Wild Webmink

What does the Woolwich murder teach us about the need for the Communications Data Bill? Nothing at all; the security services seem to have known all about the suspect using existing powers.

Yet somehow it’s being used as a pretext to keep the CDB agenda firmly in the public eye. Cynical and repulsive as this is it’s not a big surprise. In fact, it very much echoes the predictions of Simon’s previous blog post on the CDB.

What can we do to stop the CDB from piggybacking itself onto every fresh news item? The treatment remains the same. New legislation needs to be put forward which deals with specific security concerns in a more appropriate, less invasive way. Read more in today’s ComputerWorldUK article.

This week the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released the annual Special 301 Report. For those of you who are not aware of this report, it assesses the standard to which America’s international trading partners “uphold intellectual property rights protection and enforcement”. Of the ninety five countries assessed, forty one have then been put into the report itself. The report consists of  a series of watch lists, of countries that to a greater or lesser degree fail to meet the standards desired by the USTR.

How effective an indicator of intellectual property rights protection does this survey really offer?