Online Daters Be-Aware - The Social Software Weblog - socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com

Online Daters Be-Aware - The Social Software Weblog - socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com

PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy Law- thanks for the NY schools and FERPA pointer

PIPEDA and Canadian Privacy LawAnd thanks to privacyspot.com for directing David to this article. I missed it and work in NY with schools every day. :-(

I'll post something about FERPA shortly.

New York Daily News - Home - Secret school files dumped

New York Daily News - Home - Secret school files dumpedThere are many laws now voering document disposal, and FERPA covers information relating to students.

I am a big fan of NY City schools, but we need to make sure that everyone understand the importance of personal information and proper destruction procedures.

this is a lesson to us all.

Parry

Thanksgiving....and friends who have recently passed

It's 7am and I have just put the turkey into the oven. I've been cooking for days (hence the lack of any meaningful posts here at my blog). The house is quiet and I am awake. It's likely that I am the only who will be awake in my house for several hours.

In this quiet, it's easy to reflect. Today is Thanksgiving in the United States. It's the day we celebrate as a nation. We celebrate the first meal of the Pilgrims after they had settled in the "new world" in Plymouth. We celebrate our families. We, hopefully, remember to be thankful. And, at least once a year, as we sit around our dinner table, we share the things we are thankful for.

Our children tend to start off being thankful for a new bike, or computer game, or iPod. The cook is thankful that the turkey (the traditional main course for Thanksgiving dinner in the US) is cooked and ready to be eaten. The Red Sox fans are thankful that their team finally won a World's Series, and the Yankee fans (consider me one) are thankful the news is focusing on other things. :-)

And each of us is thankful for our jobs, our health and our well-being.

Each year, sadly, we are thankful for having known someone who is no longer with us. Each year brings with it poignant memories of the people who have left our lives. And our thanks for having known them. And each year brings with it new people that are now helping to fill our lives. And new trials and tribulations. New joys, New challenges.

This year the things for which I am especially thankful include:
All of my column readers and my blog readers, who make this much more fun and sometimes keep me on my toes;
The wonderful people at Information Week who try and make sense out of my ramblings and turn them into a column that delivers an understandable message;
The incredible people who volunteer for WiredSafety.org and help others each day;
My best friend, Lanell, who reminds me that life is not a blog :-);
Members of law enforcement for helping us stop predators online who prey on our children, and our financial information:
The techies out there who teach us how to do that :-);
The librarians and teachers for guiding our children online and offline;
My teenangels (teenangels.org) and the new younger version, tweenangels;
The incredible people at Marvel for their generous donation of their characters to teach online safety, privacy and responsible surfing worldwide;
My family for letting me ignore the laundry, and sitting and watching television with them because I am "online" ;
eBay for letting me buy what I need (or think I need) any hour of the day or night;
Citibank for keeping my creditcard information secure and protecting my identity online so I can buy things on eBay;

and most of all...

To Ron Plesser, a dear friend, honored colleague and brilliant privacy lawyer, who passed away last week of a heart attack. (You can visit http://ronplesser.blogspot.com to see how many other people are thankful for having known him too.) Privacy law and policy will never be the same.

Ron was one of the greats. There are a few privacy lawyers (many of them now professors or running advocacy groups) that helped form privacy law and policy in the US and, in Ron's case, worldwide. Each is known for some slight piece of the puzzle. Ron was best known for his belief that commercial interests and consumer interests can co-exist, and that being responsible in the privacy arena is good for business. He represented the big players, and the revolutionary ones.

He represented AOL in the early days when privacy policy formation was crucial. He represented the Direct Marketing Assocation when they were under siege for online marketing practices. He represented Tivo, and helped frame a policy that allows us to be comfortable knowing that this little device has information about our watching habits no one should have unless they are trustworthy. He represented Geocities in the FTC matter when they were facing privacy and consumer law violations and helped them handle that without the devastating impact it could have been if any other lawyer had been representing them.

I remember when he and I were on an FTC privacy panel together. My name plate said "Parry Aftab, Cyberspace Lawyer." His said "Ron Plesser, Direct marketing Association." (He must have been speaking on their behalf.) Ron, when he took the microphone, jokingly complained that he wanted to be a "cyberspace lawyer" too. Why was I given that title and not him?

That's how it was in the early days between Ron and me. I was a much later player on the privacy law scene. I didn't "do" Washington, didn't know the key players on Capitol Hill, or the right people in the White House (at least not then). I didn't join the other privacy groups and kept to myself as a privacy lawyer.

Ron and I had a competitive relationship, but both liked and respected the other. I was flattered that Ron thought I was capable of competing in any way with him. He was a privacy giant. He had started out with Nader, had written most of the laws I was struggling to understand, and had clients...the kind who paid him when the bills went out. The kind of clients I would have killed for then. But, the FTC gave me a name plate saying "cyberspace lawyer." (I think it is because I never had a client willing to pay me to speak at an FTC workshop. :-)) And in the subtle world of privacy compliance that meant something, to me and to Ron.

Ron and I circled each other for years. We would laugh at each other's jokes and trade opinions at conferences and on roundtables and conferences. We respected each other. (I suspect that I respected Ron more than he respected me in those early years, but nonetheless....) I would go to him on hard problems for his take on an issue. His take was always unique, always practical and always made sense.

He made it look easy.

Ron was part of a big firm, Piper Marbury, but I never thought of him that way. I instead saw him always as "Ron Plesser" privacy lawyer extraordinaire :-). That got me into trouble one day. And that trouble turned Ron and me into friends from competitive lawyers.

At an FTC workshop in California, I had been asked to speak on children's privacy issues. A young woman was on the panel with me, and was identified as being from Warner Brothers. I did a substantial portion of the big media companies' children's privacy work in those days, but didn't represent Warner. Warner was always on my wish list though. (The were still separate from AOL in those days.)

After our panel was over, I approached this woman and the person wearing the Warner nametag. I hoped to be able to do work for them and began my pitch.

"Who does your kids privacy work?" I asked. He explained that Piper Marbury did. I used that as an opening to explain our specilializing in kids online privacy and how we knew more about it than Piper Marbury did. (I was a lot more arrogant and desperate for new business then. :-)) I watched everyone's faces turn red, and didn't understand why until the co-panelist turned to me and identified herself as their lawyer at Piper Marbury. (Like Ron himself at the previous conference, she was representing her client and her nameplate said "Warner Brothers" instead of her firm.) (The moral of the story is never believe a name plate at an FTC conference. :-))

My law partner, Nancy Savitt, was standing next to me at the time. She was never very proud of me when I tried to promote our work at events, but this time, she gasped audibly. Everyone did.

I gulped and figured "in for a penny, in for a pound" and tried to convince her that we did know more about kids privacy than her firm did. She silenced me with two words - "Ron Plesser."

I was so used to seeing him with clients' names on his name plate, that I didn't know that he was at Piper Marbury. I immediately conceded and left to lick my wounds. But I was worried that my rudeness and outright outrageous behavior would be unforgiveable to Ron.

So, I did what any self-respecting cowardly lawyer would do. I sent my kind, mild-mannered parnter ahead of me. I asked her to call Ron and explain.

He was in DC, and we were in San Francisco (as I recall), and only a few minutes had passed, but he already had been informed. Nancy explained whatever she could and probably fell on the same sword she usually did "You know Parry." That meant several different things that everyone in those days understood. (I think it means other things now, but let's not go there...:-))

It meant "she means well," "You know she had no self-control," "we're a little firm and need to meet our payroll," "she's more little kid than adult lawyer," and "what was she thinking!? was she even thinking at all?" (putting the best gloss on it, she was my partner afterall.)

Ron told her to have me call him.

I felt like a kid being called to the principal's office or waiting until my father got home. I dreaded making that call. I procrastinated. I did things that had been sitting waiting for me to do for years. I cleaned out my dayplanner, my file and even started a diet and exercise program. Anything to delay the inevitable. And it was an inevitable. Ron and I were on the same panels too often, called for interviews in the same articles too often and frankly, I respected him too much for me to get away without calling him.

Nancy came into my office one day, handed me Ron's number and told me to dial. I was relieved to find his voice mail. I uttered some quick apology, made a joke and hung up. But Nancy wouldn't let me off the hook so easily. I had to call him back a few hours later.

This time he answered.

I cleared my throat a few times, made a few more jokes and then faced him. I had disparaged his firm and his practice (even though i didn't know it was his at the time), tried to steal a client and had done it at an event where everyone knew everyone. I apologized and explained that had I known he was at the firm, I wouldn't ever had said the things I did.

God bless the man. He laughed. He was big enough that I was a minor annoyance, not a major problem. And others had tried and in some cases (not often) managed to poach his clients before, just as he poached the clients of others. That's what lawyers do.

I think he was genuinely hurt to hear that I had disparaged him and his practice. When he heard it wasn't him I was disparaging, he laughed. He then invited me to lunch the next time I was in DC and after the third time we had lunch told me to stop grovelling. The slight was forgotten.

A few lunches later, he agreed to sit on the advisory board of the charity I run protecting children online. A few more and he asked me if Nancy and I were interested in joining his firm. (We thanked him, but neither of us wanted to work at a big firm again.) And then, like a sword forged with fire and ice and lots of tempering, we became good friends.

Ron was a Washington insider. His advice was always valuable. But his friendship and his smile were worth far more than his view on the latest bill pending on privacy.

Ron was a good man. He was a loving husband (speaking of his wife and how the deserved the time in their lives when they could focus on each other and nothing else frequently the week before his untimely heart attack), and father (speaking about his children and how things were finally falling into line and he knew they would become wonderful adults).

And now he is gone. before I had a chance to ask him enough, or thank him enough or learn from him enough or tell him how much he will be missed...

I lost a friend and trusted colleague. The world lost a brilliant privacy leader and legal mind. Piper lost their best. We all lost a special person.

So today, at dinner, I will be thankful for having had the opportunity to know him, and learn what he taught me and laugh at his jokes and perhaps for having been taught to think before speaking and to be a bit more humble.

Amen.

for Ron.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Parry

Enterprise Security Today (Online Security): NewsFactor Network - Intrusion - Hacker Exploit Spreads Virus Through Banner Ads

Enterprise Security Today (Online Security): NewsFactor Network - Intrusion - Hacker Exploit Spreads Virus Through Banner Ads

InformationWeek > Privacy And P2P > The Privacy Lawyer: P2P Networks: The Other Risks > November 22, 2004

InformationWeek > Privacy And P2P > The Privacy Lawyer: P2P Networks: The Other Risks > November 22, 2004

Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (July 2002)

Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (July 2002)a government guide on searching and seizing computers.

Amici brief filed on behalf of Senator Patrick Leahy in support of a reversal of the Councilman decision

Supplemental brief by Amici in Councilman rehearing

USCA1 Opinion 03-1383ORD Court of Appeals order for a rehearing en banc and vacating the prior appellate decision

USCA1 Opinion 03-1383ORD

Amici brief in support of rehearing en banc of the Councilman decision

The DOJ brief in support of a rehearing en banc of the Councilman decision

Councilman decision - stored communications/wiretap law on an e-mail service provider accessing client's e-mails.

This is the underlying original decision that has created a great deal of controversy. The court held that the book seller's accessing its customers e-mails sent to Amazon was not a violation of teh wire tap laws, but merely a violation of the stored communications laws. Since the Department of Justice had failed to charge the company with a stored communications violation, the defendant was not convicted of the charges.

See analysis in this blog of the facts underlying the case.

New York Daily News - Home - Rape rap for hip-hop model agency scout

New York Daily News - Home - Rape rap for hip-hop model agency scout

Ron Plesser - a trbute blog to share your stories and thoughts about this wonderful man.

Ron Plesser

Ron Plesser...a brilliant, caring and wonderful man and privacy lawyer

Today I received the sad news that a man I adored, a lawyer I revered and a trusted advisor dies of a heart attack yesterday.

He was loved and will be sorely missed. When I can compose myself, I will write more about him here and in my column.

Parry

FTC finalizes federal document disposal rule to help reduce identity theft risks

campaignaudit.org - an interesting project from students at the Un. of Washington, Seattle

campaignaudit.org

CNN.com - Court strikes�a good balance in file swapping case - Nov 11, 2004

CNN.com - Court strikes�a good balance in file swapping case - Nov 11, 2004Pennsylvania court requires ISPs to provide advance notice to defendants in copyright infringement cases, while still protecting their anonymity during 21 day notice period. Look for my legal analysis of the decision in an upcoming The Privacy Lawyer column for informationweek.com.

Petco's FTC action...what were they thinking? a Parry rant

Petco…What were you thinking!?!

Today the FTC announced the settlement of a complaint brought against Petco for security breaches and their failure to adhere to their privacy promises at their website. Since 2001 the petco.com website has had broad privacy statements and security promises to induce e-commerce and trust. And the FTC has determined that they made promises they didn’t keep.

I’m not sure which is more unforgiveable, companies that play fast and loose with our credit card information to steal it, or those that play fast and loose with it because they aren’t thinking. E-commerce is selling far more than pet food. It is, and has to be, selling trust. And they have to be worthy of that trust.

What were they thinking? Their statement sounds more like a PR firm wrote it, not a lawyer or anyone with an eye to risk management or technology. “[S]trictly protected against any unauthorized access,” “provides a “100% Safeguard Your Shopping Experience Guarantee” so you never have to worry about the safety of your credit card information.”

No one who thinks about it ever offers a claim of anything online being “strictly protected against any unauthorized access.” No one could and pass the “red face test.” (That’s a legal test I use when the statement you are making is so outrageous, no one could make it without blushing.) You can make access harder, and add protective measures. You can promise to reimburse your customers if anyone steals their credit card information. You can do many things but provide strict protection against any unauthorized access.

But wait. There’s more!

They claim to have a secure server and that they encrypt the information so no one else can access it. But the FTC found that they weren’t using secure servers or encryption as promised. And even worse, the credit card information inputted by their customers was easily accessible by anyone who wanted to steal it and had a knowledge of coding.

And, just in case you missed the first few promises, they made two more.

They promised that “your personal data is strictly shielded from unauthorized access.” And their promises meant “you never ha[d] to worry about the safety of your credit card information.”

I would much prefer I could rank about a sleazeball company, not one that donates time and money to protect homeless animals. I would prefer that I could demonize a company I don’t buy from. But perhaps this means more. Perhaps it will have a bigger impact because Petco is a household name and otherwise trusted retailer.

This case should be a wake-up call to all e-commerce providers. If you aren’t going to take your customers’ trust seriously and protect them from security risks online, you’re in the wrong business. Consumers are entitled to be protected. They are also entitled to believe and rely on your promises. Dig out your policies and make sure your promises are reliable.

You should be worthy of the trust your customers give you.

And if you won’t protect them, the FTC will.

Amen.

The FTC Complaint against Petco for website security gaps

.Petco Settles FTC Charges

Petco Settles FTC ChargesFTC settled a claim with Petco today about their website and lack of security practices to protect consumer's creditcard data.

What have teens and kids taught us about movie piracy?

When Information Week ran an article about movie piracy in Fall 2003, I was interviewed as the expert on what kids were doing. I, in turn, asked my experts, my teenangels (Teenangels.org, note that teenangels.com is a porn site.) I had no idea, until then, how prevalent movie piracy was. We all know about the movie pirates selling DVDs on the corner in Chinatown and at flea markets. But few of us know about movie piracy, how it is done and where files of that size can be stored without crashing our systems. I was in that group.

I confidently asked a group of my Teenangels during one of their training sessions if they had ever heard of kids downloading movies online. All hands went up. I then asked them if any of them had ever downloaded a motion picture. That’s when I was stunned as several of my elite teens, trained by the FBI, decided to look out the window, under the table and into their laps. They looked everywhere but into my eyes. I sat down in shock. I was truly stunned.

It wasn’t the first time, and certainly won’t be the last time that my Teenangels have surprised me. But this was a new abuse issue that had gotten in under MY radar. That doesn’t happen often. But I was blindsided. The teens admitted to downloading the latest Harry Potter movie before it had even hit the movie theaters. And they didn’t have those shadowy, shot by a home video camera in the movie theater versions. They had studio prints, as good as the copy of that same movie we will be able to buy, years later.

After making them all swear that they would never ever ever ever do it again, I asked them how they did it. Most downloaded them on P2P networks, as they do music. They burn them to DVDs and store them on the enormous hard drives they all seem to have these days. And more importantly, they got them from their older brothers and sisters, cousins and friends in college.

So I went to our TeenAngels alumni, all of whom were now in college and asked them about the problem. They told me that many college kids are downloading and sharing motion pictures online. They have the new releases early enough to avoid having to pay the $10 and more per person to sit in a movie theater. And while many of the movies are shadowy in-theater shoots, many more are studio prints, director’s cuts and review copies.

They don’t have to resort to burning expensive DVDs either, since the college servers are so enormous and most college students have access to large unallocated server space.

They also briefed me on the extensive efforts being expended by universities to stem piracy of music, movies and software. Acceptable use policies were rewritten warning them of the consequences of illegal downloads and media piracy. They were educated on copyright and other intellectual property issues. They had to sign agreements not to pirate or misuse media as a condition to being given access to the university networks. And some students were expelled when they violated those agreements.

All of this was the result of an educational and awareness campaign launched by the MPAA and the RIAA. But, apparently, it wasn’t terribly effective. When forced to choose between rising movie theater ticket prices and stealing a movie for your nearest and dearest 100 dorm-mates, from a college student’s perspective, there isn’t much of a choice.

The upcoming lawsuits might make a difference here. My informal polls of teens and college students shows me that many will stop pirating movies if they think they will be sued. The real problem we face is that most don’t think it will happen to them and play the odds.

So, we need to find a way to get the message across to them that the MPAA means business. They know what they are doing is illegal (see, “Movies are Different”). But it’s important that they know they could face the consequences of their actions. It’s time to get their attention.

But lawsuits alone are not the answer. The MPAA knows this and has delayed their lawsuits for many years in an attempt to educate young people. They see the lawsuits as an important, but small part of their overall campaign to stop movie piracy online.

They have several educational programs they have developed, including “You Can Click, But Your Can’t Hide.” They have delivered messages as trailers in movie theaters about the real people impacted by movie piracy. They sat back and watched as the RIAA used privacy-invading methods to force ISPs to turn over the identity of their subscribers.

It’s a great start. But we need to do more to get the kids involved. We need to get them to internalize the message of responsible technology use and respecting intellectual property rights. We need to capture their attention before they get to college and while movie piracy is still an exception not the rule. We need to use methods to get them involved in the solution, instead of only threatening them with the results. Carrots, not just sticks, need to be included in the package.

I have proposed a campaign for children, teens and college students to deliver their own anti-piracy messages in video format. After delivering our intellectual property education, they would find the message that resonates with them and their friends. (We have learned that finding the right message on anti-piracy is like ordering from a Chinese restaurant, one form column A and two from column B. No one message speaks to all kids.) Large competitions could be judged by the motion picture studios and the winning videographers could be invited to Hollywood and their videos featured as trailers on upcoming DVDs. Electronic manufacturers and retailers, video rental outlets, and the motion picture industry unions can all get involved in the campaign. We need to make it as “kewl” to stop piracy as it is to pirate a new movie. If we reward them for their creativity, they will be more likely to respect the creativity of others.

There is some good news, at least for the motion picture industry. While several of my Teenangels had pirated at least one movie before I had confronted them, interestingly enough, many of the others weren’t even aware that motion pictures could be pirated online. It’s mainly an age factor. And we are finding that boys tend to pirate movies earlier and more frequently than girls. (We suspect it’s related to the amount of tech skills, which often comes along with computer gaming. The younger girls who admitted to pirating movies tended to enjoy computer games and were more technologically-skilled than other girls of the same age.)

This tells us several things. It tells us that we still have time to turn motion picture piracy around, even is music piracy is an almost lost cause. It also tells us that young kids still believe in right and wrong.

I just ran a program for a small private school in New York, after returning from a larger event with several hundred 4th graders in Wichita, Kansas. Both groups were appalled that their older counterparts were stealing movies online. One 10 year old even lectured me on the large damages that could be recovered in a lawsuit. (He was close. He said they could recover $250,000, but the real amount for a willful piracy of a movie is $150,000. As you may have guessed already, this boy was from New York and I suspect, a future lawyer. )

We need to get to the kids while they are young and still believe in right and wrong. We need them to remind each other of their ethical obligation as cybercitizens not to abuse the power of the technology. There’s still time to stop movie piracy and teach young people and adults alike that we should be responsible in our technology use. We should all learn to obey the law even when we think we can get away with breaking it. And our children need to be taught this as soon as possible and take this with them as they grow into, hopefully, responsible adults.

That’s the real challenge. And all of us should be supporting efforts like Peers2Peers.org and InternetSuperheroes.org, that get kids involved in creating and delivering their own messages of responsible intellectual property use.

There’s more to anti-piracy than lawsuits. And unless we do something about this soon, the motion picture industry and this generation of our kids will be lost. We need to get the kids on board. And if we catch them young enough, we can.

MPAA and their upcoming lawsuits - a comment for parents

While we are always unhappy to see anyone sued, especially young people, the MPAA has shown an incredible amount of restraint and patience in this matter. They have developed awareness messaging delivered in movie theaters, on television and in print media. They have educated universities and colleges about the piracy issues and have helped them create policies for acceptable use of institutional computer networks. They have delivered an extensive full-page advertisement awareness campaign “You Can Click But You Can’t Hide,” and have begun programs for in-school educational efforts on this important issue. And more will come. But without enforcement actions, unfortunately, education and awareness only go part of the way.

The MPAA has convinced me that they had no choice but add lawsuits to their arsenal of anti-piracy tactics. These lawsuits are a last resort and only a small part of the whole anti-piracy campaign. Sadly, without them, many young people who are stealing motion pictures before they even hit the movie theaters, will continue to steal movies thinking that they have nothing to lose. These law suits and other enforcement efforts will, hopefully, demonstrate that they have a lot to lose by breaking the law. As important as teaching our youth to surf safely and avoid online predators and harmful content is teaching them to be responsible cybercitizens.

Few were as vocal in opposition to the actions of the RIAA as I was. I felt that they had misused a legal loophole, which has since been closed with our help and the help of many privacy advocates and Internet service providers. I also understood the confusion over music downloads, where many young people couldn’t understand why they were not sued for recording music from radio broadcasts, but could be sued for downloading music from the Internet. I wrote a guide for parents and another for teens about downloading music online. I published an FAQ addressing the confusing issues. But movies are different.

I have consistently been vocal on an important distinction between the music piracy debate and motion picture piracy.

Working with thousands of young people, we learned that all of them knew that downloading a motion picture pre-theater release is wrong and is illegal. It feels wrong as well. They don’t readily admit to movie piracy and are often ashamed to admit that they have pirated movies. Notwithstanding the lawsuits and huge awareness campaigns delivered by the RIAA, many young Internet users either don’t understand the fine points of listening versus copying, or feel as though they should be allowed to share music online. To them it doesn’t yet feel wrong, and they are open about their music piracy practices. They seek ways of not getting caught, rather than curtailing their piracy activities.

While seeking input from some of my elite Teenangels (teenangels.org) for an article being written for Information Week magazine last year about youth movie piracy, I was shocked to learn that several of the young teens from this particular teenangels chapter admitted to downloading Harry Potter before it hit the movie theaters. Unlike their discussions about downloading music online, the teens wouldn’t meet my eyes. It didn’t take much to get them to agree never to pirate another movie. And, I suspect once we get them involved in delivering their own messages, we can turn this generation around, at least as to motion picture (and eventually software and game) piracy. And, like it or not, strategic law suits are a part of the incentive package needed to turnaround their movie piracy activities.

I earnestly hope that education and awareness will be effective enough that law suits won’t dominate this campaign to stop piracy. But as parents, we need to teach our children to be accountable for their actions. We need to teach them to do what’s right, not just what they can get away with. We need to encourage them to be good citizens, online and offline. Bottomline, it’s not about technology, or even lawsuits, it’s about parenting and helping guide our children to do what’s right.

What happened with music online?

What Went Wrong with Music Online?

Music piracy and wholesale sharing has single-handedly decimated the music industry as we know it. We all know about the music downloading practices of our kids and many of us download music ourselves for various reasons. It is often the default method of acquiring music these days. Even though it’s illegal. Even with the poor quality and security risks. Even with the risks of being sued.

Why did it happen?

When polled, consumers (adults and kids) protested the high price of CDs, the fact that they couldn’t legally buy music online and that they were forced to buy an entire CD even if they only wanted one track. The industry, pre-P2P responded by allowing people to subscribe to music-listening services. They could install a song into the new MP3 players, but if the subscription was not continued, the song would expire. But this model, on its own, never worked. Everyone was buying portable digital players, often sold by the same companies leading the music industry. People wanted to buy one song, and install it into their new digital music players. But the music industry held out. And, unfortunately, held out too long.

The Internet then did what it does best. It routed around an obstruction. The obstruction was the music industry itself and its refusal to sell single tracks of popular artists online. So P2P became the default method of obtaining music. It was easy, it was cheap and it addressed the needs of the music consumers.

The media industry fought P2P in courts, and began a protracted legal strategy, including lawsuits against children and other music downloaders. Unfortunately, the lawsuits seemed to be the main pin in their multi-prong strategy to stop illegal music downloads.

There were rumors that the music industry had salted the P2P files with malicious code, and had otherwise corrupted many music files on P2P networks. While they strongly denied the allegations (and to my knowledge have never been proven to be responsible), many P2P music files were corrupted and many more contained malicious code. People became concerned about the security risks and the quality of their downloads.

At the same time, services such as iTunes and others began to offer single-track music downloads, and eventually single-track music downloads of popular artists and highly desirable albums. These pay-for-play services shortly became available to users of both Macs and PCs, and after some early fallout, became a popular alternative to downloading music from P2P networks fraught with malicious code. Given the legal and security risks, kids everywhere told me it wasn’t worth it to save $.99.

That, in my humble opinion, not the lawsuits, was the beginning of the real solution. The fact that they could now buy high quality, virus free music tracks for $.99 gave them a choice they hadn’t had before. The lawsuits gave them added incentive, but most kids I have spoken with don’t think they would be sued. They were willing to play the odds. But they were unwilling to play the odds on music quality and security of their computers.

But this wasn’t the key answer. And large music industry studios were, in their own ironic was, feeding the demand for stolen downloads of music. They offered portable digital player storage capability of thousands of songs, some more than 10,000 songs. Few consumers had access to that many digital songs they wanted to hear. So, piracy continued just to fill their digital players.

What’s the answer? I wish I knew.
I do know that allowing single-track paid downloads was a major change to the music industry business model. Historically they had always relied on the sale of the entire album to bring the less immediately popular songs to the listeners’ attention. They would often become popular once played a bit. What will this do to that way of finding the next “hit.” And what about music composers and song writers? The “hits” have long supported the other songs in an album. And they claim that they are lowest on the licensing fee totem pole for legal music downloads.

It is clear that what we have known as the music industry business model has to change to survive. The recording industry pre-1998 is over. And now, as they had when the radio became popular, and tape recorders became available, it will have to adapt and find the next business model for selling, licensing and distributing music. I suspect as did video sales for the motion picture industry, they will find a new way to make more money and provide what consumers want.

Let’s all pray that they do. Soon.

There are many different kinds of super heroes. MP Linda Gilroy is one of the best!!! Linda Gilroy - Technology

Linda Gilroy - Technology

Passenger Name Records PNR- InformationWeek > Parry Aftab > The Privacy Lawyer: Actions Must Follow Privacy Mea Culpas > April 26, 2004

InformationWeek > Parry Aftab > The Privacy Lawyer: Actions Must Follow Privacy Mea Culpas > April 26, 2004a quick overview of the PNR issues. Note the link to the NorthWest Airlines lawsuit dismissal. The judge ruled that there was no case on PNR discsloures.

Movie Piracy and Teens

When Information Week ran an article about movie piracy in Fall 2003, I was interviewed as the expert on what kids were doing. I, in turn, asked my experts, my teenangels (Teenangels.org, note that teenangels.com is a porn site.) I had no idea, until then, how prevalent movie piracy was. We all know about the movie pirates selling DVDs on the corner in Chinatown and at flea markets. But few of us know about movie piracy, how it is done and where files of that size can be stored without crashing our systems. I was in that group.

I confidently asked a group of my Teenangels during one of their training sessions if they had ever heard of kids downloading movies online. All hands went up. I then asked them if any of them had ever downloaded a motion picture. That’s when I was stunned as several of my elite teens, trained by the FBI, decided to look out the window, under the table and into their laps. They looked everywhere but into my eyes. I sat down in shock. I was truly stunned.

It wasn’t the first time, and certainly won’t be the last time that my Teenangels have surprised me. But this was a new abuse issue that had gotten in under MY radar. That doesn’t happen often. But I was blindsided. The teens admitted to downloading the latest Harry Potter movie before it had even hit the movie theaters. And they didn’t have those shadowy, shot by a home video camera in the movie theater versions. They had studio prints, as good as the copy of that same movie we will be able to buy, years later.

After making them all swear that they would never ever ever ever do it again, I asked them how they did it. Most downloaded them on P2P networks, as they do music. They burn them to DVDs and store them on the enormous hard drives they all seem to have these days. And more importantly, they got them from their older brothers and sisters, cousins and friends in college.
So I went to our TeenAngels alumni, all of whom were not in college and asked them about the problem. They told me that many college kids are downloading and sharing motion pictures online. They have the new releases early enough to avoid having to pay the $10 and more per person to sit in a movie theater. And while many of the movies are shadowy in-theater shoots, many more are studio prints, director’s cuts and review copies.

They don’t have to resort to burning expensive DVDs, since the college servers are so enormous and most college students have access to large unallocated server space.

They also briefed me on the extensive efforts being expended by universities to stem piracy of music, movies and software. Acceptable use policies were rewritten warning them of the consequences of illegal downloads and media piracy. They were educated on copyright and other intellectual property issues. They had to sign agreements not to pirate or misuse media as a condition to being given access to the university networks. And some students were expelled when they violated those agreements.

All of this was the result of an educational and awareness campaign launched by the MPAA and the RIAA. But, apparently, it wasn’t terribly effective. When forced to choose between rising movie theater ticket prices and stealing a movie for your nearest and dearest 100 dorm-mates, from a college student’s perspective, there isn’t much of a choice.

The upcoming lawsuits might make a difference here. My informal polls of teens and college students shows me that many will stop pirating movies if they think they will be sued. The real problem we face is that most don’t think it will happen to them and play the odds.

So, we need to find a way to get the message across to them that the MPAA means business. They know what they are doing is illegal (see, “Movies are Different”). But it’s important that they know they could face the consequences of their actions. It’s time to get their attention.

But lawsuits alone are not the answer. The MPAA knows this and has delayed their lawsuits for many years in an attempt to educate young people. They see the lawsuits as an important, but small part of their overall campaign to stop movie piracy online.

They have several educational programs they have developed, including “You Can Click, But Your Can’t Hide.” They have delivered messages as trailers in movie theaters about the real people impacted by movie piracy. They sat back and watched as the RIAA used privacy-invading methods to force ISPs to turn over the identity of their subscribers.

It’s a great start. But we need to do more to get the kids involved. We need to get them to internalize the message of responsible technology use and respecting intellectual property rights. We need to capture their attention before they get to college and while movie piracy is still an exception not the rule. We need to use methods to get them involved in the solution, instead of only threatening them with the results. Carrots, not just sticks, need to be included in the package.

I have proposed a campaign for children, teens and college students to deliver their own anti-piracy messages in video format. After delivering our intellectual property education, they would find the message that resonates with them and their friends. (We have learned that finding the right message on anti-piracy is like ordering from a Chinese restaurant, one form column A and two from column B. No one message speaks to all kids.) Large competitions could be judged by the motion picture studios and the winning videographers could be invited to Hollywood and their videos featured as trailers on upcoming DVDs. Electronic manufacturers and retailers, video rental outlets, and the motion picture industry unions can all get involved in the campaign. We need to make it as “kewl” to stop piracy as it is to pirate a new movie. If we reward them for their creativity, they will be more likely to respect the creativity of others.

I just ran a program for a small private school in New York, after returning from a larger event with hundreds of 4th graders in Wichita, Kansas. Both groups were appalled that their older counterparts were stealing movies online. One 10 year old even lectured me on the large damages that could be recovered in a lawsuit. (He was close. He said they could recover $250,000, but the real amount for a willful piracy of a movie is $150,000. As you may have guessed already, this boy was from New York. )

We need to get to the kids while they are young and still believe in right and wrong. We need them to remind each other of their ethical obligation as cybercitizens not to abuse the power of the technology. There’s still time to stop movie piracy and teach young people and adults alike that we should be responsible in our technology use. We should all learn to obey the law even when we think we can get away with breaking it. And our children need to be taught this as soon as possible and take this with them as they grow into, hopefully, responsible adults.

That’s the real challenge. And the MPAA should be supporting efforts like Peers2Peers.org and InternetSuperheroes.org, that get kids involved in creating and delivering their own messages of responsible intellectual property use.

There’s more to anti-piracy than lawsuits. And unless we do something about this soon, the motion picture industry and this generation of our kids will be lost. We need to get the kids on board. And if we catch them young enough, we can.

MPAA announces that it is adding lawsuits to its arsenal to stop movie piracy online

The MPAA has announced that starting later this month, they will sue movie pirates whom have traded motion pictures online. The cases are ready for filing and all investigations are over...so stopping now won't reduce your chances of being sued. This next step was designed to remind those downloading movies that they have the same legal teeth as the RIAA before them. But the MPAA has been extraordinarily patient, and has taken years before these announced lawsuits were ever filed.

Instead, they spent far more time in education and awareness. And these lawsuits are filed seeking the identity of the filesharers from a judge, instead of the subpoena process used (and abused) by the RIAA before them.

On the tail of their awareness messages of "You can click but you can't hide" and the roll-out of university compliance programs and acceptable use policies prohibiting movie downloads, the MPAA sees this as a needed, although, reluctant step. It is part of, not the whole, campaign to try and curtail movie piracy before it does to the motion picture industry what it do to the music industry.

Colleg students are likely defendants, since the large servers at colleges and high speed access make movie sharing much easier than for most of the rest of us.

look for more...

InformationWeek > Parry Aftab > The Privacy Lawyer: Which Kills E-Commerce Faster, The Cure Or The Disease? > January 26, 2004

InformationWeek > Parry Aftab > The Privacy Lawyer: Which Kills E-Commerce Faster, The Cure Or The Disease? > January 26, 2004Phishing issues and its risks to e-commerce and financial transactions online

AP Wire | 09/13/2004 | Judge Dismisses Suit Against Northwest

AP Wire | 09/13/2004 | Judge Dismisses Suit Against NorthwestThe passenger name records shared with security firms and perhaps governmental agencies created a big noise when discovered. But when the private litigation started, it was quickly stopped. The latest on PNR disclosures.

InformationWeek > E-Mail > The Privacy Lawyer: The Checklist For Cybercommunications > October 25, 2004

InformationWeek > E-Mail > The Privacy Lawyer: The Checklist For Cybercommunications > October 25, 2004

P2P or Peer-toPeer safety, security and privacy - risks other than piracy

P2P or Peer-to-Peer Safety, Privacy and Security

What are the Other Risks?

Most articles about the risks of P2P focus on piracy and copyright issues. Few have taken the time to explore other risks the technology poses and solutions to those risks. In addition to traditional P2P technologies, such as Kazaa, eDonkey and Morpheus, many of the new instant messaging technologies have P2P features and allow the sharing of files, even very large media files, such as videos. While both P2P and, more obviously, IM applications with P2P feaures have many benefits, like most other Internet-related services and applications, there are risks. Luckily, there are solutions for most of these risks if you know what to look for.



Since it was first launched a few years ago, P2P has been demonized for facilitating music, movie and software piracy. But putting the piracy issues aside for the purposes of this article, what are the risks associated with using P2P in a home and in a business or school environment? These risks include 1. infecting your computer with malicious codes, such as viruses, worms, Trojan horses, spyware and unwanted adware, 2. illegal, harmful and child-inappropriate content, 3. making your computer more vulnerable to hacking and other intrusions, 4. allowing others to make your computer into a drone capable of attacking other websites and servers, 5. corrupted files or misrepresented content and 6. sharing private files, unintentionally, with others. There are ways to avoid these risks, if you are forewarned and use the right software and security precautions.



These same tips apply to IM P2P applications.



Malicious Code:



According to leading computer security experts, viruses are very prevalent in P2P networks and are expected to grow in P2P networks. One study concluded that 45% of the files found by popular keyword searches were infected with viruses.[1]



Trojan Horses and other hacking programs, Spyware and Adware are a growing problem as well. Many of the P2P applications include spyware and adware applications. And most inform the user that they contain such applications in their terms of service, license or privacy policies. But few people ever read those disclosures before clicking “I accept” and have no idea they have consented to the installation of spyware and adware programs. Some files, disguised as MP3 files or other downloadables are really hacking Trojan horse applications which give their users access to your computer remotely.



While laws are pending in various states and federally, the best way to protect yourself against unwanted spyware and adware applications, as well as hostile code such as Trojan horses, is by using a good anti-virus program updated automatically. The addition of a firewall (either software firewalls or hardware/router firewalls) can give you the protection you need against intrusions. Make sure that your software applications work on IM and P2P programs.



Some of the more popular P2P programs offer premium services for a fee. These premium services are warranted to be virus and malicious code-free, and often promise not to include any executables, such as adware or spyware applications. Many people (especially parents) confuse the fee for the ad-free, spyware-free and virus-free service for a license fee for music or movies available on the P2P network. They believe (wrongly) that they have now paid for the right to download music and other media. This is one issue that might require action by the FTC or state consumer protection agencies to clarify. I recommend that the P2P premium services make it clear what the fee is and is not for, to avoid consumer confusion. Some of the more nefarious companies and websites intentionally mislead consumers into believing that they are paying for the right to download music and other media, when they pay a fee for the P2P software application the more responsible networks provide without charge.[2]



Illegal, Harmful and Child-Inappropriate Content



Child Pornography is, unfortunately, a serious problem in P2P networks. It’s an easy way to transmit larger media files, which often include videos and still images of children being molested. And help groups, such as WiredSafety.org and others, are unable to search for child pornography since to view a file in a P2P setting, you must download it to your own computer. Downloading child pornography, saving it in any format, copying it or otherwise transmitting it, are all serious crimes in the United States.



The P2P networks are now very active in trying to stem the distribution of child pornography and child exploitation files. They have, in recent years, worked very closely with law enforcement agencies and have willingly cooperated in investigations to stop and prosecute child pornographers. They are now important partners in the worldwide fight against child exploitation.



Sadly, in the early years of P2P this wasn’t the case. I had personally contacted several P2P networks (thankfully, none of which are still in business) with child pornography I discovered while representing a famous pop-star. I was retained as her counsel in an attempt to stop fraudulent pornographic images of her from being posted online and in P2P networks. The network executives refused to return my calls and refused to take down the images. They only cooperated when law enforcement became involved.



Unfortunately, few child pornography images are caught by filtering software programs or parental controls. Most of these products work using either known lists of images or textual descriptions or names of images. Typically, child pornographic images do not use the words or names that would otherwise trigger a filtering product.



The only way to avoid child pornography on P2P networks is to steer clear of search terms that might imply images of young children or preteens. Even then, downloading unknown images can be risky.



Although some files provide an indication of their child pornography subject matter, using searchable terms such as “Lolita”, “young boys”, etc., the more sophisticated child pornography traders use other file names to mask their true content. It is possible for someone to innocently stumble across one or more of these files, while looking for other content. If anyone comes across a file they believe to be of child pornography, they should notify the P2P network administration immediately. They should not forward the file to anyone, print out copies or save the file to their computer or any other media. They should also contact National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Cybertipline, at www.cybertipline.com, noting the exact file name and location where the file was found. WiredSafety.org’s anti-child pornography campaign is “Don’t support it, report it!” If everyone reports what they find (without actively seeking it), the Internet will be a better place.



While P2P networks contain many violent, hateful, pornographic and other potentially harmful content files, they are largely not illegal in the United States. But they may be offensive to many adults and highly inappropriate for children. Most of the parental controls and filtering software programs now filter all content downloaded from P2P networks. In addition, most popular P2P networks have premium services available for a fee that provide content filters.



Given the content issues, as well as the risk of exposing private files to the public by using the wrong settings for shared files, P2P is not appropriate for preteens. The best choice for parents of younger children, especially preteens, is to prevent your children from using P2P networks entirely. If there is a file they need for school, or otherwise want, the parent can access it for them. This would also have the added benefit of keeping the children from pirating music, movies and software when they may be too young to appreciate the ramifications of their actions. For parents whose children may not listen to their rules, many parental control and filtering products have settings that would allow parents to block their children’s access to P2P networks and prevent them from downloading the P2P software applications.



Security and Privacy Risks



Files subject to sharing:[3]



Private and, in some cases, very sensitive files, are often shared inadvertently by people using P2P networks. A study was done by HP and the University of Minnesota on P2P file sharing to test how prevalent inadvertent file sharing was on the P2P networks (http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/kazaa/index.html). In a survey of 12 users, only 2 understood what files were subject to sharing. This is particularly alarming because of the kinds of files they discovered were being shared, undoubtably, without the user’s knowledge.



In a test conducted, searches for Outlook database files were conducted every 1-1/2 minutes for a 12-hour period on Kazaa. The study showed that many people had made private files open for download by others on the P2P network. These files include financial information, e-mail files and even browser caches, showing others where the user had surfed. Many people are not aware of how to limit the files that can be accessed from the P2P network on their own computers. And with the ease of P2P file search, others who understand what to look for can easily find these private files. The same study showed that on a dummy server set up with files identified as creditcard.xls and outlook databases, four unique users downloaded these files during the test 24-hour period. So, not only are users making their private data available to others online in P2P environments, but others know this and search for and download these files.



This tells us that we need to be sure what files are subject to sharing, how to make other files subject to sharing or stop sharing of those files, how not to make mistakes when we allocate files for sharing and understanding the import of the data contained in files to be able to determine the risk of sharing them.



The more sophisticated P2P purveyors use a wizard or user-friendly interface to help the user locate the shared file folder and limit the risk of sharing private files unintentionally. But if the wizard is by-passed or the default settings modified, or the wizards are not created with the user’s privacy in mind, the potential for mistakenly sharing files is very real. Selecting a new location for downloaded files broadens the files subject to search, scrutiny and download by others in P2P. All files located within or under a specified file folder are also available to others for searching, scrutiny and download. This is not very clear to the typical P2P user.



Gathering information about operating system to determine vulnerability



If you have permitted file sharing, others may have access to your system and your IP address. The more any potential intruder has about your system, the applications you use and the hardware settings, the easier it is for them to hack into your system and through your system to the network at work or the school network servers. And, as a rule, the longer your system is open to others, the easier it is to hack.



Even if you aren’t aware it is running, it may be running in the background. A good rule of thumb, if you want to share files with others at all, is to shut down file sharing when you are not actively downloading or permitting others to download from you. That sounds far easier than it really is, however. Each P2P application has different ways of turning off file sharing. And these may change from one version to the next of the same application.



Cooperative networking



In addition, P2P applications can be a huge drain on bandwidth and system resources and can expose the system/computer owner to legal liability for illegal content (such as child pornography) or pirated content housed on the servers or computer. Many experts believe that they provide the potential for amassing large networks of computers for cyberterrorism and cybercriminal motives. They cite to several cooperative networking projects, such as the one to find life in outer space operated by SETI and another to break encryption codes, as proof that this kind of networking is possible and easy to create.



General advice for parents, employers and school network administrators:



You have the right to know what is being installed on your computers and networks. You should start by setting rules about what can be used and what can’t and how permission can be obtained for installing new software applications. Rules should also be set for running all programs and files through an automatically updated virus blocker before they are installed on your computer. Parents should make sure that no software is installed without their permission.



But with P2P and IM programs, you may need protective software more than ever. These should include an adware blocker or removal program, a firewall and an anti-virus program.



Often consumers (and even some network administrators) don’t understand which security applications and hardware they really need and frequently confuse one with the other. An anti-virus product will review files that you intentionally download or install. But a firewall will keep out intruders and attempts to install something without your knowledge. They work hand in hand, like good brakes and seat belts. You are not fully protected unless you use both. Firewalls can be either software or hardware. They are also often included in wireless routers and in cable routers, for broadband users. So, check to see what you already have before you spend money to buy something you don’t need.



Having the software and using it correctly are very different, though. Using the wrong settings, or disabling it because it takes too long to load, can leave you wide open to malicious code and hacking attacks. Read the directions that come with your products carefully, and ask the company’s help desk or seek understandable information from their site if you have questions. If all else fails, ask your eight-year old for help. They are the cheapest computer experts I know that still do housecalls.











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Bruce Hughes, director of malicious-code research at TruSecure Corp.'s ICSA Labs, set up a search “on Kazaa and other peer-to-peer networks, scanning for popular file types using keywords such as sex and antivirus. Hughes says 45% of the files he downloaded contained malicious applications. "If you're downloading files from these networks, you're going to get infected with something," he warns.”


[2] Similar schemes are used by identity thieves to collect your credit card information. They promise you that you can download first run motion pictures and software applications at a reduced cost or for free, once the application or website access is paid for. They collect your credit card information, but never charge it themselves. The “too good to be true” movies or software never arrive, but the consumers don’t worry about it, since the website didn’t charge them. Instead, they sell it or otherwise provide it to others who do charge it, fraudulently.



[3] “The results of 443 searches in 12 hours showed that unintentional file sharing is quite prevalent on the Kazaa network. 61% of all searches performed in this test returned one or more hits for inbox.dbx. By the end of the 12 hour period 156 distinct users with shared inboxes were found.”



“To further demonstrate that this indicates unintentional file sharing, we examined 20 distinct cases of shares on the inbox.dbx file by manually using the “find more from same user” feature. 19 of the 20 users shared the other email files found in the default Microsoft Outlook Express installation (Sent Items, Deleted Items, Outbox, etc.) In addition, 9 users had exposed their web browser’s cache and cookies, 5 had exposed word processing documents, 2 had what appeared to be data from financial software and 1 user had files that belong in the system folder for windows.”

Quoting: Usability and privacy: a study of Kazaa P2P file-sharing, Nathaniel S. Good, Information Dynamics Lab HP Laboratories and Aaron Krekelberg, Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota.

Being an American Today

I just came from the voting booths in my little town in NJ. I was proud to cast my vote. Proud to be an American, today and every day.

For the last few weeks nothing mattered to the news broadcasters, apparently, other than the US Presidential Election. News reports have, IMHO, been often biased, with sometimes subtle biases, and sometimes not so subtle biases. Saturday Night Live ran an election show last night. While I laughed, I wondered if people were being influenced by the comedy. Influenced enough to affect their vote. One of the comedians, when asked that question, said that if anyone were influenced by the comedy in making their decision that the person would be an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

But in American, good judgment and bad, well informed and not, bright or careless, we all have the right to vote and our votes count as much as the next person's. And even if Saturday Night Live parodies influence them, they can vote.

And that's okay. It's part of what this country stands for.

But the thousands of newly registered voters...are they real or manufactured? Are people selling their vote for an autograph with a hip hop star or for some other preceived benefit?

Thousands of people are voting early, by mail-in ballots, in ways they never have before. I don't understand how that works. I was told that some can even cast their ballots after the election closes tonight, for up to two weeks. How in God's name does that work?

Election irregularities and fraud are not as race as I had thought. Clean election processes are not as common place as they should be. They are rift with risks and tempations for those who want one or the other candiate elected at all costs. But will this cost be more than Americans can pay?

In Wisconsin people can register to vote today, on the day of the election. That seems to be easy to abuse. Lawyers by the thousands are descending on the battleground states. Other lawyers are preparing the pleadings for post-election litigation.

Already in Ohio two legal actions were heard yesterday on whether challengers could challenge certain voters at the polls. The decisions split, and were brought before the Federal Court of Appeals, and eventually determined in favor of challengers.

Both parties have made claims of fraud, bias and criminal conduct. And both are, unfortunately, probably right.

Dinner discussions among trusted friends have been different too. Presidential candidate or party preferences have now been elevated to the level of abortion rights in not being appropriate for a quiet dinner conversation. Friends are no longer friends having disclosed their true political leanings. Clients change vendors, family members become alienated, business decisions are made based on the presidential candidate preferences. It's gotten mean.

People are more inflamed about this election than any I can remember, perhaps any US election ever. They are angry about statements made by the other party. They take offense at everything donw by the candidates. Churches are pitted against churches. And candidates take pot shots at the religious claims/practices of the other. Everyone is apprently fair game.

The race has been far too negative, far too emotional, far too devisive for my liking. I have a clear candidate, my choice because of the things I consider most important. Do I agree with his entire stance? No. But when it comes to things that matter to me more than others, I have a candidate. I don't know if he will win tonight, or over the next few weeks as the lawyers take control of our democratic process...

But I hope that whomever wins will lead up forward better than we have been led through this campaign, and that friends won't have to hide their political leanings to avoid being attacked over dinner.

I hope that we remember what it means to be an American. I am proud to be an American, but not proud of this campaign and what it has done to us.

my 2 cents.

Parry