The [digital] Document  That Will Not Die: Attempted suppression & secrecy in the Internet age   David Vaile, Executive Di...
Intro <ul><li>Alana M - greetings from Canada! </li></ul><ul><li>UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre </li></ul><ul><li>A...
Contents <ul><li>Difficulties for legal attempts to suppress and/or keep secret critical documents  </li></ul><ul><li>Supp...
Scope <ul><li>Suppression and secrecy </li></ul><ul><li>Focus more on technical rather than legal aspects </li></ul><ul><l...
Why does this matter? <ul><li>It’s easy to assume that Orders can just “make it happen” </li></ul><ul><li>Reality is incre...
Wikileaks & Julius Baer (Swiss bank) <ul><li>Wikileaks in US –  http://www.wikileaks.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>Copies of inte...
 
Google Cache <ul><li>Based on Google spider indexing vast amounts of the web </li></ul><ul><li>Most recent version is reta...
(current wikileaks screen)
(cached wikileaks screen)
(redirect)
(Cache screen)
Internet Archive/ Wayback machine <ul><li>Historical versions of many web pages </li></ul><ul><li>Like historical compilat...
(wayback lawtech screen 0)
(Wayback CLPC list screen)
(clcp 2006 screen)
Suppression orders generally <ul><li>Not comment on intrinsic merits of use of suppression for specific public policy goal...
Suppression Order Data Analysis <ul><li>State / Number of Orders 2004-2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NSW  107 </li></ul></ul><...
General limits to ‘open justice’ <ul><li>[I offer comments to flag issues, not as exhaustive treatment!] </li></ul><ul><li...
Stat. Prohibitions on Publication (Moss 2007 Ch8 Annex B) <ul><li>Identification of victims of sexual assault </li></ul><u...
‘ Underbelly’ <ul><li>Attempt to prevent potential Vic. jurors seeing TV dramatisation of notorious crime </li></ul><ul><l...
Goussis top slide
Goussis bottom half
Extension of Order 1. <ul><li>Prosecutor mentioned a recording being played in a hotel; Order 1. was widened: </li></ul><u...
Issues with Orders <ul><li>“ Internet in Victoria”  –  problematic concept? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Victorian court jurisdic...
Appeal, revised Orders <ul><li>General TV Corp v DPP & Anor [2008] VSCA 49 </li></ul><ul><li>“ We have little doubt that t...
Appeal and revised orders  (cont.) <ul><li>Recast Order 2. (Internet publication):  </li></ul><ul><li>Now only “directed a...
Benbrika suppression contempt <ul><li>Identity of US witness suppressed in terrorism offence trial </li></ul><ul><li>Witne...
Henson case: suppression by inquiry? <ul><li>Photographs of under-age models disappeared online very quickly after police ...
Other types of document never die   <ul><li>Data retention and destruction policy: problems for every organisation </li></...
Data retention and destruction <ul><li>Difficulties making & implementing policy </li></ul><ul><li>Business, government, c...
HK  Police corruption investigations   <ul><li>20,000 complaint files against HK police leaked onto Internet  www.china2ea...
Japan: leak mediated by Winny virus <ul><li>Sensitive data leak to Internet from ‘Winny’ virus on Japanese police officer’...
HD-DVD encryption code & Digg <ul><li>HD-DVD encryption cracked late 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Hacking software required a 16...
http://www.secondpagemedia.com/confundo/index.php?s=74512073a9b9294d7d06a38b1d30159d&act=attach&type=post&id=7437
Why won’t it stay dead? <ul><li>Persistence: technical (caches) and   human (disobedience) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited scope...
Questions? David Vaile, Executive Director and  Alana Maurashat, Deputy Director Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre UNSW Law...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The [digital] Document That Will Not Die: Attempted suppression ...

312 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
312
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The [digital] Document That Will Not Die: Attempted suppression ...

  1. 1. The [digital] Document That Will Not Die: Attempted suppression & secrecy in the Internet age David Vaile, Executive Director and Alana Maurashat, Deputy Director Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre UNSW Law Faculty http://cyberlawcentre.org/2008 /AIJA/
  2. 2. Intro <ul><li>Alana M - greetings from Canada! </li></ul><ul><li>UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre </li></ul><ul><li>Appreciate invitation address conference </li></ul><ul><li>Centre’s interests overlap issues raised </li></ul><ul><li>M aterials available online </li></ul><ul><li>Thanks also to AustLII for hosting sites </li></ul>
  3. 3. Contents <ul><li>Difficulties for legal attempts to suppress and/or keep secret critical documents </li></ul><ul><li>Suppression by courts, general problems </li></ul><ul><li>Examples </li></ul><ul><li>Wikileaks - court decision - tech blogs </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Underbelly’: ineffective court order? </li></ul><ul><li>Benbrika, Henson </li></ul><ul><li>HD-DVD encryption code and Digg </li></ul><ul><li>HK police corruption data </li></ul><ul><li>Japan ‘Winny’ virus case </li></ul>
  4. 4. Scope <ul><li>Suppression and secrecy </li></ul><ul><li>Focus more on technical rather than legal aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Materials from: in court, subject of court proceedings, subject to litigious claims/attempts to suppress, or justice system </li></ul><ul><li>Digital documents generally, including audiovisual, data, images, ‘documents’ </li></ul><ul><li>Networking/Internet critically important </li></ul>
  5. 5. Why does this matter? <ul><li>It’s easy to assume that Orders can just “make it happen” </li></ul><ul><li>Reality is increasingly recalcitrant </li></ul><ul><li>U sers of Internet are ever younger, more creative and more connected </li></ul><ul><li>IT security model is failing under the assault of technical and human threats </li></ul><ul><li>Potential challenge to authority and reputation of courts </li></ul>
  6. 6. Wikileaks & Julius Baer (Swiss bank) <ul><li>Wikileaks in US – http://www.wikileaks.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>Copies of internal JB documents: company helps customers launder money illegally via Cayman Is.? </li></ul><ul><li>Ordered to remove domain name </li></ul><ul><li>Not IP address: could still access with IP number </li></ul><ul><li>Media coverage </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Mirror’ sites – copies, blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Re-register on foreign server </li></ul><ul><li>Documents still found on Google, Google cache, and Wayback machine (Internet Archive) </li></ul>
  7. 8. Google Cache <ul><li>Based on Google spider indexing vast amounts of the web </li></ul><ul><li>Most recent version is retained, but also some arbitrary earlier version of some pages </li></ul><ul><li>Tend to be more recent </li></ul><ul><li>Last item or so in Google result list entry </li></ul><ul><li>If ‘Cached’ link in Google list is not visible, try ‘Similar Pages’ </li></ul>
  8. 9. (current wikileaks screen)
  9. 10. (cached wikileaks screen)
  10. 11. (redirect)
  11. 12. (Cache screen)
  12. 13. Internet Archive/ Wayback machine <ul><li>Historical versions of many web pages </li></ul><ul><li>Like historical compilations of Acts </li></ul><ul><li>Goes back many years </li></ul><ul><li>6 months or more for pages to appear </li></ul><ul><li>Sites can exclude by using Robots.txt </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.archive.org/ </li></ul>
  13. 14. (wayback lawtech screen 0)
  14. 15. (Wayback CLPC list screen)
  15. 16. (clcp 2006 screen)
  16. 17. Suppression orders generally <ul><li>Not comment on intrinsic merits of use of suppression for specific public policy goals </li></ul><ul><li>Some concerns among practitioners, particularly following media-sponsored Moss Report of the Independent Audit into the State of Free Speech in Aust. (Oct 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Though ‘He would say that, wouldn’t he’ </li></ul><ul><li>Hostile to privacy claims too? </li></ul>
  17. 18. Suppression Order Data Analysis <ul><li>State / Number of Orders 2004-2007 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NSW 107 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NT 9 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>QLD 6 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SA 75 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WA 23 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VIC 697 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TAS 0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TOTAL 917 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Moss: News Limited – at 12 September 2007) </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. General limits to ‘open justice’ <ul><li>[I offer comments to flag issues, not as exhaustive treatment!] </li></ul><ul><li>Sub judice , inc. committal and bail proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Idoport v NAB 47 [2001] NSWSC : Einstein J’s six limitations to principle of open justice for cases involving: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trade secrets, secret documents or communications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Blackmail </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The need to maintain order in the court </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National security </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative action better dealt with in chambers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Court as a guardian of wards of state or mentally ill </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Unclear to what extent court has power to make order which binds those not present in court in relation to reporting on, or publishing information about , the proceedings in question – no express statutory power? (Moss) </li></ul>
  19. 20. Stat. Prohibitions on Publication (Moss 2007 Ch8 Annex B) <ul><li>Identification of victims of sexual assault </li></ul><ul><li>ID parties, witnesses in family law proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>ID children in criminal proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Matching organ donors and donees (ACT) </li></ul><ul><li>Guardianship and Children's Court proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption proceedings </li></ul><ul><li>Coroners' general powers </li></ul><ul><li>ID members of juries </li></ul><ul><li>Statements cannot be proved true, adversely affect person's reputation or cause others to shun or avoid (defamation) </li></ul><ul><li>Online behaviour which is menacing harassing or offensive </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring or recording of private conversations or activities </li></ul><ul><li>Spent Convictions </li></ul><ul><li>Protection of information about Individuals (incl. info not confidential) </li></ul><ul><li>Telecommunications privacy (general) </li></ul><ul><li>Health Privacy </li></ul>
  20. 21. ‘ Underbelly’ <ul><li>Attempt to prevent potential Vic. jurors seeing TV dramatisation of notorious crime </li></ul><ul><li>Shamelessly screened before trial over: “I am unaware of a television show actually airing at the same time as a criminal trial about precisely the same event ...” </li></ul><ul><li>Digital version of TV show apparently leaked either from lawyers or producers prior to broadcast, as well as copies made off-air </li></ul><ul><li>Estimates of nearly 100,000 downloads of episodes (Dr Rebecca Giblin, Monash U) </li></ul>
  21. 22. Goussis top slide
  22. 23. Goussis bottom half
  23. 24. Extension of Order 1. <ul><li>Prosecutor mentioned a recording being played in a hotel; Order 1. was widened: </li></ul><ul><li>“ The transmission, publication, broadcasting or exhibiting of the production referred to as “Underbelly” be prohibited in the State of Victoria, until after the completion of the trial and verdict in the matter of R v [A]. ” </li></ul>
  24. 25. Issues with Orders <ul><li>“ Internet in Victoria” – problematic concept? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Victorian court jurisdiction, but global Internet </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Traditional mass-media central suppression model: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to do with known and controllable players </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Undermined by ‘everyone as their own TV station’ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Who is subject to the order? Everyone? </li></ul><ul><li>How notify everyone they were banned from uploading? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishing Court’s Order would reveal name of Goussis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If not everyone, how could it be effective? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to enforce against mass disobedience? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Already a breach of copyright, draconian penalties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unenforceable © laws bring other law to disrepute? </li></ul></ul>
  25. 26. Appeal, revised Orders <ul><li>General TV Corp v DPP & Anor [2008] VSCA 49 </li></ul><ul><li>“ We have little doubt that the broadcasting of Underbelly in the weeks leading up to and during the trial would create a serious risk of prejudice to the conduct of a fair trial. The contemporaneous and graphic nature of the portrayal of central figures in the trial, their relationships with each other and the relevance of these relationships to the alleged motive to murder ...” </li></ul><ul><li>Revised Order 1: “ … order was too wide. It purported to bind every person in Victoria.” Only need bind TV broadcaster. </li></ul><ul><li>But: “any person who, with knowledge of the order, sought deliberately to frustrate the effect of the order could be liable for a contempt of court.” </li></ul>
  26. 27. Appeal and revised orders (cont.) <ul><li>Recast Order 2. (Internet publication): </li></ul><ul><li>Now only “directed at the applicant, and specifically at one aspect of a website within its control” [‘Family Tree’ website – not the TV shows] </li></ul><ul><li>Not at Victorians at large, nor all types of net publication </li></ul><ul><li>“ Although there is on the internet a large body of material which relates in one way or another, whether accurately or not, to some of the issues which will be the subject of the trial, we have every confidence that the jury empanelled in this trial will abide by the directions of the judge.” </li></ul><ul><li>Drastically reduced scope and ambition of suppression? </li></ul><ul><li>More sanguine view of risk to jury from Internet? </li></ul><ul><li>Different impact accorded to TV broadcast cf. Internet? </li></ul>
  27. 28. Benbrika suppression contempt <ul><li>Identity of US witness suppressed in terrorism offence trial </li></ul><ul><li>Witness’ plea bargain w. US authorities on Internet </li></ul><ul><li>Published in NSW, Queensland and New York Post </li></ul><ul><li>Publications occurred because of ‘long-accepted principle’ that magistrate in Victoria exercising power pursuant to Victorian Act cannot bind anyone in another state </li></ul><ul><li>Publishers in NSW and Qld (but not US) charged with breaching suppression order </li></ul><ul><li>Commonwealth DPP alleged that Victorian order made by Victorian magistrate pursuant to a Victorian Act applies in all other states </li></ul>
  28. 29. Henson case: suppression by inquiry? <ul><li>Photographs of under-age models disappeared online very quickly after police visits/inquiries – search drew blank </li></ul><ul><li>In real life too: regional galleries </li></ul><ul><li>More effective suppression than Goussis case based on court order? </li></ul><ul><li>Yet no court finding of illegality; ultimate OFLC PG rating, no prosecution </li></ul><ul><li>No avenue for appeal or adjudication of the suppressive effect, no specific Order? </li></ul>
  29. 30. Other types of document never die <ul><li>Data retention and destruction policy: problems for every organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Police corruption investigations in HK </li></ul><ul><li>Police ops Japan leaked by virus </li></ul><ul><li>Hacked codes for HD-DVD encryption </li></ul>
  30. 31. Data retention and destruction <ul><li>Difficulties making & implementing policy </li></ul><ul><li>Business, government, courts </li></ul><ul><li>Full scope of obligations is difficult to determine, esp. predicting future technology and legal developments </li></ul><ul><li>Most corporations find it nearly impossible to comply with various conflicting data retention and destruction laws </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tendency to over or under destroy; classification? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Storage is cheap, loss is expensive: keep it forever? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Temptation to make sure there are always backups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Potentially dangerous: destruction should be easier </li></ul><ul><ul><li>but McCabe v BAT case issue! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Attempts to institute surveillance-assistance models: ISPs, telecom companies, web services... </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Cloud’ computing: hosted outside jurisdiction </li></ul>
  31. 32. HK Police corruption investigations <ul><li>20,000 complaint files against HK police leaked onto Internet www.china2easy. com </li></ul><ul><li>IT subcontractor requested &quot;dummy data&quot; for testing – unencrypted real thing on CD </li></ul><ul><li>Names, addresses and ID of complainants, date of complaint; a few, prev. convictions </li></ul><ul><li>Some: corruption, fraud and sexual abuse </li></ul><ul><li>Still accessible several days later via the Google Archives and Cache </li></ul>
  32. 33. Japan: leak mediated by Winny virus <ul><li>Sensitive data leak to Internet from ‘Winny’ virus on Japanese police officer’s PC. Ehime prefecture 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Virus-prone ‘Winny’ file sharing software was culprit </li></ul><ul><li>The files were apparently copied from a police inspector's computer with Winny program installed </li></ul><ul><li>Files with personal information on 4,400 people, including crime victims and suspects. </li></ul><ul><li>Names and addresses of victims, suspects and other individuals, clandestine photos of suspects who are minors, witness testimonies. Some date back to 1984. </li></ul><ul><li>Data from police manuals revealing investigation tactics, vehicle monitoring system at highway point </li></ul>
  33. 34. HD-DVD encryption code & Digg <ul><li>HD-DVD encryption cracked late 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Hacking software required a 16 digit code: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 </li></ul><ul><li>Published on community sites, inc Digg early 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Digg: so-called &quot;social news&quot; site publishes stories and ranks them according to votes by its users - Web 2.0 pioneer 1% of total internet traffic in US </li></ul><ul><li>Litigation threats by HD-DVD developers: suppress the code </li></ul><ul><li>Attempt to suppress by operators </li></ul><ul><li>Mass disobedience: posting the code in subjects, images, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>“ The world's most popular technology news website collapsed today after a revolt by its users” </li></ul><ul><li>Digg gave up, said ‘we side with users’, not destroy own business/community, “so sue me...” </li></ul><ul><li>Ultimately failed to suppress: ‘09-f9’ in Google = 826,000 hits </li></ul>
  34. 35. http://www.secondpagemedia.com/confundo/index.php?s=74512073a9b9294d7d06a38b1d30159d&act=attach&type=post&id=7437
  35. 36. Why won’t it stay dead? <ul><li>Persistence: technical (caches) and human (disobedience) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited scope of suppression order aids enforceability, but reduces effect </li></ul><ul><li>Security for networked digital systems is essentially illusory and unreliable </li></ul><ul><li>Human factors and technical </li></ul><ul><li>Ignorance of practices “in t he wild” undermines attempts at secrecy and suppression </li></ul>
  36. 37. Questions? David Vaile, Executive Director and Alana Maurashat, Deputy Director Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre UNSW Law Faculty http://cyberlawcentre.org/2008/AIJA/

×