Have you been getting those calls from people working in a call center from what sounds like India? You know, those people who claim to be from either the "Computer Maintenance Department" or the "Windows Technical Team" who then instruct you to go to your computer? Tell the select minority of people who would fall for it that these calls are a scam. We here at ZeroPaid did some digging about these calls in a public service effort.

The Metropolitan police e-crime unit acted in April to take such sites down. Among those shut was supportonclick.com, registered to Pecon Software, a firm based in Kolkata. The company has now opened another support website, called onlinepccare.com, which is the subject of numerous online complaints about cold calling, "bullying", and claims that the caller is from Windows PC care.

Microsoft's Comment

CRTC's Response and Information on Reporting This Scam

OTTAWA - September 29, 2011 - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and their partners at the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre (CAFC) are warning that if someone calls you claiming to be able to protect your computer from viruses, your best bet is to just hang up the phone. Don’t give the caller your computer access codes and don’t provide your credit card information. The virus scam has grown to epidemic proportions in Canada, now accounting for between 70 and 80 per cent of frauds reported daily to the CAFC. “We began noticing virus scam calls in March 2010. Since then, they’ve become an increasing proportion of our calls. Now, they’re the scam we deal with most often,” said RCMP Sgt. Paul Proulx of the CAFC. This dramatic increase means the scam is working – more and more Canadians are being targeted by the virus scam. Proulx warns, "If a scammer is able to log on to your computer then he has access to all the personal information you have stored there, including your banking information.” Here’s a typical scenario: a caller, often claiming to work for Microsoft or another reputable software company, will cold-call you and ask if your computer is running slowly or not working as it should. He will then offer to repair your computer via internet access, which can involve either software installation or the caller gaining remote control of your computer after you’ve granted him access. Payment for the software or the repair service is handled via your credit card with charges typically ranging from $35 to $470 per call. Allowing a third party to download software or remotely access your computer carries a number of serious risks. Malicious software can be installed to capture sensitive data such as your online banking user names and passwords, bank account information and your personal identity information. All of this information can be used in subsequent frauds that empty your bank accounts and charge your credit cards. Your computer can also be converted to a bot-net, which means criminals can use it without your knowledge or participation. It can then be used to spam other people, spread viruses to your friends or overload computer networks. Getting your credit card information is the second important part of the virus scam. Once a criminal has that information it can be used to make purchases without your consent. Canadians should be aware that not all virus scams are conducted over the phone. Many CAFC callers report being scammed after responding to internet pop-up ads for anti-virus software. Sgt. Proulx offers this simple advice: “If you’re really worried about viruses on your computer, be pro-active and use anti-virus software that you've acquired from reputable sources and keep it up to date. If someone calls you out of the blue offering to provide this kind of help, it’s probably a scam. Remember, it's not rude to hang up on someone who's trying to steal your money and information.” "When it comes to cyber security, we all have a role to play," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. "Canada's Cyber Security Strategy is the Government's plan to help secure Canada's vital cyber systems and help Canadians protect themselves, their families and their personal information online." Please visit the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre’s new website for the latest on emerging fraud trends, advice on protecting yourself and victim’s guides that will help you recover from fraud loss: www.antifraudcentre.ca. For more information on the Government of Canada's Cyber Security Strategy: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cyber Fraud: Recognize It, Report It, Stop It.

If you have not lost any money and have not provided personal or financial information (relating to a fraud or scam), and you simply want to inform the appropriate organizations, report it to the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre by calling 1-888-495-8501 If you received a fraudulent e-mail soliciting personal or financial information (phishing scam), you should also advise the financial institution or other agency whose name was used. If you are a victim of fraud or if you unwittingly provided personal or financial information (identity fraud), follow the steps in our Victim Assistance Guide. If you are a victim of fraud and it is not related to identity fraud, contact the police service of jurisdiction in your area. Always report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at info@antifraudcentre.ca or by dialing 1-888-495-8501 or on-line by visiting the CAFC website.

We've been covering the technological side of the UK riots for some time now. After all that has happened to date, it seems a new study has surfaced in France that might serve against Prime Minister David Cameron should he try to go through and censor social media.

Their study is based on modeling the behavior of crowds during civil unrest produced by JM Epstein in 2002. According to this model, the decision of an individual to express dissatisfaction is determined by its active neighborhood social police if he sees around him, he will act only if a sufficient number of demonstrators offset the police presence. One of the factors considered in this model is the "vision" which has the potential of expressing this neighborhood. Does he see the police and other protesters? To simulate the cutting of social networks and media, the researchers then used this model by imagining that censorship led to a vision of zero neighborhood. It is not possible to know where to find a group of demonstrators, or places where the police is absent. Yet, against so-intuitive, their simulation concludes that the more confidence, so the fewer vision among protesters, the higher the level of violence remains high. Conversely, the failure to censor at all leads to the average level of violence the lowest obtained by larger peaks of violence, but occasional periods of calm many more.

You know your internet censorship plans are too strict when China praises you for it.

The British Government’s wariness of the Internet and Blackberry Messenger – symbols of freedom of speech – is a forced reaction, which might upset the Western world. Meanwhile, the open discussion of containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas. On the Internet, there is no lack of posts and articles that incite public violence. They will cause tremendous damage once they are tweeted without control. At that time, all governments will have no other choice but to close down these websites and arrest those agitators. Turbulence must lead to self-examination, otherwise it’ll lead to great peril in one’s destiny.

Website blocking has certainly been discussed in the US with the PROTECT IP act first propsed last month. While the senate has approved the bill, it seems that the US isn't going to be the only country debating the prospects of filtering the internet.

"Evidence should also be submitted to show the urgency with which the measures are sought to inform any balance that needs to be struck by the expert body and the Court between the need for swift action and the need for sufficient evidence."

This is very worrying indeed. Whilst the document talks about evidence gathering, "prior notification and liberty;" it also talks about a turn-around time quick enough for "live events" and a balance between swift action and evidence. The language used reads like copyright protection is being sold as more important than due process under law. In any case, I can't imagine a technical solution that would allow ISPs to implement an effective block within the time scale of a "live event", irrespective of the time it takes a court to act. So it's not surprising that digital rights champions the Open Rights Group were locked out, despite hearing of the meeting in advance and putting in a request to attend

The documents, sent to James Firth's blog, set out a dangerous voluntary scheme that would involve 'expedited court procedures' and a 'balance' between evidence and speed of action. Definitions of what content is to be judged blockable is scarce. References to exactly how such blocking would work, and the consequences, are non-existent. The case for blocking is left unmade, with no analysis about the effects of such measures. There is cursory reference to the rule of law and proper oversight. The proposal, if it is the genuine proposal, adds up to a dangerous revocation of the rule of law where lobby groups would decide what you are allowed to see and read.

He created a website that allegedly linked to copyrighted material. Now, the US wants Richard O'Dwyer, the former owner of TVShack, to face a US court over his websites activities prior to both domain seizures.

A source close to Richard said: “He’s in total disbelief over the charges against him and very anxious about the impact this may have on his studies since he has two years left of his degree. He’s daunted and frightened by the prospect of being extradited to America let alone the disruption to his career.” His mother Julia O’Dwyer said the decision to put him on trial in the US was ‘madness’. “Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright,” she said. “Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.”

Terms of his bail involved not entering ports or airports and not applying to register new domain names. On Tuesday, O'Dwyer appeared before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court for a brief preliminary hearing. His lawyer said the extradition demands made by the US breached O'Dwyer's human rights and there was no basis for extradition. "The server was not based in the US at all. Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyrighted material on his website; he simply provided a link. The essential contention is that the correct forum for this trial is in fact here in Britain, where he was at all times," Cooper is quoted in the report as saying.

Where this becomes really troubling is that other, very similar sites have been found legal in the UK multiple times. Running a site that users use to put up links and which doesn't host any actual content, is not seen as illegal in the UK. So it seems particularly ridiculous that there's some sort of attempt to extradite the guy to the US to face charges here. As some have pointed out it appears to be "an attempt to make US federal laws applicable in the UK." Unfortunately, the details of the extradition request are a bit muddled in all of the UK papers reporting on it. Lots of them are comparing the situation to the famous Gary McKinnon situation, but I think this is clearly different. This just seems blatantly vindictive for no good reason.

There's been no shortage of opinions on the issue of downloading music. From average citizens to activists to labels to mainstream to small time artists, just everyone affected by the music industry has an opinion on the digital environment. So why not throw in a band manager - namely the manager of Pink Floyd - in to the mix?

“It seems to me that in the online world, the marginal cost of a digital file is essentially zero,” he says, making it an “inescapable reality” that the digital world is pushing the price of music towards zero. “If we rely on a copyright law – i.e. a right to copy law – we’re clearly barking down a historical blind alley.” He says the comparison is making airline legislation based on the rail network. “There aren’t many signals in the sky…”

Onto the digital world – “attempts to stop people copying are clearly a waste of time, and not only are they a waste of time, they make the law offensive. It’s very similar to prohibition in America in the 1930s.”

Yesterday, we reported that the government wants to repeal parts of the Digital Economy Act. Today, there was a conflicting report from a one site that says that the government might just leave the act alone instead.

“We’re not going to repeal it,” the new UK government’s Conservative culture secretary Jeremy Hunt told paidContent:UK. Instead, the administration will wait to see how the act’s measures perform and, if alterations or something more is needed, take action later, Hunt said.

Conference condemns: i) Website-blocking and disconnecting internet connections as a response to copyright infringement. ii) The threat to the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals and businesses from the monitoring of their internet activity, the potential blocking of their websites and the potential termination of their internet connections, which could lead to the closure of internet hotspots iii) The Digital Economy Bill for focusing on illegal file-sharing rather than on nurturing creativity Conference supports: a) The principle of net neutrality, through which all content, sites and platforms are treated equally by user access networks participating in the Internet. b) The rights of creators and performers to be rewarded for their work in a way that is fair, proportionate and appropriate to the medium.

Already, one UK minister said that a so-called “three strikes” law is too draconian back in June, but more recently, a UK ISP tried to institute their own three strikes law. That case caused the Open Rights Group to describe the three strikes regime as ““Guilt by accusation, punishment without trial“.

This may really ultimately be the core problem of a so-called three strikes regime – how many civil or criminal cases can see someone punished based on an accusation and without the option of going to court? What a three strikes regime has had a history of is trying to dodge the whole court system and skip right to punishing people based on an accusation essentially.

That’s what makes the latest blog posting on the UK Pirate Party’s website all the more interesting. In it, Andy R. discusses legal aspects of file sharing.

Back in June of 2008, a leaked letter said that the government was setting a goal of reducing file-sharing by 80%. When the Digital Britain report was issued later that month, that target ended up being 70%. By then, many in the file-sharing community were up in arms over the governments plans. Fast forward a year later, the British government wanted more time to reach that goal.

This was brought up as a key point in the UK Pirate Party’s posting. Under the presumption that a fair trial were to be brought up to the accused for each case, Andy R. had this to say:

Justice for those accused of file sharing will naturally require the opportunity for those accused to have an opportunity to see the evidence against them and challenge it in a court of law. To reduce file sharing by 70%, assuming 7 million people sharing 100 files each means dealing with 70% of 700,000,000 files. That’s 490,000,000 fair trials, or if, as has been rumoured there are to be two different offences, one for uploading, another for downloading, nearly 1 billion fair trials.

Her Majesty’s Courts Service say in their annual report that they dealt with 150,000 criminal cases and 2 million civil claims last year. Can they realistically be expected to cope with an additional 1 billion next year, and has their budget of £1,766,222,000 been expanded 500-fold to do so? The answer, quite simply is no.

The inescapable conclusion is that the government are not intending to fund the expensive luxury of justice for those accused of file sharing. We can only afford to have a system without justice, where simply being denounced by a copyright-holder is sufficient for summary punishment to be dealt out, and that summary punishment will be dealt out to 70% of 7 million people.

This is an extremely strong argument using basic math. After all, in the US, ever since Napster was shut down, there has been a rigorous lawsuit campaign against file-sharers by rights holders with, unsurprisingly, an emphasis on deterrent punishments. Andy’s argument is a very good highlight on why the copyright industry simply cannot go after every file-sharer and why there was a strong hope that deterrents would work – which they didn’t. It’s the simple principle many file-sharers have been aware of for years – safety in numbers.

Since the industry cannot scare people back into the music stores, it’s not a surprise that there is the strong push for a three strikes regime these days – to skip the expensive justice system altogether so they don’t litigate themselves into bankruptcy.

The problem of enforcing a three strikes law is that it doesn’t jive with the whole concept of justice in the first place – guilt upon accusation, punishment without trial. In order to enforce such a regime, the industry has the next to impossible task of trying to convince the public that the court system is no longer needed in cases of copyright infringement to justify a three strikes law.

Suddenly, those court rooms with those evil lawyers, corrupt judges and a disgrace of a legal system now becomes the file-sharers safety net. Quite the reversal of thinking in light of the US government siding with the RIAA and urging the judge to ignore arguments that the Jammie Thomas damages of $1.92 million in fines for many file-sharers aware of the political wrangling’s of copyright.

Given that the copyright industry in the UK is pushing – and pushing hard – for a three strikes regime in the UK and that many are realizing that the sought after three strikes regime involves the accused not being able to dispute the accusations in court, it’s not hard to figure out why there is a rise in the Pirate Party’s popularity these days. A political party that many see as impervious to the back room lobbying of the copyright industry to push through draconian copyright laws. As the threats grow for many who might – whether warranted or not – have their culture of the internet cut off, those people discover the real threat of human progress being pulled back by close to 25 years and all the benefits that came with the internet revolution.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Geoff Taylor, the head of the BPI recently suggested that he also regrets the industry not moving faster to sell music albums on the internet.

Still, he maintains that the websites since then still damaging the industry. There’s also the comment that suggests that he still believes that one download means one lost sale; though he didn’t say that specifically, only to say that there’s less money for music because of unauthorized downloading. Of course, he makes no mention of an earlier finding that points out how games and movies are more likely to be blamed for less money if there is a monetary loss in the market. Naturally, there isn’t a mention of how the industry plans on competing against such competing markets as a consequence.

Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group praised the fact that Taylor has realized this, but points out that there’s still a heavy push to get users disconnected in Britain as well. So really, this copyright war between the industry and it’s consumers is far from over. Back in April, one British minister shot down the three-strikes proposals calling them too draconian.

Who knows though? Maybe eventually the top music industry labels will eventually figure out how to tackle the internet and how it’s had such an effect on music. It just might take a while at this rate though.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

One may call it a new weapon against file-sharers who are savvy enough to use a file-sharing website, but not savvy enough to install a pop-up killer (now pre-bundled in many web browsers) or anti-adware software to stop the ads – whoever they are. A report from The Guardian talks about this more recent push by the copyright industry that resides in the UK to toughen up copyright laws. From the report:

The UK film and television industry is calling on the government to introduce online “speed humps” that would slow down or restrict the broadband access of people who illegally share copyrighted material, and slap pop-up warnings on websites to stem the rising tide of internet piracy.

Rising tide indeed if the copyright industry statistics are to be believable (Canadians are probably even less likely now). The report now suggests that there are 6 million file-sharers in the UK engaged in file-sharing – a completely different number to that of the last guess of 1.3 Million on one network.

Additionally, this is suppose to be one of the tools the copyright industry would have – effectively getting ISPs to do their dirty work in the process – to supposedly eliminate piracy by 70% – 80%. That 70% – 80% targeted reduction is certainly in-line with last years leaked letter where the British government vowed to reduce file-sharing by 80%.

The idea behind getting ISPs to bring pop-ups to users who access file-sharing sites? From the Guardian:

“Making life difficult for people who persist in accessing and copying protected material, while not preventing them from shopping online, browsing, banking online or using the internet for other legitimate purposes, is surely preferable to court actions, except in the most flagrant cases of abuse,” said Lavinia Carey, chair of Respect For Film, a lobby group backed by the British Video Association, the Federation Against Copyright Theft, and studios including NBC Universal and Warner Bros.

“We see the use of technological measures as similar to creating road humps – they will make potential copyright infringers pause and think twice.”

Last year, British ISPs signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that said that ISPs agree that they need to take measures to fight online piracy. While UK ISPs did sign the MoU, they still expressed reluctance to disconnecting alleged copyright infringers.

Still, this latest demand seems to follow along a theme that was seen last year when Virgin Media sent out 800 warning letter to its customers – some of which have never used file-sharing clients before – in an effort to scare people away from file-sharing. These so-called “speed bumps” for file-sharing that is currently being pushed for by the UK copyright industry very likely won’t do a thing other than install nuisance-ware on the ISP level. After all, how hard could it be to block pop-up ads from ISPs anyway?

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.