Malaysia's Government Websites Were Hacked by Unknown Hackers Named as Anonymous

Now this time in malaysia and turkey. this group known as anonymous hackers hacked 198 governmental websites and now they are attempt to hack the prim minister of malaysia Dato' Najib Razak.
This hacking caused a lot of difficulty during this week for the people for connecting to the internet.
The minister of culture of malaysia warning the government about their attack to the Dato' Najjib Website and suggest them to preper their self to defend his website.
Taken from http://iranmalezi.com/123NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=21132.

COLUMN: LulzSec Internet hacking is not harmless fun

In my cyberlaw subject one of the most epidemic crime is hacking. most of the hackers in these days are very young. here is study about hackers:

The British government, the Brazilian government, multinational corporations, U.S. defense contractors and the CIA — that’s one ambitious target list.

But whose? The Russians, the Chinese, the (gasp) terrorists? Who do we send James Bond after?

Turns out it’s a 19 year-old, among others.

On May 21, Ryan Cleary was arrested in alleged connection to recent hacker attacks by a group known as “LulzSec.” Cleary, a former member of another “hacktivist” group, was picked up in an operation conducted by Scotland Yard and the FBI, BBC reported.

But what is LulzSec, and why does it matter? Their website, lulzsecurity.com, describes them as “a small team of lulzy individuals who feel the drabness of the cyber community is a burden on what matters: fun.” That’s what “lulz,” a variant on LOL, means: It is an expression of general amusement.

Lulzsecurity.com oozes self-absorbed amusement. The text contains mocking references to Rebecca Black’s “Friday,” a truly horrible music video that took the Internet by storm, and an image of a longboat dubbed the “Lulz Boat” accompanied by the theme from “The Love Boat” cheerily playing in the background.

The group’s activities, however, go far past this general silliness. Earlier this year, Sony’s PlayStation Network, the online service for its PlayStation 3 game console, was offline for more than a month following a LulzSec-connected intrusion into their network. Millions of subscribers’ personal data was stolen, including credit-card information.

Their exploits also have included a (reportedly failed) hacking attempt on Lockheed-Martin, a U.S. defense contractor responsible for building the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, among other things. The CIA’s public website suffered an outage, and PBS found itself with a defaced main page after they ran a documentary critical of Julian Assange, Wikileaks editor in chief. Other targets have included online game servers.

While I write this, the Brazilian government’s website is offline, with LulzSec’s Twitter feed claiming responsibility. Operations like this are mostly just an inconvenience, though I do not know what services Brazil offers through that website. More governmental and corporate websites are certain to suffer similar problems in the days ahead.

It is also certain that these organizations will attempt to fight back, as the above-mentioned arrest demonstrates. The members of LulzSec, whomever they may be, rely on the anonymity of the Internet and their own knowledge of how people are tracked across it. If and when they make a big enough mistake, or if the powers that be have better-skilled people in their employ, the group will eventually be found out and its members arrested, as was Ryan Cleary. It is important to note that LulzSec has denied his involvement in their operations, though it is unknown if that’s true. Regardless, this apparent failure on the part of law enforcement is fuel for ever more lulz.

And rightfully so. These illegal actions have no cause, no message behind them. Even if they did, it would be an inappropriate way of expressing discontent. This is the new face of modern vandalism and little more. What is amazing is the potential scope of the problem: millions of credit card numbers stolen. Multiply that by thousands of dollars worth of credit each, and you’re looking at the potential for billions of dollars’ worth of fraud.

Whether that data has yet been used maliciously is not known — credit card fraud is difficult to track. Regardless, the potential is there for information crimes of surprising magnitude.

LulzSec is a narcissistic bother, childishly lashing out at authority because it can. I hope it will be found out and disciplined before it grows into a sullen teen.

<<http://www.oudaily.com/news/2011/jun/23/column-lulzsec-internet-hacking-not-harmless-fun/>>

MALAYSIAN JUDICIAL STRUCTURE

As we Live in malaysia we need to know how is the Judicial structure of Malaysia. In last Class of cyberlaw I learned about Jurisdiction. so it was interesting for me to see if something happened to me in malaysia how is the structure of judicial. Here is a Picture that you can under stand it. then ill explain what i've learned from http://www.kehakiman.gov.my website about this structure.

THE SUPERIOR COURTS

The Federal Court

The Apex Court

The Federal Court is the highest judicial authority in the country. It was established pursuant to Article 121(2) of the
Federal Constitution. Its decision binds all the courts below. Prior to 1st January 1985, the superior courts system in
Malaysia was three-tiered, namely,

The Privy Council
The Supreme Court
The High Court Malaya and the High Court Borneo.

The Privy Council was the highest court of appeal for Malaysia until 31st December 1984. On 1st January 1985, all appeals
from Malaysia to the Privy Council were abolished. In its place, the Supreme Court was established making it the
final court of appeal in the country. The abolishment of appeals to the Privy Council resulted in a change from the
three-tiered system of superior courts to a two-tiered system, which was the Supreme Court and the two (2) High Courts.

In 1994, a significant change took place in the Judiciaryw hen Parliament amended the Federal Constitution. With the amendment, the Court of Appeal was established. The Supreme Court was renamed the Federal Court. As a consequence, the three-tiered system of the superior courts was restored.

The Federal Court is headed by the Chief Justice. Prior to the amendment the post was known as the Lord President.

Members

According to Article 122(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Federal Court shall consist of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the two Chief Judges of the two High Courts and seven other judges.

Appointment of Judges

Article 122B of the Federal Constitution provides for the appointment of the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judges of the High Courts and the other judges of the Federal Court by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers. Before tendering his advice, the Prime Minister shall, except for the appointment of the Chief Justice, consult the Chief Justice.

Appointment of Additional Judges Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution, allows the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Chief Justice, to appoint any person who has held high judicial office in Malaysia to be an additional judge of the Federal Court. This appointment may be for such purposes or for such period as may be determined by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Composition

Every proceeding in the Federal Court is according to section 74 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, heard and disposed off by three judges or such greater uneven number of judges as the Chief Justice may in any particular case determine. In the absence of the Chief Justice the most senior member of the Court shall preside.

Article 122(2) of the Federal Constitution provides that the Chief Justice, if he considers that the interests of justice so require, may nominate a judge of the Court of Appeal other than the President of the Court of Appeal to sit as a judge in the Federal Court.

Sittings

The Court sits on such dates and at such places as the Chief Justice may from time to time direct. Normally the Federal Court sits at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya. However the Federal Court also goes on circuit to the major towns of Penang, Ipoh, Kota Bharu, Johor Bahru, Alor Setar, Kuantan, Malacca, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu (section 75 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Jurisdiction

Article 121(2) of the Federal Constitution confers the Federal Court with the following jurisdiction–

(a) to determine appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal, of the High Court or a judge thereof;

(b) such original or consultative jurisdiction as is specified in Articles 128 and 130; and

(c) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred by or under federal law.

Criminal Appeals

The Federal Court may subject to section 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 hears and determines appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal relating to any criminal matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

Civil Appeals

Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 provides that an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal may be made to the Federal Court with with the leave of the Federal Court. Leave is only granted if–

(a) the decision of the Court of Appeal is in respect of any civil cause or matter decided by the High Court
in exercise of its original jurisdiction where it involves a question of general principle of law decided for the
first time or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Federal Court would
be to public advantage; or

(b) the decision of the Court of Appeal is as to the effect of any provision of the Federal Constitution including
the validity of any written law relating to any such provision.

(section 96(a) and (b) Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Original

The Federal Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine–

(a) any question whether a law made by Parliament or by the Legislature of a State is invalid on the ground
that it makes provision with respect to a matter with respect to which Parliament or, the Legislature of the
State has no power to make laws; and

(b) disputes on any other question between States or between the Federation and any State.

(Article 128(1) of the Federal Constitution).

Referral

The referral jurisdiction of the Federal Court is provided for in Article 128(2) of the Federal Constitution which reads—

“Without prejudice to any appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, where in any proceedings before another court a question arises as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution, the Federal Court shall have jurisdiction (subject to any rules of court regulating the exercise of that jurisdiction) to determine the question and remit the case to the other court to be disposed of in accordance with the determination.”

Advisory

The advisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court is provided for in Article 130 of the Federal Constitution which reads—

“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may refer to the Federal Court for its opinion any question as to the effect of any provision of this Constitution which has arisen or appears likely to arise, and the Federal Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on any question so referred to it.”

THE SPECIAL COURT

Constitution

The Special Court was established pursuant to Article 182 of the Federal Constitution to hear any action civil or criminal instituted by or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the nine Malay Rulers.

However, by Article 183 of Federal Constitution no action, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the Rulers of States in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him in his personal capacity except with the consent of the Attorney General personally.

Members

Article 182(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that the Special Court shall consist of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who shall be the Chairman, the Chief Judges of the two High Courts and two other persons who hold or have held office as judges of the Federal Court or the High Court appointed by the Conference of Rulers.

Jurisdiction

Article 182(3) of the Federal Constitution stipulates that the Special Court has an exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences committed in the Federation by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the Rulers of the States and all civil cases by or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the Rulers of the States notwithstanding where the cause of action arose.

In addition to its exclusive jurisdiction, the Special Court also has the same jurisdiction and powers as are vested in the subordinate courts, the High Court and the Federal Court by the Federal Constitution.

Proceedings

The procedure (including the hearing of proceedings in camera) in civil or criminal cases and the law regulating evidence and proof in civil and criminal proceedings, the practice and procedure applicable in any proceedings in any subordinate court, the High Court and the Federal Court shall apply in any proceedings before
the Special Court. The proceedings of the Special Court is decided by the opinion of the majority of the members.

Finality of decision

The decision of the Special Court is final and conclusive and
cannot be challenged or called into question in any court on any ground.

Sittings

The Special Court may sit at the premises of the Federal Court located at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya Wilayah Persekutuan on such dates and at such times as the Chief Justice may from time to time appoint.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

The Court of Appeal was established in 1994. It has–

(a) the jurisdiction to determine appeals from decisions
of a High Court or a judge thereof; and

(b) such other jurisdiction as may be provided for under any federal law.

(Article 121(1B) of the Federal Constitution).

As from 1st January 2002 the number of judges was increased to fifteen by order of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Article 122A(1) Federal Constitution).

Members

Article 122A(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that the Court of Appeal shall consist of the President of the Court of Appeal and fifteen Court of Appeal judges.

Appointment of Judges

Article 122B (2) and (4) of the Federal Constitution provides that the President
of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal judges shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers. Before tendering his advice the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice and the President of Court of Appeal.

Composition

Proceedings in the Court of Appeal are heard and disposed of by a panel of three judges or such greater uneven number of judges as the President of the Court of Appeal may determine (section 38 Courts of Judicature Act 1964). In accordance with Article 122A(2) of the Federal Constitution a judge of a High Court may sit as a judge of the Court of Appeal where the President of the Court of Appeal considers that the interests of justice so require. The judge shall be nominated for the purpose by the President after consulting the Chief Judge of that High Court.

Sittings

The Court of Appeal sits at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. However, the President may, when he deems expedient, direct that any appeal proceeding be heard at any time and in any place in Malaysia (section 39 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Final Court

The Court of Appeal is the final court of appeal on matters decided by the High Court in its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction (sections 87 and 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Jurisdiction

Criminal

The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine any criminal appeal against any decision by the High Court—

(a) made in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; and

(b) in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction on any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court.

However, if it is an appeal from a decision of the High Court exercising its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction on any criminal matter that originated from a Magistrates’ Court then no further appeal to the Court of Appeal is permissible without leave of the Court of Appeal and such appeal must be confined only to questions of law which may have arisen in the course of the appeal or revision and the determination of which by the High Court has affected the event of the appeal or revision (section 50(1) & (2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Civil

The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order of any High Court in any civil cause or matter, whether made in the exercise of its original or of its appellate jurisdiction, subject to any written law regulating the terms and conditions upon which such appeals are brought (section 67 of the Courts of the Judicature Act 1964). However, no appeal shall be brought to the Court of Appeal in the following cases—

(a) if the amount or value of the subject matter of the claim is less than RM250,000/- except with the leave of the Court;

(b) the judgment or order is made by consent of parties;

(c) the judgment or order relates to costs only; and

(d) where by virtue of any written law the judgment or order of the High Court is final.

No appeal shall lie from a decision of a Judge in Chambers in a summary way on an interpleader summons, where the facts are not in dispute, except with leave of the Court (section 68 Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Specialized Panels

As appeals to the Court of Appeal are on the upsurge each year, sittings of the Court have also been increased. In order to expedite the disposal of appeals specialized panels have been constituted. The panels are as follows–

• Criminal Panel
• Commercial Panel
• Civil Panel
• Interlocutory Panel
• Leave to Appeal Panel
• Prerogative Writs Panel

Registry

The principal registry of the Court of Appeal is located at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. It is headed by a Registrar and assisted by Deputy and Senior Assistant Registrars. Although all appeals from the High Courts are filed in the respective High Courts they are registered in the Court of Appeal Registry at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.

THE HIGH COURTS

In Malaysia there are two High Courts having coordinate jurisdiction and status, that is the High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. The High Court in Malaya consists of a Chief Judge and forty-seven judges whilst High Court in Sabah and Sarawak consists of a Chief Judge and ten judges. (Articles 121(1) and 122AA(1) of the Federal Constitution).

Appointment of Judges

The judges are appointed under Article 122B (2) and (4) of the Federal Constitution by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister after consulting the Conference of Rulers. Before the Prime Minister tenders his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of that Court. A person is qualified for appointment as a judge of any High
Courts if he is a citizen and for the 10 years preceding his appointment he has been an advocate of those courts or has been a member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation or of the legal service of a State. The appointment of a judicial commissioner is provided for under Article 122AB of the Federal Constitution. A judicial commissioner who is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister after consulting the Chief Justice shall have the same powers and enjoy the same immunities as if he had been a judge of the High Court.

Sittings

The High Courts sit at such times and at such places as the Chief Judges shall from time to time appoint (section 19 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Jurisdiction

Criminal

The High Court has jurisdiction to try all offences committed–

(a) within local jurisdiction;

(b) on the high seas on board any ship or on any aircraft registered in Malaysia;

(c) by any citizen or any permanent resident on the high seas on board any ship or on any aircraft;

(d) by any person on high seas where the offence is piracy
by the law of nations; and

(e) offences under Chapter VI of the Penal Code and those
offences of extra-territorial in nature.

(Section 22 of the Courts Judicature Act 1964).

The High Court may pass any sentence allowed by law (section 22(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act). Cases involving capital punishment are tried in the High Court. However, under special circumstances cases not involving capital punishment may
be heard in the High Court on the application by the Public Prosecutor (section 418A Criminal Procedure Code).

Civil

The High Court has jurisdiction to try all proceedings where –

(a) the cause of action arose;

(b) the defendant or one of several defendants resides or has his place of business;

(c) the facts on which the proceedings are based exist or are alleged to have occurred; or

(d) any land the ownership of which is disputed is situated,

within the local jurisdiction of the Court and notwithstanding anything contained in section 23 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, in any case where all parties consent in writing within the local jurisdiction of the other High Court.

The High Courts also have specific jurisdiction including–

(a) jurisdiction under any written law relating to divorce, matrimonial causes, bankruptcy or companies;

(b) the same jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters of admiralty as is had by the High Court of Justice in England under the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act
1981;

(c) jurisdiction to appoint and control guardians of infant and generally over the person and property of infants;

(d) jurisdiction to appoint and control guardians and keepers of the person and estates of idiots, mentally disordered persons and persons of unsound mind; and

(e) jurisdiction to grant probates of will and testaments and letters of administration of estates of deceased persons leaving property within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and to alter or revoke such grants.

(Section 24 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Appellate

The High Court has the power to hear appeals from the subordinate courts. However not all decisions of the subordinate courts are appealable to the High Court. No appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a subordinate court in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter is ten thousand ringgit or less except where it involves a question of law (sections 26-29 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Revisionary Power

The High Court may exercise powers of revision in respect of criminal proceedings and matters in the subordinate courts in accordance with any law for the time being in force relating to criminal procedure. The High Court may call for and examine the record of any civil proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court (sections 31 and 32 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964).

Specialization

The courts in Malaysia are heading towards specialization. This move is fuelled by the desire to provide the best service to the public, in the form of dispensing justice fairly, speedily and effectively. In the major towns where there are two or more High Court judges, specialization had already taken place.

Specialization in the Kuala Lumpur High Courts

In the High Court in Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, specialization is done by categorising the High Court into Criminal, Civil, Commercial, Appellate and Special Powers and Family Divisions.

(i) Criminal Division

The Criminal Division hears cases in the exercise of its original, appellate or revisionary jurisdiction on any criminal matter from the subordinate courts.

(ii) Civil Division

The Civil Division hears among others, actions on foreclosure, tort and contracts for services.

(iii) Commercial Division

The Commercial Division hears among others, admiralty, insurance, companies winding-up, agency, banking, intellectual property and Specific Relief Act cases. There is further specialization in the Commercial Division, in that, all Islamic Banking (Muamalat) cases are heard by a judge in this Division, who in addition, also hears other commercial cases.

(iv) The Appellate and Special Powers Division

The Appellate and Special Powers Division hears appeals from the subordinate courts, cases under the Legal Profession Act 1976 and judicial review of administrative actions and under specific Acts.

(v) Family Division

Formerly, the Family Court was part of the Civil Division. Now, it is a Division by itself and hearing matrimonial cases under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

Deputy Registrars and Senior Assistant Registrars

High Court judges are assisted by Deputy Registrars and Senior Assistant Registrars who are appointed under section 10 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. The Deputy Registrars and Senior Assistant Registrars hear interlocutory matters in Chambers, do research for the judges, and also perform administrative duties, such as overseeing
the running of their respective courts’ registries.

THE SUBORDINATE COURTS

Subordinate courts consist of the Sessions Court, the Magistrate’s Court and the Court for Children. A Sessions Court is presided by a Sessions Court judge while a Magistrate’s Court and a Court for Children are presided by magistrates.

Sessions Court

A Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to hear both criminal and civil cases. At present there are eighty seven Sessions Court judges throughout Malaysia.

Appointment

A Sessions Court judge is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the respective Chief Judges
(section 59 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948).

Sittings

The court sits everyday except on public holidays.

Jurisdiction

Criminal

A Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to try all offences other than offences punishable with death. Except for the sentence of death, a Sessions Court may pass any sentence including natural life sentence (sections 63 and 64 of the Subordinate
Courts Act 1948).

Magistrates' Court

The Magistrates’ Courts have jurisdiction to hear both criminal and civil cases. At present there are one hundred and fifty one Magistrates throughout Malaysia.

Appointment

For the Federal Territory, magistrates are appointed by Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Chief Judge. In each of the States, magistrates are appointed by the State Authority on the recommendation of the respective Chief
Judges (section 78 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948). Sittings The court sits everyday except on public holidays.

Jurisdiction

Criminal

A First Class Magistrate has jurisdiction to try all offences for which the maximum sentence does not exceed ten years imprisonment or with fine only (section 85 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948).

Civil

A First Class Magistrate has the jurisdiction to hear all actions and suits of a civil nature where the amount in dispute or value of the subject matter does not exceed RM25,000.00 (section 90 of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948).

Court For Children

A Court for Children was established under the Child Act 2001. Section 2 of the Act defines “Child” as a person under the age of eighteen years, and for the purposes of criminal proceedings, means a person who has attained the age of ten.

Composition

The Court shall consist of a magistrate and shall, as the case may require, be assisted by two advisors (section 11(2) Child Act 2001).

Sittings

No person shall be present in any sitting of this court except among others members and officers of the court and the children who are parties to the case including their parents or guardians (section 12 of the Child Act 2001).

Sentence or Orders

If a child is found guilty of an offence, he shall not be imprisoned, but among others, may either be sent to an approved school or released on bail. For capital offences, the child shall be detained in prison at the pleasure of the Ruler (sections 91-97 of the Child Act 2001).

<< http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/courts/judicialEN.shtml#tfc >>

Court rules that Google breaches copyright with news service

Last week on the class we had and discussion with our lecturer about it. Is Google breaches copyrights law ??? it seems it does !!!! 

A Belgian court has told Google that its news service 'Google News' breaches copyright by linking to articles without the owners' consent.

Google, the internet seach engine, has been told that its popular news service Google News - which assimilates articles from various newspapers and other sites - breaches copyright law.

A Brussels court has ruled in favour of a group of Belgian newspapers which argued that the site, which lists links to news stories from around the world, used material without their consent, and ordered that the articles be taken down.

Google, which says that it has removed the offending content, claimed that its service was “entirely legal” and has said that it will appeal against the decision.

There was “no exception” for Google in copyright law, the Brussels Court of First Instance said, ruling that the company must pay a retroactive fine of €25,000 for each day the content remained on the site.

The case, which was brought by Copiepresse, a group representing 17 French and German language newspapers, including La Libre Belgique and Le Soir, may set a precedent for other newspapers in Europe, lawyers said.

The group had complained that Google’s ‘cached’ links - which refer users to older articles - offered access to content that would usually be paid for on a subscription basis.

“We confirm that that the activities of Google News, the reproduction of headlines as well as short extracts, and the use of Google’s cache, the publicly available data storage of articles and documents, violate the law on authors’ rights,” the ruling said.

Google, which said its lawyers were still examining the judgment, said that it was “disappointed” with the decision and would appeal.

“We only ever show the headlines and a few snippets of text and small thumbnail images. If people want to read the entire story they have to click through to the newspaper’s website,” the company said in a statement.

Analysts said they could not understand why the group, which has filed a similar action against Yahoo!, was pursuing the case, and that newspapers benefited from having stories indexed on Google News, which made their sites more prominent and boosted traffic.

“It’s utterly mad what they’re doing,” David Bradshaw, principal analyst with Ovum, said. “Google makes you relevant, it helps people find you. I can’t see how these people think being listed would be damaging.”

A London-based intellectual property lawyer who would not be named said: “I can’t imagine this will be the last word, and I doubt it will be a decision that is followed elsewhere.”

But David Hooper, a partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain in London said that the case could give rise to similar actions, and that Google’s ‘cache’ service allowed users to avoid paying subscription fees.

“Google has a tendency to think about the cash first and ask questions later,” Mr Hooper said.

Last year Google delayed plans for a Danish news website after newspapers complained, and in 2005 the company was sued by the French news agency Agence France Presse for linking to its content for free.

Google shares were up nearly half a percent to $460.44 in trading on the Nasdaq trading today.










<<http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article1380837.ece>>

Sanctions On Cybercrime

Did you know that Cybercrime costs a cool one trillion dollars worldwide in 2009?
be sure now is more and more than even last year. I always thinking to myself why the worldwide community dosen't have any plan to solve this or just make it less, until tonight i found the EU Countries found them self in a dangerous situation and they all agreed to do sanctions against people conducting cyber attacks. 


Under the new rules, which have to be agreed by the European Parliament, hackers would face a sentence of at least five years if found guilty of causing serious damage to IT systems.

Tougher penalties would also affect perpetrators of attacks through botnets -- networks of infected computers programed to send spam emails -- and target identity theft. Illegally intercepting data would become a criminal offence in the EU.

The EU's 27 member states have also decided to boost their judicial and police cooperation by creating a cybercrime unit which could be attached to Europol, the European police agency.

"We will be able to take steps in the future based on that broad support from member states," Hungary's Justice and Public Administration Minister Tibor Navracsics told reporters after meeting his counterparts in Luxembourg.

Governments across the world are rushing to come up with cyber security strategies because of mounting concerns over criminal hacking and state-on-state electronic warfare.

In February, France suffered an attack before a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Paris and EU institutions were targeted on the eve of a summit of European leaders in March.

This week, 200,000 Citigroup card holders' information was accessed by hackers, after a string of companies such as Google , Sony Corp, Nintendo, Lockheed Martin were also attacked.


<<http://www.crime-research.org/news/13.06.2011/3874/>>

Internet And Drugs

Wooow again selling drug within the Internet Cost a Belgian citizen 850,000 $ and also 48 months in Federal Jail.

KANSAS CITY, KAN. – Manuel Calvelo, 37, a citizen of Belgium, has been sentenced to 48

months in federal prison on charges of operating an Internet pharmacy that sold misbranded and

counterfeit drugs as well as controlled substances, U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said today. The

court also ordered a forfeiture money judgment of more than $850,000 on the proceeds of the

crime.

Calvelo, who was arrested in Costa Rica and extradited to Kansas, pleaded guilty to one count of

conspiracy to defraud the United States and one count of conspiracy to commit drug trafficking.

In his plea, he admitted that from 2005 to 2008 he and another man operated Web sites offering

for sale without a prescription misbranded and counterfeit drugs to customers in the United

States in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Calvelo’s Web sites offered for sale more than 40 prescription drugs including brand names

Viagra, Depakote, Glucophage, Zoloft, Lipitor, Cialis, Xanax, Ativan and Klonopin. Controlled

substances for sale from the Web site included Alprazolam (sold under the brand name Xanax),

Lorazapam (Ativan) and Clonazepam (Klonopin). Under federal law, the crime of misbranding

includes dispensing a prescription drug without a valid prescription from a licensed practitioner.

“This investigation and today’s sentencing reflect the seriousness of importing counterfeit and

misbranded pharmaceutical drugs into the United States,” said Patrick J. Holland, Special Agent

in Charge of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations’ Kansas City Field Office. “We will

continue to investigate and pursue this type of criminal activity and to ensure the safety of the

pharmaceutical drug supply.”

Calvelo’s Web sites included cheapestviagraworldwide.com, allcheapdrugs.com,

allcheappills.com, cheapdrugspharmacy.com, allmedspharmacy.net, allnaturalpharmacy.com,

horizonpharmacy.net, and trustgeneric.com.

Calvelo’s Web sites accepted orders from buyers in the United States and elsewhere. He

operated a customer service call center in the Philippines and issued payments to employees

through wire transfers via Western Union in the Philippines, Costa Rica and the United States.

He also received payments from customers via credit card processors in the Netherlands.

From early in 2007 to early in 2008, Calvelo paid a company in Overland Park, Kan., for hosting

his Web sites. In 2008, he transferred the hosting of some of the Web sites to a company in

Columbus, Ohio.

In 2007, an undercover agent from the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal

Investigations made purchases from Calvelo’s Web sites. The agent later contacted Calvelo

through the Costa Rica Off-Shore Business Center posing as a pharmaceutical wholesaler in the

United States seeking to establish an on-line pharmacy. In conversations with the agent via video

conference calls on Skype, Calvelo admitted his role in the Internet pharmacy scheme and

provided details of the operation.

Co-defendant Jeffrey Westmoreland, 35, a citizen of Canada, is a fugitive.

Grissom commended the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigation, John

Claud of the Justice Department’s Office of Consumer Protection Litigation and Assistant U.S.

Attorney Scott Rask for their work on the case.

In all cases, defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. The indictments

filed merely contain allegations of criminal conduct.

<<http://www.cybercrime.gov/calveloSent.pdf