated… One only has to look at the expectations on… lawyers in billing, work winning and people management to see that the stresses are very real.”

Now its obvious that such standards and stresses are not exclusive to lawyers and the big law firms. It affects every profession. Globalization affects all industries and companies (most of the companies that graduates apply to anyways). Lower overheads and costs are also on every employers mind constantly. Knowledge and skill sets necessarily has to increase, making it vital that employees know more (keeping themselves current through self-training or through company-sponsored upgrading programmes). Correspondingly employees are expected to become a lot more efficient with their work. Working over-time is also likely to rise.

Bottom line, “Although we are a profession, we are a service industry and clients’ expectations continuously increase… Today’s high performance is tomorrow’s norm.” Everyone has to learn to cope, if not excel, in it. Most people are able to, although there are some who cannot, with disastrous results.

It then falls on the individual employee, worker and lawyer to be ruthless about making time for themselves.

Of course this all assumes that you're actually working hard. There are many people who don't actually do alot of work - they just talk about it or worse still waste the time that they should spend doing work doing other things! I remember someone close to me was like that. She used to complain constantly that she was overworked, underpaid and unappreciated. Then I had the opportunity to get a vacation job at her office. That she when I learnt the truth. She spent the entire office day everyday walking around, chatting and sharing tit-bits with colleagues. That naturally resulted in her having to stay back late everynight to finish her work. But from her perspective, there was too much work being heaped on her, well beyond what is humanly possible to handle! I suspect, however, that if she had set her mind to doing all the tasks that were given to her to do, she wouldn't be staying back each day. She would've been able to finish her work.

These are some things I think, in my humble opinion, might help with a busy, stressful worklife(they will be brief though).

First, I think that the attitude is key. Doing something you love (i.e. your job corresponding with your passion) is a nice idea but not necessary. One can be motivated by thrill and excitement of the challenge (and I’m sure that every job would have its own challenges). Here is where I think that ‘mind over matter’ is key. How we ‘feel’ is necessarily connected by what we ‘think’.

Next, is something a professional sportswoman friend of mine told me. The reason why she said that she could last the entire game of football, seemingly tireless, running all over the place is because she paces herself throughout the game. She knows exactly when to run her legs out (i.e. sprint), and when to run briskly (e.g. a fast jog), and also when to jog slowly. This enables her to keep going as it would not normally possible for someone to be playing at sprinting pace throughout the entire game (apparently, its only necessary very little throughout the game – even for a striker! That’s my excuse anyways. lol).

Thirdly, is getting good and proper rest. I myself spend most of my Saturday in bed! However, I know that for many of my friends, their weekends are busier and more packed then their work week! I suppose that feel the need to get everything done that they could not during the week. Others get too involved in church work (afterall its work for God right? I guess they fail to realise that God did make the weekend for us to REST!) and then they complain about it on Mondays (and blame it on their work the rest of the week).

Is the Yuppie really back?

I came across a few articles (most notably in the British Independent Newspaper and online men’s magazine Details) recently about the resurgence of the Yuppie.

The Yuppie or "Young Urban Professional" was a byword for greed, self-absorption and a lack of a social conscience. Obsession with career was a yuppie hallmark. As The Yuppie Handbook (a social-anthropological work published in 1984) pointed out, work had to be personally meaningful, emotionally satisfying, and a vehicle for self-expression. Yuppie couples worked long hours, put off having children and had lots of disposable income. The official death of the Yuppie was 19 October 1987, the day the stock market crashed.

According to the article in the Independent, yuppies have had a lot of unfair press. The term originally referred to a young city-dweller with a well-paid, professional job and an affluent lifestyle. However, it quickly got confused with the “Loads-a-money caricature".

So did the yuppie really die?

The Independent’s take on this is that they didn’t disappear, they merely adapted. They got bigger and quieter. The labels have changed and they have also gone green (buying organic food, ethical fashion and even animal friendly or eco-friendly toiletries). In addition:

Instead of chucking money at Porsches and Rolexes, new yuppies prefer "experiential" pursuits such as travel, talks and art events. They dress differently. Out goes the sharp suit, which to York's chagrin is thought "flash and anachronistic". "Indie yuppies" resemble students or aspiring artists in vintage T-shirts and recycled Terra Plana trainers.

According to the Yuppie Handbook there are some essentials that every yuppie would not be able to live without: gourmet coffee, a Burberry trench coat, expensive running shoes, a Cuisinart, a renovated kitchen with a double sink, smoked mozzarella from Dean & DeLuca, a housekeeper, a mortgage, a Coach bag, a Gucci briefcase, and a Rolex. One could always add to that list: mobile phones, filofaxes, walkmans, bottled spring water and portable computers (if they had them then)” The Independent’s article goes on to add that the modern yuppie could be found, “working off stress with a shiatsu massage and a facial, learning as much as possible about fine wine, traveling around the world on vacation, exercising at a fancy health club, listening to Bessie Smith and Bob Marley and the Police on a tiny device attached to headphones, drinking bottled spring water, freshening up in a five-star-hotel-quality bathroom, typing away at a computer while sitting in an ergonomic chair, racking up gobs of debt on his credit card”.

They then conclude that this long list of attributes would actually describe almost everyone you and I know! In other words, we’re all yuppies!

While I do agree that yuppies have always continued to be around, I don’t necessarily agree with their assessment that everyone is (or could be) a yuppie. Let me explain.

Going back to the original definition of a yuppie given above, he’s young, well-paid, professional, who enjoys an affluent lifestyle. No doubt that anyone (in fact a majority of people) can and do possess or enjoy all or most of the things listed in Yuppie Handbook and perhaps even more, there is one major difference – the yuppie has loads of disposable income. He is not, as the article describes “racking up gobs of debt on his credit card”. He has an excess of disposable funds to match his insatiable craving for extravagance. One clear example of modern day yuppies are bankers. I’m sure we’ve all heard and read about London bankers splurging tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds on a night’s revelling.

Secondly, there are places to acquire these material goods and there are places. Buying a pair of Levi’s jeans in a Levi’s store is different from purchasing the same pair of jeans at Harrods or Selfridges. In the same vein, going for facials, massages, manicures and pedicures is one thing, having someone famous do it for you (or even come to your house to do it for you) is quite another.

Third, referring to the definitions given at the top, yuppies are meant to display "a lack of a social conscience". Obviously those who are going for the more eco-friendly, animal-friendly, and other green products do not fall within this definition - and therefore not yuppies under those terms.

Finally, also contained in the definitions are the following qualities: "work had to be personally meaningful, emotionally satisfying, and a vehicle for self-expression. Yuppie couples worked long hours, put off having children and had lots of disposable income." We've already looked at the "lots of disposable income" bit. Now I want to concentrate on the rest of the statement. It seems that most workers today do not enjoy their work nor do they work the long hours (at least not without thousands of complaints). On the contrary they seem unfocused (constantly job hopping in search of higher pay cheque at the expense of invaluable experience) and content to wallow in self-pity (and therefore not really getting anywhere). As such, they lack the drive that result in big gains for the real yuppies (past and present).

I guess what I’m really trying to say is that, yes, the yuppie is alive and well. But he’s not just like everyone else. He’s got much more money than most of us. And as these luxuries become more common, all this means for the yuppie is that the bar for extravagance merely gets lifted higher and higher!

Castration for Sex offenders!!

Found some interesting articles on the use of castration as punishments for sex offenders. I never knew that it was common practice and even law in some territories. I’ve listed the links below. I’ll let you decide for yourself whether it’s a good idea or not.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00451.x?cookieSet=1

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web1/kamlin.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400011/posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4170963.stm

http://www.disconnect.net/underground/volume2/castration01.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/29/castration/

http://dmoz.org/Society/Crime/Sex_Offenses/Prevention/Chemical_Castration/

http://www.medicow.com/topics/Castration

Haha! Personally I think it’s a great idea! Perhaps the use of chemical castration would be advisable initially (because we would like them to be rehabilitated right?) but if they are repeat offenders and unlikely to be reformed then perhaps the more permanent form of surgical castrated would be appropriate. If they continue to offend, then lop the rest of it off!

Who says ‘Kiasu’ is a Singaporean thing?

KIASU (kee-ah-soo)Hokkien adjective literally meaning, "afraid of losing". A highly pejorative description beloved of Singaporeans. Possibly our defining national characteristic. The nearest English equivalent is "dog in a manger", though even that is pretty mild in comparison."You went to get a handicapped sticker just to chope a parking space? How kiasu can you get?" (Definition contained in the Coxford Singlish Dictionary)

Kiasu is a Hokkien (a Chinese spoken variant) word for 'extreme fear of losing' (Chinese: 怕输). This word is so widely used by Singaporeans and Malaysians that it is incorporated into their English vocabulary (in the form of Singlish). It is often used in describing the social attitudes of people, especially about South East Asian society and its values. Its widespread use is often due to the fact that these attitudes are common—to not lose out in a highly competitive society (e.g. by accumulating too much food on a plate during buffet in case there will be no more later), or to the extent of parents imposing heavy study labour on their children in their wish to make them at the very top of all other students. Growing up with this attitude, these students often become ambitious businesspeople, with the desire to be on top in wealth and prestige disregard with their true capabilities.
Such an attitude is often highly competitive, and its emphasis is to be above all other people, even if it means putting other people down. But to be kiasu is not only to be competitive. Kiasu people are driven out of fear of losing probably more than the desire to succeed.
It is often perceived as part of Ah Beng culture. (This is its description from wikipedia)

I suspect that many people, including the guys at talkingcock.com, were surprised and thrilled that our famously local concept of kiasu was finally included into the Oxford English Dictionary. However, although the word may have its origins in Singapore, or Malaysia, it is certainly not exclusive to these territories – in fact, kiasu-ism is a universal concept (or perhaps universal guiding principle) in many people’s lives. No surprise then of its inclusion into the said dictionary.

Its funny to me because I just had a word with a good friend of mine (well, I’m the godfather of his children – so I don’t know whether there’s any special term to describe our friendship/relationship) and he told me that his wife was taking the kids (my godchildren) to the EXPO today for the JL sale. My first response was I’m definitely not going to be anywhere near the EXPO (and certainly I was not going to be meeting them today!). I absolutely hate crowds, and if you went today, you’re almost guaranteed to be squeezing your way through the crowds, fighting your way through the merchandise, and “inching” your way through the ridiculously long queues! (worse still if you only had 1 or 2 items to purchase!)

Besides, sales generally aren’t all that good in Singapore anyways. Nothing like those in the States, the UK and even (on new years day) in Japan! So why would anyone bother is beyond me.

This brings me to this online newspaper article that I came across just. It about how a Internet hoax led to chaos outside the doors of a London outlet of the store Primark. Now, for those who do not know what sales are like in UK, here’s a brief explanation.

When we used to live in the UK, the best time to get good bargains are during the sales (most notably during boxing day). Why is this so? Well, take the GAP for example. All their clothes tend to be heavily overpriced. A down jacket would, at regular price, set you back about 80-100GBP. That’s approximately S$240-300! And mind you, during those UK winters, it’s a necessity – not a fashion accessory.

When Christmas is round the corner, there will be sales. This means that that particular down jacket may become 30-50% off. Every week from that time on, they may be additional sales (deductions off the previous sale prices). By the time you get to January/February, you could possibly purchase that same jacket for about 5-10GBP!! (provided you can get the right size – of course there are some tricks to ensure that you do!) The thing that always surprised me is that January/February was the time that you actually needed the down jacket the most! (so it didn’t quite make any business sense to me – but hey.. as a consumer it was great news!)

Compared with Singapore it was amazing!

Anyways, getting back to the article. It claimed that Primark was having a 50% sale. The reason why this is significant is that Primark is like the cheapest (or one of the cheapest) possible stores you could shop in. Imagine buying a set of socks (3 pairs) for 1GBP! (that kind of cheap). What would the price be like if they did in fact have a 50% sale?!

Well funny! Anyways, yes.. all this talk just to illustrate that kiasu-ism is alive and well in London, UK!! (and I’m sure they were Brits and not our Singaporean brethren in London! LOL!)

MPAA admits to unauthorised movie copying

I found this to be a very interesting article. I think that there's always going to be a problem for those who like to see everything in black and white (it always comes back to bite them!).

That's why I choose to see most situations as a grey (because in reality, very few things are black and white).

Anyways, enjoy the article...

No RIAA[1]/RIAS[2]/RIPS[3]-type organization for Comic books!

For those of you who are unaware of what the RIAA, RIAS, and RIPS are here a brief explanation in the endnotes below (I have to keep it brief as I had a really long day today, which included the most exercise I’ve done in months, and therefore I am completely knackered!)

Now, there has been a lot of news reports about these organisations’ activities (especial the RIAA) because of all the high-profile legal suits carried out by them. However, it is also apparent that they haven’t really made a dent in the file-sharing culture that pervades our day. This is largely because file-sharing has become to readily accessible, allowing people to share and receive music and video files from the comfort of their own homes. But another significant factor is that the odds are always still in favour of those who choose to download or share such copyrighted materials.

It used to be said that since copyright infringement was a civil matter, it would be impossible and impractical for copyright owners to catch and sue everyone who downloads illegal copies of copyright material. As such, people were safe. Now, with copyright infringement attracting criminal liability in may countries (including Singapore), the situation has not really changed too much. The fact is still that, with millions of people the world around using the Internet, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to catch everyone who engages in such activities (although I’m sure that we’ll see the number of prosecutions rising).

What really concerns me however, being closely associated with Christian Comic Book publisher Wen’s World, is that I have recently discovered that bit-torrenting (or file-sharing) does not only target the music and video industries – it has even hit the comic book industry! Of course no figures are available and so we are, at present, unable to determine how deep the practise is.

The most troubling issue is that, unlike the music and film industries, the comic book industry certainly does not have anywhere close to the same financial clout as them. This translates to: no TV or print advertisements and less alternative sources to regain lost revenue. There isn’t even an equivalent organization to the RIAA to champion their cause or a RIPS-like royalty collection or licencing body.

In additional disadvantage is that, unlike music CDs and movie DVDs, there are no technological measures available to prevent the making of illegal copies of comic books. No DRM-equivalent features are possible (unless there could be a feature in the paper that prevents scanning or copying of any sort, but this would inevitably mean higher production costs and therefore higher retail prices, which will pose yet another problem for the industry). As such, all the equipment that is required to be a comic book pirate is a scanner and an Internet connection!

All these mean that: if the comic book isn’t making sufficient money, then titles will be cancelled (and of course people lose their jobs).

This, I believe, actually puts the comic book industry in a catch22 situation. I believe, although I have not actually done the research to verify this belief, that the comic book industry has been experiencing a dip in its popularity for many years. This may be the result of a variety of factors. This could include the lower attention span of children today and the wider availability of more entertaining options such as animated movies and cartoons.

These animated movies and cartoons have also evolved since I was a kid. They have embraced new technologies and different artistic styles – all presumably in a bid to attract the young of today. Perhaps, this is something that the comic book industry needs to take notes and follow suit. As production costs continue to rise, one method of lower the cost of the comics would be to do eComics. I’ve read somewhere that Marvel Comics have been offering downloadable eComics on their website for many years and now sell their eComics through a 3rd party. But I think the technology has to be developed further as these eComics are merely in pdf format and have no security features whatsoever (nothing to prevent me from sharing it around).

Endnotes:
[1] RIAA stands for the Recording Industry Association of America. It is a trade group comprising a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and music distributors. Basically, its role is to monitor and enforce their member’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). They are of course most notable for commencing legal suits against companies such as Napster and other P2P sites, and even against individuals. It is also responsible for all the advertisements we see on television as well as during the trailers before movies – about how piracy is stealing (we’ve all seen them right?). [The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is the equivalent of the RIAA, but for motion picture films. Its role is also the equivalent of the RIAA for films. ]

[2] The RIAS is simply the Singapore equivalent. It stands for the Recording Industry Association of Singapore.

[3] The RIPS on the other hand is a royalty collection or collective licensing body. Such bodies are empowered to exercise the rights of the record companies with respect to a few matters, namely: (1) Public performances of karaoke and/or music videos; (2) Reproduction of karaoke and/or music videos on karaoke-on-demand (KOD) computerised systems; (3) Reproduction of sound recordings into a computerised or other storage system; (4) MP3/MP4 Licence. If a person (private individual or corporate) wants to do any of the acts listed above, he would have to obtain a licence from the IPR owner and pay the appropriate royalties. Essentially, the RIPS quotes, collects the royalties, and distributes them to the IPR owners (minus an administrative fee).

It was my Evil Cyber Twin… Honest!!

I just came across an article about a new product release – its called MyCyberTwin. Basically it allows account holders to carry out conversations on Instant Messenger (e.g. MSN and Yahoo! Chat) 24 hours a day. How?

By creating a clone of yourself, of course! (Now wasn’t that completely obvious?!)

It works by creating an online “clone” of users based on a 79 question personality quiz and hundreds of additional training questions. Once it’s complete, a chat bot is created for that user, which can be embedded into MySpace or another website, or can log into Microsoft Messenger on your behalf and pretend to be you.

Founders Liesl Capper and John Zakos think the service will appeal to social networks and dating sites that are looking for user features that create more content and a stickier site.

Although, I do believe that IT companies should get into the ‘connectivity’ culture and that the way to do this is through social networks, I’m not sure if this particular project is a good one. It doesn’t take a genius to realise the implications of having a chat bot pretending to be you. At the very least you may piss off your friend or perhaps rifts in relationships. But I think, depending on how the system actually works and how smart or stupid the chat bot is, it may actually open users up to the possibility of being sued for defamation!

The Paradox of our Time
(origins uncertain)

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more but enjoy less We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life, we've added years to life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor.

We conquered outer space but not inner space.

We've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.

We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice.

We write more, but learn less.

We plan more, but accomplish less.

We've learned to rush, but not to wait.

We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; big men and small character; steep profits and shallow relationships.

These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses but broken homes.

These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw-away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet, to kill. It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stock room.

A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.

Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.

Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.

Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.

Remember, to say "I Love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.

Remember to hold hands and cherish the moment, for some day, that person will not be there again.

Give time to Love, give time to speak, give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

GPS sneakers soon to hit retail stores

By now, this is an old report.

I have to say that when I first saw it, I thought that this shoe must only come in women’s sizes… haha.. I’m kidding! (or am I? *mischievous look*)

Its actually a GSP chip in the shoe, which when activated at the push of a button, would communicate with 4 international satellites. Unlike what I initially thought, it does not help you get from one place to another. On the contrary, it is meant to help authorities locate you. The inventor, an engineer and one-time UN scientific analyst, got the idea to develop the shoe after his son was mistakenly reported missing in school.

It could also be used to help locate patients suffering with Alzheimer’s disease.

The shoes are set to retail US$350 a pair with 30,000 orders already placed by retailers world-wide. About 2,000 people have placed orders online for the shoes. But this is not the only charges, the GSP service (a 24hr monitoring service) would cost the wearer US$25 a monthly.

It is certainly a good idea. However, I do have a number of questions. How many people would actually be able to afford a pair of shoes like these? Would someone suffering from Alzheimer’s actually remember to press and hold the button for 6 seconds? Would he even remember he was wearing the shoes, where the button is located or that there is even a button in the first place?!

EMI-Apple pen deal to sell songs

EMI Group announced yesterday at a Press Conference in London that it will begin selling songs online that are free of copy-protection technology through Apple Inc.'s iTunes Store.

This is a departure from the practices of the rest of the recording industry, and has many music downloaders world-wide excited.

The songs, which will soon be available on Apple’s iTunes, will costs music lovers US$1.29 (30 cents more than the copy-protected version). The premium tunes also will be offered in a higher quality than the 99-cent tracks.

Some analysts suggest that lifting the software restrictions may boost sales of online music, which currently account for around 10 percent of global music sales. I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether this proves to be true.

It has been quite a widely discussed issue that CDs and Music Album sales have been dipping. With the rapid advances in technology, along with the ease and availability of downloading, it was only a matter of time before the recording industries sat up and took notice of the potential of selling their music online.

However, they still had concerns – how were they going to protect their works from copyright infringement through indiscriminate downloading and copying? Along came the development of Digital Rights Management (DRM), a software which can be coded into the music files to prevent copying. Problem solved? Not a chance!

DRMs not only made it difficult to make multiple copies, but also prevented genuine copies and interoperability of players (e.g. a song bought at iTunes can only be played on Apple media). This inevitably led to consumers dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

But of course Apple was constrained. It was something completely out of their control. But not to worry, they’re working on it!

Now with this new move, Apple and EMI have not only succeeded in looking like champions of consumer choice/rights, they can now charge more for it! I think that Apple has done it once again! Pure genius! Time will see them laughing all the way to the bank!

Singapore Considers Permanent Race Track in Changi

The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is considering building the permanent track facility off the East Coast Parkway, near the Changi Naval Base, which could cost between US$150 million and US$200 million ($228 million and $304 million).

AMEN!!!

When that happens, you know where to find me during weekends!! =P

The Death of DRM: Great news or April fool’s joke?

The Wall Street Journal and BBC Online just reported today that EMI plans to sell “significant amounts” of music without DRM. EMI is one of the ‘Big4’ record companies and would be the first to make such a move.

Mere hours after April 1, EMI invited members of the media to a press conference, due later today, to announce an “exciting new digital offering.” Although no further details were given, many suspect that it concerns the calls for the end of Digital Rights Management (DRM). EMI had previously tested waters earlier this year by offering a single by Norah Jones for sale without DRM.

One of DRM abolishment’s most notable advocates is Apple CEO Steve Jobs. In his Open Letter posted on Apple’s website, he claimed that DRM have proven unsuccessful in dealing with copyright infringement.

Right now everyone’s playing the waiting game.

Personally, I think its merely a marketing ploy. As mentioned in my previous entries, it is in Apple’s interests for DRMs to be abolished. Now that EMI is seen to be the only one among the Big 4 to remove DRMs, I wonder what that will do for sales of EMI produced music?

Hmmm…

I’m sure that they will come up with some alternative soon. Maybe I’m just too cynical.

Trademarked keywords do not lead to confused customers

A court in America has ruled in favor of the advertiser in a keyword/trademark violation lawsuit.

In the case, J.G. Wentworth SSC Ltd v. Settlement Funding LLC, it was held that the defendant's use of the plaintiff's trademarks as keywords for Google AdWords advertisements and in the keywords meta tags of their web sites did not violate the plaintiff's trademark rights. In the court’s opinion the activity "create[d] no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law."

Despite dismissing the case, the court was of the opinion that the "defendant’s participation in Google’s AdWords program and defendant’s incorporation of plaintiff’s marks in its keyword meta tags constitute trademark use under the Lanham Act."

In other words, in contrast to some court rulings, this court ruled that using trademarked terms as AdWords and meta-tag keywords meets the "use in commerce" requirement of a trademark violation despite the fact that the defendant's use of the marks was "invisible to potential consumers" and therefore did not actually directly identify any goods or services.Interestingly, their very invisibility really underpinned the court's rationale for its finding that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion because the trademarks themselves appeared nowhere in the defendant's advertisements and also did not appear on the defendant's web sites.

In addition, the court stated that the very nature of search engine results precluded such a finding:

Due to the separate and distinct nature of the links created on any of the search results pages in question, potential consumers have no opportunity to confuse defendant’s services, goods, advertisements, links or websites for those of plaintiff.

It may be useful to note that in Singapore, using a third party’s trademark as a search term in a generic or descriptive manner is allowed. It is also allowed even if it is without the owner’s permission, if the sign is used to indicate (among other things) kind, quality and value (provided that the goods are not counterfeit goods). (see the Singapore Trademarks Act and the Singapore Electronic Transactions Act).

There were some interesting news reports I came across this week in the CNN Law section. Here's a summary of them:

Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged

Basically in this one, the husband catches the wife in the arms of another man (in his truck no less). Thinking quickly she cries rape. It just so happens that the husband is carrying a gun (Afterall, its Texas… Isn’t everyone packing a piece?!). He shoots at the truck, killing the guy with a shot to the head. The jury acquits him and then proceeds to charge the wife with making a false report (about the rape of course) and manslaughter.

Only in America! LOL!

Ex still due alimony when she becomes he

A judge in Florida, USA, ruled against a man who was trying to void his divorce settlement because his ex-wife had a sex-change operation. His lawyers argued that since it was against the law for a man to marry a man, it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man!

In response, the judge ruled that in the eyes of the law, nothing changed significantly enough to free the man from his US$1,250 per month obligations.

Now, before you break out the Champaign and start celebrating, the judge went on to say that: Since the Florida courts have ruled that a sex-change surgery cannot legally change a person’s birth gender, the man was not technically paying alimony to a man.

I guess the judgement must have been bitter-sweet for her.. I mean, him.. I mean... erm… I'm confused! (Afterall, she/he gets to continue to receive money monthly, but it certainly isn’t anywhere close to being the kind of milestone that transsexuals the world over would’ve hope for!)