Cyberspace 'isn't a place'
An Irish judge has upheld the right of a creator to protect his creations as a fundamental human right, reports The Register.
In a scathing and occasionally lyrical ruling, judge Peter Charleton also pointed out the Internet is merely one communication tool of many, and not "an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights".
It's the strongest refutation of the idea most famously expressed at Davos, by John Perry Barlow, in “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”, which warned: "You have no sovereignty where we gather.”
Xhead = UK mobile companies invest £400m in 3G
T-Mobile and 3 UK's joint venture network sharing firm, Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL), has awarded a £400 million 3G mobile broadband upgrade contract to Nokia Siemens Networks, reveals Computing.co.uk.
MBNL has said the deal would put 98% of the UK population in range of the company's shared mobile broadband infrastructure.
The deal should boost T-Mobile and 3 UK's capacity to service the growth in mobile data use.
Web hit by hi-tech crime wave
A survey suggests hi-tech criminals are racking up more than 100 attacks a second on the world's computers, writes the BBC.
While most of these attacks cause no trouble, the Symantec report suggests one attack every 4.5 seconds does affect a PC.
The wave of attacks was driven by a steep rise in malicious software in circulation, said the annual report.
Are police texts protected?
The Supreme Court is reviewing a case that tries to make sense of new technology over a 223-year-old statute of law, as electronic communications continue to provide legal conundrums, says TG Daily.
It's the case of City of Ontario v Quon, a member of the city's Swat team. Like other officers, he has a pager for official government use, but used the device to send personal text messages to his wife and his mistress.
In a standard audit of page use, these messages were exposed and made public. Quon sued the city for illegal search and seizure, and won the case. Now the Supreme Court is stepping in to see if that was the correct decision.

