We all know Microsoft is working on the successor to OneCare -- Security Essentials is currently in beta testing and should be ready for public consumption any time now. It's a decent protection package, and should help protect users from things like nefarious fake antivirus apps and other "scareware."

But Microsoft has decided to go one better. After all, simply removing infections or blocking them isn't all that detrimental to the bottom feeders who are pushing the malicious apps. They've now launched a second wave of attacks using one of the deadliest weapons in the Redmond arsenal: lawyers.

Reuters reports that Microsoft has filed suit against several "malvertisers," low-lifes responsible for things like the recent pop-up scare on the New York Times website. The case targets several cheesily-named businesses including "Soft Solutions," "Direct Ad," "qiweroqw.com," "ITmeter Inc" and "ote2008.info."

Microsoft hopes to uncover the actual identities of those responsible. Regardless of your feelings for Microsoft, I think we can all agree that it would be nice for this lawsuit to hit the bad guys where it hurts - in their ill-gotten bank account balances.

Google has been issued a subpoena for the IP addresses of some Caribbean journalists, and intends to hand them over, according to WikiLeaks. In case you're not familiar WikiLeaks is meant to be a safe place for whistleblowers to post politically sensitive documents, particularly those dealing with government corruption. TCI Journal, based in the Turks & Caicos Islands, uncovered a huge payoff from a property development company to one of the island's top government officials. After the scandal blew, the British government took over control of the islands from the corrupt government.

Now, corrupt developers are using a subpoena to get the IP address behind the newspaper's Gmail account, and Google doesn't appear to be fighting it. A letter from Google to the Journal indicates that they'll be handing over the IP addresses in two weeks, and suggests the Journal take things up with the court in California if that's going to be a problem. If Google's setting a precedent here, that could be a problem for any Gmail user who finds himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit. I suspect online privacy watchdogs will take Google to task not only for failing to anonymize its records, but for turning them over without a fight.

In response to a lawsuit by famed baseball manager Tony LaRussa, Twitter has decided to speed up the process of launching those verified accounts we've been hearing buzz about for the past few months.

In a post on the Twitter blog, Biz Stone asserts that while there's no way Twitter's going to pay off LaRussa after their support team got rid of the impostor, they're going to keep this kind of thing from happening in the future by adding a special badge to the accounts of notable people whose identities they can verify.

Because of the resources required, this is going to roll out slowly, starting with "public officials, public agencies, famous artists, athletes, and other well known individuals at risk of impersonation." Businesses won't be included in the initial test.

There's no launch date specified yet, but Twitter has begun to answer the sticky question of how they plan to verify the accounts. Apparently, a link to a Twitter account from the celebrity's official website is going to do the trick.

A North Dakota judge issued a ruling in Sierra Corporate Design v. Ritz that has some pretty stunning implications about the use of the "host -l" command when accessing DNS records. In the judgment (which was prepared by the plaintiff's counsel and sent to the judge), the use of the "host -l" command is tantamount to computer hijacking and hacking.

For the uninitiated, when using the "host -l" command on a DNS server, the user will receive a list (hence the "l") of all information pertaining to the domain's zone file, assuming it has not been protected. The same way WHOIS returns information on the owner of a domain, "host -l" returns information about hosts on that domain.

And although this was a civil matter, this ruling could (and we stress could, no need getting ahead of ourselves) lead to "unauthorized" "host-l" usage to be deemed a criminal act, per North Dakota's computer crime statute.

Before even discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of the case in question, this judgment just strikes us as uninformed, bizarre and wrong. The "host -l" command when accessing DNS records does not reveal any information that is not set for public display. The plaintiff's contention in this case was that the information obtained by "host -l," non-routable IP addresses, host names and domain registrations was not meant to be publicly accessible. Because the defendant was able to procure this information and published it in various USENET groups, the plaintiff claims that the act was a violation of the computer crime statute.

Here's the problem: "host -l" will only show information that the administrator has allowed to be public. Just because it is a DNS command that many computer users are unaware of does not mean that leaving information that one wishes to remain undisclosed is safe.

The RIAA may be coming around in the slightest way from its strategy of suing fans, customers and grandmothers. Piracy has grown, not shrunk, since the RIAA legal assault on families began, with recent numbers indicating that 7.2 million households download music illegitimately.

According to TG Daily, an RIAA spokesman said, "What is the most important anti-piracy strategy is aggressive licensing and offering great legal alternatives. That is what our member companies obviously do and our job is to complement that, which is the most important thing to do to win over fans."

At least someone in power is starting to see that suing all your customers and fans isn't a great way to do business.

Recently, when a counterclaim was filed by Ms. Del Cid against the RIAA containing allegations of Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse, Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Civil Extortion, and Civil conspiracy, we published a short editorial on our perception of the unfolding events. Del Cid's allegations are quite serious; in her and her lawyer's view the RIAA broke serious criminal statutes while amassing evidence for their case.

Our editorializing seems to have ruffled the feathers of an IFPI executive who is now threatening action, not against us, but against another blog who simply linked to our piece. In an effort to quell what Paul Birch of Revolver Records calls, "malicious statements and blogs on the internet" he has threatened Andrew Dubber of the blog New Music Strategies with veiled words about lawsuits, and by directly threatening to file a formal complaint against him with the University of Central England, Dubber's employer. All because in the course of discussion on the topic Andrew Dubber's blog follows exclusively he felt it relevant to link to something we wrote.

Shame on you Mr. Birch.

We may not like hot dogs Mr. Birch. However, when we see someone eating one we don't attempt to knock it out of his hand, we simply continue to eat our hamburger and remind ourselves that the hot dog eater is free to hold whatever belief, preference or opinion he wishes. If the juicy hamburger of opinion we attempted to share with our readers offends you, you have every right to say so. Threatening the career of another human being who shares our distaste for hot dogs is unethical and wrong. Just as it would be if we slapped the hot dog from your hand.

The defendant in this case has every right to file counterclaim against your sister organization, the RIAA and we have every right to offer opinion on that counterclaim. Andrew Dubber has every right to link to our opinion in the course of conversation. These are all luxuries we enjoy and obligations we undertake as members of an advanced and free society. You also have the legal right to complain to anyone about whatever you deem worthy of complaint; Ethically and professionally however, you've planted yourself on rather shaky ground.

Let me make perfectly clear; We'd do it again. I've personally followed the RIAA/BPI/IFPI's litigious nonsense for years, writing many widely read and well respected articles on the subject. I've never, nor has anyone who writes for this blog, made any threatening statements -- as Paul Birch claims -- or given more than opinion from the perspective of a music fan, computer expert and hobby-grade legal analyst. RIAA lawsuits are a subject we feel passionate about; Not because we support widespread and rampant piracy but because we are dedicated to individuals like ourselves who increasingly come under attack from corporate interests, and the erosion of fair use rights. We firmly believe that the RIAA's legal tactics are unfair, advantageous and despicable, and we know quite well the stories of lives which have been torn apart financially and, emotionally by their incorrectly aimed "scattergun" approach to legal action.

If Paul Birch would like to discuss how he feels we've been wrong -- how we've "singled out RIAA management" for malicious statements -- we welcome his inquiry. I'd personally love to discuss the concept of malice with a high-ranking executive in the music business.

Paul, you can personally reach me, Grant Robertson, the Lead Blogger of Download Squad by email or through our comment system. I look forward to your reply.

Update: Andrew Dubber's blog has gone off-line for reasons which are still unclear. Jon Newton of P2Pnet has republished the email exchange between Dubber and Birch in full, Thanks Jon!

After Microsoft made the claim that Linux infringes on 235 of its patents, some folks became worried that the company might begin suing companies who use OSS. Even individual users have launched a 'Sue Me First' campaign, challenging the company to "put its lawyers where its mouth is" and prove the patent infringement.

Fortunately, Microsoft might not attempt to succeed where the SCO failed - at least not yet, anyway. In a statement emailed to ZDNet UK (though, strangely, posted on ZDNet Asia), a Microsoft spokesperson assured us that they would not litigate for now. "If we wanted to go down that road we could have done that three years ago" said Mr. Spokesperson. Funny - everyone was kinda under the impression that Microsoft has already been there, done that (for a recap on Microsoft's relationship with the SCO: MS was apparently funding the SCO's patent litigation efforts against IBM and their use of Linux).

The latest theory that takes into account this promise of no immediate litigation is that Microsoft is simply trying to scare OSS-slinging businesses into rethinking their position. Perhaps Redmond can convince these companies to rejoin the red, green, blue and yellow side of the fence - or at least into OSS that is sanctioned by Microsoft and/or Novell.

It's still early on in this whole patent infringement situation Microsoft has drudged up again, but the company surely isn't hurting for cash with which to fuel their army of lawyers. Still, during a time where Microsoft's reputation is likely at an all-time low and users are switching in record numbers to free and/or fruitier pastures, pulling a stunt like suing users or even businesses that pick up copies of software they haven't yet proven is infringing on anything isn't the brightest move they could make.

[via Slashdot]

Social networks are great for meeting people and checking out what interests others. But what happens when social networks go bad? We have all heard about the issues MySpace and other networks have with predators lurking, and now we get to hear a bit more about the spamming that affects social networks. MySpace has filed a lawsuit against an individual who has apparently sent millions of spam notes advertising ring tones, shirts and other products and services to users on their network under the Can-Spam Act. The lawsuit aims to bar the man in question, and his companies, from using MySpace, and will also seek monetary damages that are currently unknown. Information Week discovered that this isn't the first legal case for this person. Microsoft had a run-in with the individual who is known as a top spammer, and won a $7 million settlement in 2005. MySpace has been working hard lately trying to clean up their image by taking on predators on their network, and it looks like they will also be coming down hard on spammers and individuals that are running sketchy commercial activities through the social network.

It looks like the strategy to take when sued by the RIAA is to move for summary judgment based on lack of evidence. That's worked twice now, as an Oklahoma mom and her lawyer have been able to gain a dismissal with prejudice of Capitol Records v. Foster.

It gets better. The defendant made a motion for summary judgment, which is akin to calling someone else's bluff at a poker table. The legal equivalent of saying "Put up or shut up", if you will. When pressed with the motion, the RIAA made its own motion.. for the door. The judge approved the RIAA's motion to withdraw the case, leaving Ms. Foster, at least partially, vindicated.