- Reading your newsgroup postings.
- Finding you in the Internet directory.
- Making your browser record information about you.
- Recording what your browsers say about you.
- Reading your e-mail.
However, the two major sources of information gathering is by web site self-registration and the use of cookies.
Web Site Self-Registration
This occurs in a registration process, when customers type in their private information, such as name, address, phone, e-mail address, or even interests and hobbies, in order to receive a password to participate in a lottery, to receive information, or to play a game. This information may then be collected for planning the business, sold to a third party, and used in an appropriate manner therefore it is no surprise that users have concern over privacy information.
Cookies
A cookie is a piece of information that allows a Web site to record one’s comings and goings. Cookies help Web sites maintain user status. This means that Web sites can “remember information about users and respond to their preferences on a particular site, process transparent user passwords and so on. Cookies have brought about more concerns than self-registration because cookies allow Web sites to collect private information such as users’ preferences, interests, and surfing patterns on the Web sites users visit. Furthermore, personal profiles created by cookies are more accurate than self-registration; (people tend to falsify information on online forms if they feel it is getting too personal).
Protection
How then can one be protected against cookies? Firstly, users can delete cookie files stored in their computers, however, deleting cookie files means users have to start from scratch with every Web site they visit. The second solution is the use of anticookie software. These operate by using filters to either block or allow cookies at a user’s command.
This only addresses part of the problem, however, the bigger picture must involve dealing with how organisations collect and use personal information. Much has already been done in the non “E” environment to protect individuals against organisations holding information on them the most notable of these being the ‘Data Protection Act 1998’ which deals with what information can be held by an organisation on an individual’. (Turban, 2002, pp732-766)
Regarding Internet privacy there are two approaches:
Self-regulation
This approach as favoured by the United States involves organisations either individually or collectively working together to verify the trustworthiness of various e-tailers. Currently many organisations such as AltaVista, America Online, Brightstreet, Excite@Home, IBM, Intel, Lycos, Microsoft, Persona, RealNetworks, Verizon Communications, Yahoo! are operating under the TRUSTe seal (they call it a “trustmark”) this appears at the bottom of an e-tailers website and E-tailers pay TRUSTe for use of the seal. Its members hope that customers will use the TRUSTe seal as an assurance into their privacy policy , credit card security, fulfilment process integrity etc. (A copy of TRUSTe’s Consumer Privacy Protection Guidelines can be seen in Appendix A).
(Http://www.truste.org/partnersPrivacyPartnership)
The downside, however, is that many consumers are still not reassured. “In fact in August 2002 Microsoft agreed that the Federal Trade Commission, which had accused the company of breaching its privacy promises to consumers, should monitor Microsoft’s Passport identification system for the next twenty years. As already stated Microsoft is a key member of “TRUSTe” but TRUSTe clearly failed to notice the breach”. (No Hiding Place, The Economist, January 25th 2003).
Legislation
“If Self-regulation is insufficient on its own what then is the alternative? In 1998 the EU (European Union) passed a directive reaffirming the principles of personal data protection in the Internet age. Member countries are required to put this directive into effect through introducing new laws or modifying existing laws in their respective countries. the directive aims to regulate the activities of any person (including a legal person: a company) that controls the collecting, holding, processing, or use of personal data on the Internet. Such a person is called a data user. The scope of the directive covers any data relating directly or indirectly to a living individual, who is called a data subject. The rights of data subjects and data users are outlined in Appendix B”. (Turban 2002, pp732-766)
Intellectual Property
The Internet is one gigantic copying machine. All copyrighted works can now be digitised and, once put on the Net or on any particular off-line medium, copying tends to be effortless, costless, widespread and immediate. While right holders want to fight against piracy and optimise their revenues with usage control, the consumer expects that digital technology will bring an added value in terms of usage and quality of information. A balance between owners' concerns and consumers' expectations must be found to ensure mutual trust. At the same time, co-existence between commercial and non-commercial communication must be ensured.
Intellectual property covers three main areas which are outlined below.
Copyright
Copyright is that which protects someone’s creative ability particularly relating to literary works such as books and magazines, it also refers to musical works, drama, paintings and sound recordings. Copyright gives the right to copy the work and distribute it to the public. The owner of the copyright has the right to seek legal action through the court for any infringement of the copyright and to claim damages for any loss incurred. It is only valid for a number of years currently 50 in the United Kingdom.
Patents
Patents this is a document which allows the holder of the patent exclusive rights on anything they have invented for a number of years (20 in the United Kingdom). Their purpose is to protect technological inventions from being hijacked by others in order to gain market advantage.
Registered Trademarks
Registered Trademarks are usually symbols or combinations of letters or both which symbolise the ethos of a company one example of this would be the Bibendum character which represents the tyre giant Michelin. The owner of a registered trademark has exclusive rights to: use the trademark on their goods and services for which the trademark is registered and take legal action to prevent anyone else from using it without the owner’s consent on identical or similar goods.
There are no straightforward solutions to this problem. Technological mechanisms are being developed and implemented to prevent unauthorised use of digital copyrighted information, but such mechanisms must comply with the legal environment in which they will operate, often not adapted to what the technology can do. Furthermore, the diversity of the legal environments makes it difficult, if not impossible, to implement such applications at a global level and even within the Member States of the European Union. This adds to the existing difficulty of defining "interoperable" and "compatible" technical systems enabling global services in the Global Information Society.
Domain Names
Another issue which arises here is that of Domain names. With the proliferation of web and E-mail addresses the question arises as to what rights an individual or organisation have to a particular address. There have already been some particularly high profile cases regarding this. One in particular stands out. A New Jersey dealer Russell Boyd applied for and was granted rights for 50 domain names. He then proceeded to auction them on eBay. One of the addresses included the name of Julia Roberts. She took it to the World Intellectual Property Organisation who upheld her claim to ownership even though she was not currently using it. (Turban 2002, pp732-766)
Free Speech
“The emergence of the Internet and EC has generated one of the most heated debates of our times: free speech versus government censorship. One only has to read articles like that from Internet freedom to see how strong some of the feelings are. (See Appendix C).
“Free Speech” has often been dictated by the voices of the few, the rich, and the powerful. The voices of the many, the not-quite so-rich, and the not-nearly as powerful have heretofore not been given equal due. The Internet changes this tradition by allowing many voices, many cultures, and many opinions equal exposure. The Internet has opened doors to freedom of speech that have never been accessible before. The goal of free speech for all has only tacitly been achieved in the past.
The ultimate freedom of the Internet has been challenged by many parents and government officials. It resulted in the passage of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) a bill that proposes restrictions on telecommunications in the United States including the Internet. However, this bill was found unconstitutional since it contradicted the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.
Protecting Children
One of the major points in the free speech versus censorship debate is the potential damage to children. Citizens are very concerned about children viewing inappropriate material, such as pornographic, offensive, hate, and other potentially dangerous material. Also, merchants solicit information from children about their parents and family. There are three approaches regarding the protection of children from inappropriate material on the Internet. The first view is that no information should be held back and parents should be responsible for monitoring their own children. The second is that only the government can truly protect children from this material, and the last approach is to hold the Internet providers responsible for all the material and information they provide. These approaches can be implemented for any surfer, not just children”. (Turban 2002, pp732-766)
Measures being taken in the UK
A the end of last year the Home Secretary announced the most radical overhaul of sexual offences laws for more than 100 years, with specific measures to target paedophiles who contact children on the internet. The new offence of sexual grooming will enable police officers to intervene and arrest a suspect before any sexual activity has taken place.
As David Blunkett promises to clamp down on the evil around us, the new measures are being trailed as helping to give the UK the toughest child protection laws anywhere in the world. But is this enough? Over the past two years at least 15 children have been sexually assaulted after initial contact made in internet chatrooms.
An estimated five million youngsters under 16 have private access to the internet, and nearly half of 16-year-olds use chatrooms, according to research published last year. Reports such as these and the recent US investigation Operation Ore, which identified 250,000 suspects in 60 countries, are increasing concerns over paedophile activity through the internet as those involved in child abuse take advantage of the anonymity that is provided by chat rooms to groom children and set up meetings.
The Government has recently launched a £1m advertising campaign warning of the dangers of internet paedophiles. The television, radio and website messages currently being broadcast aim to make parents and youngsters aware of how to surf the web safely. There is also a new set of guidelines for Internet service providers who offer chat and instant messaging services. These include measures such as the provision of clear warning information and ways for children to report problems online. The aim of the campaign is to give parents and children basic safety messages without demonising the internet.
While these guidelines can go some way in helping protect children online, there is still a need to tackle the issue head on through better control and management of internet access for children. Policing the internet is accepted as difficult because it is global by nature and because of the sheer volume of information and current lack of police power in this area.
However, by tackling the issue through front-end filtering, many of the dangers to children can be minimised. Software that helps protect children online is now widely available. It enables parents to regulate what sites are suitable for their children, and the time they spend online, offering customised settings for each member of the household.
Internet chat rooms and other sites deemed inappropriate can be blocked, and chat can be filtered to protect personal information, creating a safer online environment.
Software of this type - developed by parental control filtering specialist CyberPatrol () - has already been used by police forces in Manchester and Hertfordshire to aid two major internet paedophile investigations. Operation Appal in 2001 resulted in the execution of more than 40 arrests, while Operation Magenta early last year, which involved 35 forces throughout the United Kingdom, resulted in the execution of some 75 warrants. Through this success, Britain's National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) is now providing filtering technology to police forces across Eastern Europe and South East Asia in a move to co-ordinate the fight against Internet child abuse online activity. By blocking unsuitable sites, in addition to strengthening police power at the back-end, we can provide a double-pronged attack on child internet abuse. (Reported by Belfast Telegraph via NewsEdge Ireland cracks down on porn surfing March 08, 2003).
(http://www.computeruser.com/news/03/03/08/news1.html)
Controlling Spamming
Another issue in the debate relates to spamming. Spamming refers to the practice of indiscriminate distribution of messages (for example, junk mail) without permission of the receiver and without consideration for the messages’ appropriateness. Spam comprised percent of all mail sent on America Online in 1998. This volume significantly impairs an already limited bandwidth, slowing down the Internet in general and, in some cases, shutting ISP’s down completely.
Methods of Control
One major piece of legislation addressing marketing practices in EC is the Electronic Mailbox Protection Act. The primary thrust of this law is that commercial speech is subject to government regulation, and secondly, that spamming, which causes significant harm, expense, and annoyance, should be controlled.
Taxation
At the end of 19th century, the question was how to tax commerce via the telegraph; at the end of the 20th century, the question is how to tax commerce via the internet. It's not an idle question; recent estimates suggest that business-to-business e-commerce will reach $1.3 trillion by the year 2003. Needless to say, governments are concerned to make sure that the anonymity and boundary-less nature of the Internet doesn't lead to a reduction in their tax income. The extract from the CNN website below highlights some of the thinking regarding Internet taxation in the United States.
(Http://www.e-tax.org.uk)
California considers online sales tax
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- With his state staring at a budget deficit that could hit $35 billion, California Gov. Gray Davis is rethinking his longstanding objection to imposing sales taxes on Internet commerce -- a move that could ignite similar steps around the nation.
With states around the country facing a collective $50 billion budget gap this year and $70 billion next year, lawmakers are increasingly eyeing online revenues to plug their shortfalls. Last year, Internet sales ballooned to $79 billion, or about 3 percent of all retail sales, according to Forrester Research. California alone may be losing $1.7 billion this year by not taking a deeper cut of Internet sales, which is why two bills to tax Internet sales have been filed in the Legislature.
What sellers have to say
If either were to pass, the movement to tax Internet sales would gain serious clout, said Utah Tax Commissioner R. Bruce Johnson, a leader of the push. "It's difficult to overstate the importance of California's participation in this project," he said. A U.S. Supreme Court decision says states cannot force businesses to collect their sales taxes unless the company has a physical presence in that state. While California stores with online sites faithfully collect sales taxes for the state, most online sellers such as Seattle-based Amazon.com say it's impossible to collect sales taxes for an estimated 7,500 taxing districts nationally. But 34 states and the District of Columbia are trying to come up with a simple standard from a hodgepodge of sales tax definitions to persuade Congress to lift a national moratorium against Internet sales taxes. Also, major retailers have agreed on a way to collect Internet sales taxes in 37 states.
Watching from the sidelines
So far, California and other states with high-tech and investment sectors -- including New York, Colorado, Massachusetts and Georgia -- have largely watched from the sidelines. New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, remains opposed to taxing Internet shopping. But Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, also a Republican, has expressed a willingness to examine the issue. The Legislature sent Romney a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts join the states working on the issue nationally. It's unclear whether other online commerce sites, like auction house eBay, could be included in sales taxes. EBay spokesman Kevin Pursglove notes that some sellers on the site already collect sales tax and says the company is closely monitoring the developments.
Keeping tech businesses going
In 2000, just months after the Internet bubble burst and tech stocks tumbled, Davis vetoed a bill passed by the California Legislature to require online merchants to collect sales taxes. Davis said it would send the "wrong signal" to a California-based industry transforming the world. But now, officials like California Controller Steve Westly, a former eBay executive, says it's time the state reaps sales taxes from the Internet. Westly says Davis is rethinking the issue and asked him for suggestions that could lead to bills Westly hopes will pass this year. For weeks, Davis spokeswoman Hilary McLean has been saying Davis is open to Internet sales taxes, considering how California's economy and budget have turned for the worse. She also notes Davis' 2000 veto message said the state should revisit the issue in three to five years.
Some frequent online shoppers say they wouldn't be happy about giving up the sales tax benefit. "I buy everything online," said Noah Eckhouse of suburban Boston. "My attitude is, I'm a Yankee. A penny saved is a penny earned."
(CNN.com/TecnologyThursday, February 27, 2003)
(http//www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/02/07/net.tax.ap/index)
According to the Inland Revenue in the UK the vast majority of taxpayers comply with their tax obligations. But there will inevitably be those who will see e-commerce as an opportunity to evade taxes. Electronic trading provides opportunities for fraud similar to those that exist with, for instance, cash. But it also has the potential to amplify significantly some existing areas of risk. Techniques for detecting and deterring those attempting to evade taxes must keep pace with the development of technology. And emphasis needs to be firmly placed on ensuring that compliance regimes are simple and certain, thus encouraging compliance in the first place. However, the transient nature of the Internet together with the low start-up costs which may encourage businesses to trade for a short period without notifying tax authorities and also the ease with which taxpayers can move assets offshore and so avoid paying taxes that are due.
(Http://www.inlandrevenue.goc.uk/taxagenda/ecom5.htm)
Computer Crimes
According to (Turban, 2002, pp732-766) “computer frauds involve intentional dishonesty and personal gain and are simply frauds committed through the use of computers and may be committed by the following means:
- Alteration of input
- Alteration of computer data
- Alteration/misuse of programmes
- Destruction/suppression/misappropriation of output”
The following are extracts from the Computer Security Institute “2002 Computer and Crime Survey”. CSI, established in 1974, is a San Francisco-based association of information security professionals. It has thousands of members worldwide and provides a wide variety of information and education programs to assist practitioners in protecting the information assets of corporations and governmental organizations.
The "Computer Crime and Security Survey" is conducted by CSI with the participation of the San Francisco Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Computer Intrusion Squad. The aim of this effort is to raise the level of security awareness, as well as help determine the scope of computer crime in the United States.
Based on responses from 503 computer security practitioners in U.S. corporations, government agencies, financial institutions, medical institutions and universities, the findings of the "2002 Computer Crime and Security Survey" confirm that the threat from computer crime and other information security breaches continues unabated and that the financial toll is mounting. Highlights of the "2002 Computer Crime and Security Survey" can be seen in Appendix D.
Patrice Rapalus, CSI Director, remarks that the "Computer Crime and Security Survey," has served as a reality check for industry and government:
"Over its seven-year life span, the survey has told a compelling story. It has underscored some of the verities of the information security profession, for example that technology alone cannot thwart cyber attacks and that there is a need for greater cooperation between the private sector and the government. It has also challenged some of the profession's 'conventional wisdom,' for example that the 'threat from inside the organization is far greater than the threat from outside the organization' and that 'most hack attacks are perpetrated by juveniles on joy-rides in cyberspace.' Over the seven-year life span of the survey, a sense of the 'facts on the ground' has emerged. There is much more illegal and unauthorized activity going on in cyberspace than corporations admit to their clients, stockholders and business partners or report to law enforcement. Incidents are widespread, costly and commonplace. Post-9/11, there seems to be a greater appreciation for how much information security means not only to each individual enterprise but also to the economy itself and to society as a whole. Hopefully, this greater appreciation will translate into increased staffing levels, more investment in training and enhanced organizational clout for those responsible for information security."
Executive Assistant Director (EAD) Bruce J. Gebhardt, former Special Agent in-Charge FBI San Francisco, stresses the need for the cooperation between the government and the private sector that the annual survey reflects.
"The United States' increasing dependency on information technology to manage and operate our nation's critical infrastructures provides a prime target to would be cyber-terrorists. Now, more than ever, the government and private sector need to work together to share information and be more cognitive of information security so that our nation's critical infrastructures are protected from cyber-terrorists."
The FBI, in response to an expanding number of instances in which criminals have targeted major components of information and economic infrastructure systems, has established the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) located at FBI headquarters and the Regional Computer Intrusion Squads located in selected offices throughout the United States. The NIPC, a joint partnership among federal agencies and private industry, is designed to serve as the government's lead mechanism for preventing and responding to cyber attacks on the nation's infrastructures. (These infrastructures include telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, emergency services and government operations). The mission of Regional Computer Intrusion Squads is to investigate violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Title 8, Section 1030), including intrusions to public switched networks, major computer network intrusions, privacy violations, industrial espionage, pirated computer software and other crimes.
(Http://www.gocsi.com/press/20020407.html)
Consumer and Seller Protection
In Internet trading there is no eye to eye contact between the buyer and the seller. It is therefore possible that those with dishonest intent may commit all types of types of fraud and other crimes over the Internet.
The following are some of the types of fraud that occur on the Internet:
Online Auction fraud; where money is collected for goods but the goods issued are not satisfactory or in some cases not even delivered.
Internet stocks fraud; In most cases this involves stock promoters falsely spreading positive rumours about the prospects of the companies they touted. When unwary buyers have bought in the shares are then dumped on the market totally worthless.
Other financial fraud; Other areas include selling bogus investments, phantom business opportunities, and other schemes.
Other fraud; Many non financial types of fraud exist on the Internet. For example, customers may receive poor-quality products and services, may not get products in time and may be asked to pay for things they assume will be paid for by sellers, and much more.
As buyer protection is essential to any commercial success, especially electronic, then it is necessary that measures are in place in order to give the confidence to trade. One such piece of legislation which seeks to do this is the Stop Now Regulations. These were introduced in 2001 to give consumer protection bodies additional rights to ensure that consumers are protected. The Regulations enable local authorities (including Trading Standards) and industry regulators such as OFTEL to apply for orders, known as Stop Now Orders, to make traders in breach of consumer protection measures cease their infringing activity. Before these regulations came into force a fine was the only remedy effectively available against rogue traders.
Many traders looked on these fines as a necessary business cost and happily continued to ignore consumer protection legislation. Now, a trader failing to comply with a Stop Now Order will face prosecution for contempt of court and possibly a spell in jail. In addition to local authorities and industry regulators the regulations open the way for consumer bodies such as the Consumer Association to apply to the Department of Trade and Industry for the power to apply for Stop Now Orders.
One of the consumer protection measures to which the Stop Now Regulations apply is the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000. The Distance Selling Regulations introduced protection for consumers dealing with businesses by means of long-distance communication. They apply to telephone orders and mail order as well as to e-commerce. A more comprehensive outline of the Distance Selling Regulations can be viewed in Appendix E.
Both the Stop Now Regulations and the Distance Selling Regulations implement European Directives. That means that they (or equivalent legislation) apply throughout Europe and apply to e-commerce transactions between a consumer in the UK and a business in Europe (or vice versa).
This gives UK consumers added protection when buying goods or services by e-commerce from Europe. It also means that UK businesses selling to European consumers must be aware of the need to comply with all appropriate consumer protection measures.
(Http://www.dickinson-dees.co.uk/publications)
Summary
This report has tried to deal with some of the issues concerning the legal/ethical issues relating to electronic commerce, however, it is by no means exhaustive. Although electronic commerce is relatively new in comparison to the centuries of non-electronic trading it is moving at breakneck speed. Already it would be fair to say that all large private and public corporations are e-enabled being able to trade and advertise on the Internet.
As more and more companies and even charity organisations develop their e-ability there is bound to be an increase in matters relating to legal/ethical issues. In order to prevent the Internet from getting “bogged down” in a legal minefield it is imperative that strict codes are established and adhered to.
Much has already been done in this matter but much remains to be done. While issues like privacy and free speech mainly affect the individual, other issues such as computer crime and copyright issues will have a large impact on business’s of the future. As discussed in the report one of the major issues in the future will be taxation. As more and more business transactions are done over the Internet it is very likely that governments will be looking for more control in order to capitalise on any perceived tax loss.
What then can one say in conclusion. ‘The truth is that we all live in the Internet society now, whether or not we spend any time online. The future will bring exciting, disorienting change as electronic communication reaches ever deeper into everyone’s life. The prizes will be great. A more productive and safer society is possible. But things could also go nastily wrong.’ (Through a Glass Darkly, The Economist, January 25th 2003).
Appendix A
TRUSTe’s Consumer Privacy Protection Guidelines
1. Read Privacy Statements.
Look for the Web site’s privacy statement and read it thoroughly. Steer clear of Web sites that don’t have a privacy statement. A privacy statement is a legally binding document that describes the personal information gathering and dissemination practices of a Web site. Make sure you understand how your information will be used before you do business with a Web site.
2. Seal Programs.
Look for approval seals indicating that the privacy policies of the site are being monitored by an outside agency, such as TRUSTe. These programs allow you to turn to a third party if you feel that your privacy has been violated. Click on the TRUSTe Privacy Seal to see what information about you is gathered and with whom it is shared, as well as how to prevent the sharing of your personal information and how to correct inaccuracies.
3. Credit cards.
The same consumer protection laws that apply in the mall apply on the Internet. Using credit cards allows you to contest any charges if the merchandise does not live up to the promotion. In addition, federal law limits your liability to $50 for purchases made with stolen credit card information.
4. Security.
While no Web site is hack proof, you should only place credit card orders through secure servers. Most Web merchants alert you when you are entering their secure servers. Also check that the URL (Web address) begins with “https” rather than “http”; this indicates that you have entered the secure area. When using newer browsers you will also see either a closed lock or a solid key symbol in the status bar at the bottom of your screen.
5. Common sense.
Don’t disclose information you wouldn’t want to disclose over the phone or in person. Remember: you can always contact the Web site to find out more about its privacy and security practices before you make a purchase.
6. Protect children.
Just as you would teach your kids street smarts, help your children be “cybersmart” by giving them guidance on what to look out for when surfing the Net. Keep in mind that Web sites directed at children under 13 are required by law to adhere to certain privacy practices. These practices include obtaining verifiable parental consent before children participate in certain activities. Look for the TRUSTe Children’s Privacy Seal, a seal with expanded safeguards, on child oriented Web sites.
Appendix B
Data Subjects
- Have the right to know whether their personal data is held
- Have the right to have access, erase, or block access to their personal data
- Have the right to object to usage
- Have the right to oppose automated individual decision making; and
- Obtain judicial remedy and compensation in case of privacy infringement
Data Users
Are required to ensure that personal data on the Internet is:
- Collected fairly and lawfully with the consent of the data subject
- Used only for a specific, explicit legitimate purpose consented to by the data subjects
- Accurate, current, and secured; and
- Retained no longer than necessary for fulfilling the original purpose of collection
Appendix C
Following the September 11 attacks last year, the UK government rushed through legislation which left the rights of Internet users in tatters. But where did that leave ISPs? The Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act asked ISPs to keep records of who we send emails to, what websites we visit and what times we connect to the Internet. All for a period of 12 months in the interests of "national security". In the post-September panic, the initial reaction of the industry was sympathetic. After all, you could be a terrorist couldn’t you?
Last October, however, the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) began to have second thoughts. Secretary general Nicholas Lansman wrote to government officials claiming that they had failed to make a compelling case for the necessity of data retention in the fight against terrorism (Guardian, 21 October).
A similar situation has evolved in the US. Following the controversial Patriot Act which gave security forces increased powers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed 24 lawsuits for civil liberties violations involving individuals. They launched a campaign arguing that it was not necessary to violate privacy as it is possible to be both "safe" and "free".
But what both responses have in common is that it is only necessary for the governments to demonstrate that data retention could help stop terrorism for the arguments to be defeated. They both accept the principle that something should be done to make us safer. In these risk-averse times, safety inevitably becomes prioritised over freedom. Like it or not, the ACLU can't have its cake and eat it too. Like ISPA, as long as they accept the principle that action should be taken to increase safety, their efforts to protect our freedom will be on a hiding to nowhere. (Freedom and Safety don’t mix. 01-Feb-2003 | Chris Evans, Founder ).
(Http//www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=198)
Appendix D
- Ninety percent of respondents (primarily large corporations and government agencies) detected computer security breaches within the last twelve months.
- Eighty percent acknowledged financial losses due to computer breaches.
- Forty-four percent (223 respondents) were willing and/or able to quantify their financial losses. These 223 respondents reported $455,848,000 in financial losses.
- As in previous years, the most serious financial losses occurred through theft of proprietary information (26 respondents reported $170,827,000) and financial fraud (25 respondents reported $115,753,000).
- For the fifth year in a row, more respondents (74%) cited their Internet connection as a frequent point of attack than cited their internal systems as a frequent point of attack (33%).
- Thirty-four percent reported the intrusions to law enforcement. (In 1996, only 16% acknowledged reporting intrusions to law enforcement.)
- Twelve percent reported theft of transaction information.
- Six percent reported financial fraud (only 3% in 2000).
Appendix E
The Distance Selling Regulations require that a consumer must be given:
- clear information before placing an order;
- certain written information and confirmation of their purchase;
- a cooling off period during which they may cancel their order without reason and where a full refund must be made; and
- a full refund if the goods or services are not provided by an agreed date or within 30 days of placing an order if no date is agreed.
The information which must be given before an order is placed is fairly basic and includes:-
- identity of the supplier;
- in the case of payment in advance – his address;
- the main characteristic of the goods or services;
- the price including VAT and delivery costs;
- the arrangements for performance;
- the existence of the right to withdraw;
- the cost of using the means of communication where it is calculated other than at the basic rate;
- the period (if any) for which the offer or price remains valid; and
- the minimum duration of the contract.
Bibliography
Turban E, King D, Lee J, Warkentin M, Chung HM, Electronic Commerce – A Managerial Perspective, 2002, Prentice Hall, London
Turban, E & King, D, Introduction to E-Commerce, 2003, Prentice Hall, London
Manasian, D, A Survey of the Internet Society, Extract from the Economist 25 January 2003, Vol 366 No 8308
Belfast Telegraph via NewsEdge Ireland cracks down on porn surfing
http://www.computeruser.com/news/03/03/08/news1.html
CNN.com Technology, Thursday, February 27, 2003
http//www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/02/07/net.tax.ap/index
Consumer Protection
http://www.dickinson-dees.co.uk/publications
Controlling Computer Fraud and Abuse
http://www.gocsi.com/press/20020407.html
CyberPatrol
Freedom and Safety Don’t Mix, 01-Feb-2003, Chris Evans, Founder
http//www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=198
Internet taxation in the United States
http://www.e-tax.org.uk
TRUSTe’s Consumer Privacy Protection Guidelines
http://www.truste.org/partnersPrivacyPartnership
UK Taxation
http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/taxagenda/ecom5.htm
