The BBC will publish an updated list of URLs that have been removed from Google searches under the "Right To Be Forgotten" rule.

The organisation said it would update the links on a regular basis to keep them up to date, and begin publishing the list in the coming weeks.

The European Court of Justice imposed the "Right To Be Forgotten" ruling on Google and other search engines in May, which allows members of the public to request the removal of search links to articles about them. However, it does not mean publishers have to also remove articles about these people.

Around 12,000 applications were submitted to Google on the very first day the ruling came into force by people asking for links to be removed.

When Google approves a link for removal, the search giant notifies the websites, which will help the BBC in keeping its list updated.

The BBC's editorial policy head, David Jordan said some BBC articles have been "wrongly hidden" and said the public also has a "right to remember".

Speaking at a public meeting held by Google, Jordan said 46 article links had been removed and hit out at the "lack of a formal appeals process" following the removal of such links.

He said the process should require the identity of the person to be confidentially shared with a publication alongside the request.

The list will not include a republished story or any information identifying the individual requesting the removal. He said the aim of the list is to be a "resource for those interested in the debate."

Shops that copy the design and layout of an Apple store could soon be forced to change them following a European ruling.

Apple won its case with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over whether it could trademark the layout of its stores. The firm secured a similar ruling in the US in 2010.

The US trademark covers the Genius Bar, the furniture and lighting and the faade, which gives rivals very little wriggle room.

In its decision, the ECJ said the layout of Apple Stores fulfilled the criteria for a trademark. In that it constituted a sign that can be represented in a graphic and distinguish goods or services of one company from another.

Apple failed in an attempt to trademark its stores with the courts in Germany last year, before coming to the ECJ as a final arbiter. The ECJ reversed a 2013 decision by the German Patent and Trademark Office, which ruled a retail store layout could not be trademarked by itself.

"From this the Court concludes that the representation of the layout of a retail store, by a design alone, without indicating the size or the proportions, may be registered as a trade mark for services," the court's judgment said.

"The Court takes the view in this respect that a representation that depicts the layout of a retail store by means of an integral collection of lines, curves and shapes, may constitute a trademark provided that it is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings," it added.

"The Court emphasises, however, that the fact that a sign is generally capable of constituting a trademark does not imply that the sign necessarily possesses a distinctive character within the meaning of the directive.

The ruling now prevents other retail outlet from duplicating the Apple layout through the 27 member states.

IT Pro approached Apple for a comment on the ruling but had not received a reply at the time of writing.

Apple and Google have settled their long-running patent differences with an out of court settlement.

The two companies released a joint statement on the matter, stating that - although they may have settled over the disputes regarding smartphone technology - the deal does not include cross-licensing of their patents.

The agreement covers Apple's litigation against Motorola, which sued the former for patent infringement in 2010 before being bought up by Google for $12.5 billion (7.4 billion) in 2012. Apple countersued Motorola and so Google inherited the court case, using its newly-acquired portfolio of patents to defend itself.

The courtroom battle between Apple and Google has been vitriolic. The former company's late co-founder Steve Jobs famously said he would use his "last dying breath" to "destroy Android." Jobs also declared what he called "thermonuclear war" against Google.

An Apple spokeswoman said the deal does not affect its ongoing court battle with Samsung, with the news coming just weeks after a Californian jury awarded Apple $119.6 million (70 million) in damages against the South Korean firm.

The warring firms' CEO, Tim Cook and Larry Page, apparently held clandestine talks in 2012 to bring a halt to the courtroom disputes, yet they continued unabated. Apple has refused to attack Google directly, however, instead targeting phone makers that use Google's Android operating system.

Although Google has settled things with Cupertino, it still faces litigation from the Rockstar Consortium, part owned by Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry and Sony. The "patent troll" group is utilising the portfolio it acquired from buying up Nortel Networks in 2011 to attack Google and Android manufacturers in court.

The Cabinet Office has blamed Margaret Thatcher's death and the Jimmy Saville scandal for falling behind on responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

The Government department was one of three public sector organisations rapped by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for taking too long to respond to FOI requests.

The other two were Hackney Council and the Crown Prosecution Service, after all three received a "significant number" of complaints about the timeliness of their responses.

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities must respond to a request for information within 20 working days.

The ICO has confirmed all three face having their FOI request response times monitored between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2014, and could face enforcement action if the delays continue.

Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said a 20 working day turnaround on FOI requests is an essential part of maintaining a "transparent and open" government.

"While extensions may sometimes be justifiable for particularly complex requests, these three authorities have been selected for monitoring after serious shortcomings were identified in the time each of them has been taking to respond to FOI requests," Graham revealed.

He also expressed his disappointment at the Cabinet Office's performance on this matter, having already fallen foul of the 20 working day deadline three years ago.

"On that occasion, the Cabinet Office signed an undertaking to raise their game. Their inclusion on the latest monitoring list should act as a warning to others that lessons learnt from monitoring have to be sustained," he added.

In a statement to IT Pro, a Cabinet Office spokesperson defended its performance, claiming it had only fallen below par during one quarter in 2013.

"During this quarter we had a 23 per cent increase in requests most of which focused around the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, the Leveson Inquiry and information about Jimmy Saville," the statement reads.

"Even then we still answered more than eight out of ten requests on time.

"We have made significant efforts to address the increased number of requests and the most recent data shows an improvement on that quarter," the statement continued.

Even so, the department promised to work with the ICO during the monitoring period.

Ian Williams, director of finance and resources at Hackney Council, told IT Pro it has already started taking steps to address its slow response times.

"We are aware of delays in responding to FOI requests and launched our own review of the service in November 2013. New measures have since been put in place which will enable us to process requests in a more timely manner," said Williams.

"We trust the Information Commissioner's Office will note this improvement during the monitoring period."

IT Pro contacted the Crown Prosecution Service for comment on this story, who said a 42 per cent upturn in FOI requests since 2011 has put significant pressure on its response times.

"We have recently recruited further staff to address the increase in workload and are already seeing improvements in the timeliness of our responses during this monitoring period," the spokesperson added.

Users of social networks could find themselves in court for retweeting or resending messages, according to new guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Messages that harass, threaten or break court orders will be "robustly" prosecuted, it has been claimed. That said, other messages, even those thought to be offensive, may not be prosecuted under these new guidelines.

"The first group will be prosecuted robustly whereas the second group will only be prosecuted if they cross a high threshold," said Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions.

"A prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest if the communication is swiftly removed, blocked, not intended for a wide audience or not obviously beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in a diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression."

But the DPP will not tell social networks how to edit or moderate comments. Instead, it will take into account how fast an offensive comment was taken down.

"We want the interim guidelines to be as fully informed as possible, which is why we held a series of roundtable discussions and meetings with Twitter, Facebook, Liberty and other stakeholders, police and regulators, victim groups, academics, journalists and bloggers, lawyers and sports organisations ahead of drafting them," said Starmer.

"I would now encourage everyone with an interest in this matter to give us their views by responding to the public consultation."

The guidelines follow a number of cases over the past two years involving social networks. Doncaster accountant Paul Chambers, who was found guilty of sending a 'menacing' tweet, later saw his conviction quashed. He said afterwards that he did not believe anyone would take his "silly joke" seriously.

Javed Khan, chief executive of Victim Support, said the new distinction between credible threats and offence was "sorely needed".

"Victims tell us sustained and vindictive targeting on social media can leave long-lasting emotional and psychological scars so we warmly welcome clarification on how prosecutors will deal with online threats or harassment," said Khan.

"In particular we welcome the guideline which makes a prosecution more likely if a victim is specifically targeted and this has a significant impact on them."

Kahn said that his organisation would "watch how the interim guidelines are used with interest and will respond to them in detail during the consultation period."

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has confirmed that computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not face charges in the UK, bringing his 10-year legal battle to a close.

McKinnon had been accused of gaining unauthorised access to 97 US government computers between 1 February 2001 and 19 March 2002, prompting demands for him to be extradited to the US to stand trial.

He previously admitted accessing the computers, claiming he was looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life, and had been facing the threat of up to 60 years in prison.

I feel the last 10 years have been gruelling.

Earlier this year, Home Secretary Theresa May quashed calls for McKinnon to be extradited to the US to stand trial, citing medical factors.

In a statement, the CPS has now confirmed there are no plans to commence a new criminal investigation into McKinnon, adding that the prospects of a conviction against him are not high.

"The potential difficulties in bringing a case in England and Wales now should not be underestimated, not least the passage of time, [and] the logistics of transferring sensitive evidence prepared for a court in the US to London for trial," the CPS statement said.

"US authorities indicated...they would be willing to co-operate with a prosecution...[but] they do not consider making all the US witnesses available for trial in London and transferring all of the US material for this jurisdiction would be in the interests of justice," it added.

Speaking to BBC News, Janis Sharp, McKinnon's mother, said she was delighted by the ruling.

"Gary admitted to the intrusion, he always denied the damage. I feel the 10 years have been gruelling, it's been life-destroying. It's difficult to explain how bad it's been," she said.

"To have this over is amazing. Gary's gone through enough. Other people have been accused of more serious hacking in this country and they've been given a 1,000 fine and a very short community sentence."

Apple and Samsung were in court again yesterday, as the iPhone maker tried to convince a US district judge to ban sales of a number of the South Korean company's devices and defended its $1.05 billion jury award.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory in August at the conclusion of its landmark case against its arch-foe, when a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad and awarded it damages.

Both sides re-convened on Thursday. US District Judge Lucy Koh listened to a range of arguments on topics from setting aside the jury's findings on liability to alleged juror misconduct and the requested injunction.

The hearing concluded with Koh promising to rule at a later date.

Twenty-four of Samsung's smartphones were found to have infringed on Apple's patents, while two of Samsung's tablets were cleared of similar allegations.

Koh began by questioning the basis for some of the damages awarded by the jury, putting Apple's lawyers on the defensive.

"I don't see how you can evaluate the aggregate verdict without looking at the pieces," Koh said.

Samsung's lawyers argued the ruling against it should be "reverse engineered" to be sure the $1.05 billion was legally arrived at by the jury and said, on that basis, the amount should be slashed. Apple countered that the ruling was reasonable.

"Assuming I disagree with you, what do I do about Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, and Gem?" Koh asked Apple's lawyers, referring to the jury's calculation of damages regarding some of Samsung's devices.

Smartphone wars

Samsung is Apple's fiercest global business rival and their battle for consumers' allegiance is helping shape the landscape of the booming smartphone and tablet industry - a fight that has claimed several high-profile victims, including Nokia.

While the trial was deemed a resounding victory for Apple, the company has since seen its market value shrink as uncertainty grows about its ability to continue fending off an assault by Samsung and other Google Android gadgets on its home turf.

Apple's stock has nosedived 18 per cent since the August 24 verdict, while Samsung's has gained around 16 per cent.

Most of the devices facing injunction are older and, in some cases, out of the market.

Such injunctions have been key for companies trying to increase their leverage in courtroom patent fights.

In October, a US appeals court overturned a pretrial sales ban against Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, dealing a setback to Apple's battle against Google's increasingly popular mobile software.

Some analysts say Apple's willingness to license patents to Taiwan's HTC could convince Koh it does not need the injunction, as the two companies could arrive at a licensing deal.

Apple is also attempting to add more than $500 million to the $1 billion judgment because the jury found Samsung willfully infringed on its patents. A Samsung lawyer argued against willful damages and said the base amount for calculating any potential willful damages should be just $10 million.

Samsung wants the verdict overturned, saying the jury foreman did not disclose that he was once in litigation with Seagate Technology, a company that Samsung has invested in.

"He should have been excused for cause," said Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven. "Such a juror was a juror in name only."

The juror misconduct charge is "unlikely to have much traction," said Christopher Carani, a partner at Chicago-based intellectual property law firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.

Samsung Electronics has infringed Apple patents to make its smartphones and tablets, a US trade panel judge has ruled in a preliminary decision.

Apple had filed a complaint in mid-2011, accusing Samsung of infringing its patents in making its Captivate, Transform and Fascinate smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tablet.

Judge Thomas Pender said that Samsung infringed four Apple patents but did not violate two others listed in the complaint. There had been seven listed initially, but one was dropped during litigation.

The full International Trade Commission will decide in February whether to uphold or reject the judge's decision.

Samsung was found to infringe an Apple patent that helps the touchscreen interpret whether the user wants, for example, to scroll up and down or switch between applications. It was also found to have infringed a patent that allows the device to show an image on a screen with a second, translucent image over it.

Apple is waging war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many of Samsung's devices. The battles between Apple and Samsung have taken place in some 10 countries as they vie for market share in the booming mobile industry.

Apple has asked a federal court in California and the ITC to permanently ban Samsung products that infringe Apple patents. Neither the judge nor the ITC has ruled on the issue.

A Dutch court also ruled yesterday that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents by using certain multi-touch techniques on some of the Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers.

Apple scored a sweeping legal victory over Samsung in August when a US jury found Samsung had copied critical features of the hugely popular iPhone and iPad and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. Samsung has appealed that verdict.

Google's Android software, which Apple's late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a "stolen product," has become the world's No.1 smartphone operating system. Apple's legal battle against it has dragged in hardware vendors who use it, including Samsung and HTC.

Samsung is also a parts supplier to Apple, producing micro processors, flat screens and memory chips - both dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips and NAND memory chips - for the iPhone, iPad and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens

A US court has lifted a temporary sales ban against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, allowing the South Korean company to restart selling the product in the United States.

The ban was the result of arch-rival Apple winning a patent dispute against the firm.

There was no infringement and no need for an injunction.

While the Galaxy 10.1 is an older model, the lifting of the ban could still help Samsung in the run-up to the pivotal holiday shopping season.

"We are pleased with the court's action today, which vindicates our position that there was no infringement of Apple's design patent and that an injunction was not called for," Samsung said in a statement.

Separately, Samsung filed a motion against Apple saying the iPhone 5 had infringed on some of its patents.

The world's top two smartphone makers are locked in patent disputes in 10 countries as they vie for dominance in the lucrative mobile market.

The legal fight began last year when Apple sued Samsung in multiple countries, and Samsung countersued.

The Galaxy tablet ban had been put in place ahead of a month-long trial that pitted the iPhone maker against Samsung in a legal battle that Apple won in August.

However, the jury found that Samsung had not violated the patent that was the basis for the tablet injunction and Samsung argued the sales ban should be lifted.

The sole basis for the preliminary injunction no longer exists since the jury found that Samsung's Galaxy Tab had not violated Apple's D'889 patent.

"The court does not agree with Apple that Samsung's motion for dissolution of the June 26 preliminary injunction cannot be fairly decided without resolving Apple's post-trial motions," Judge Lucy Koh said in her ruling.

Apple could not immediately be reached for comment outside regular U.S. business hours.

Business software maker Oracle has launched an appeal on a five-year long court case that could see SAP pay millions more in damages over copyright infringement.

A spokesperson for SAP confirmed a report in the German daily Mannheimer Morgen to this effect, adding that "in the worst case the appeal could take two years," adding SAP was disappointed that Oracle continued to drag out the process.

"We agreed to a reasonable arrangement, since we believe this case has already persisted long enough," the SAP spokesman said.

SAP agreed in August to pay Oracle $306 million in damages over copyright infringement allegations against a SAP unit, "to save the time and expense of this new trial, and to expedite the resolution of the appeal," as lawyers for both companies had said at the time.

A Northern California jury determined in 2010 that Oracle should be paid $1.3 billion over accusations SAP subsidiary TomorrowNow wrongfully downloaded millions of Oracle files.

However, US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton last year discarded the jury verdict and said Oracle could accept a $272 million award, or opt for a new trial against SAP.

Two members of the hacking group LulzSec have pleaded guilty to staging Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on a series of high-profile websites in the UK and United States.

Twenty-year-old Ryan Cleary from Wickford in Essex appeared at Southwark Crown Court earlier today along with 19-year-old Jake Davies from Lerwick, Shetland.

The pair admitted staging (DDoS) attacks against Sony, Nintendo, News International and 20th Century Fox's websites.

Cleary also pleaded guilty to charges related to hacking attacks against the US Air Force Agency's computers, according to a report on the Daily Telegraph.

However, both pleaded not guilty to allegations they had posted "unlawfully obtained confidential computer data" on The Pirate Bay and PasteBin websites and incited others to take part in similar activities.

The pair will stand trial, along with Ryan Ackroyd, 25, and an unnamed 17-year-old, in April 2013.

Chinese networking giant Huawei has been accused by a former employer of favouring workers from its home nation.

Judeson Peter claims he lost his job because he was British. Peter told an employment tribunal Huawei had moved 342 workers over to the Britain over three years, whilst 49 British and non-British workers had been let go, according to the Daily Mail.

"Far more non-Chinese employees have been selected for redundancy than Chinese employees," he said.

"With regard to engineers, it should be noted that not a single Chinese engineer has been made redundant, whereas 30 non-Chinese have been."

During the hearing in Southampton, Peter also claimed the company's human resources manager sent an email outlining how no expat workers were to be made redundant from Huawei.

"This is a clear racial discrimination against non-Chinese employees as most expats are Chinese," he added. "Home Office guidelines state employers are not to treat migrant workers more or less favourably than resident workers."

Huawei has completely denied the allegations, saying they were "based upon factually incorrect information."

"It is true that in 2009 Huawei was forced to downsize, like many other large multinational companies, due to the economic turndown, particularly in the telecom industry," the company said in a statement.

"At this stage Huawei unfortunately had to make a series of redundancies, resulting in 25 per cent of British workers and 32 per cent of Chinese employees losing their jobs.

"Huawei's Chinese expat employees are subject to a separate contract and dealt with through a different process. The fact that a higher percentage of Chinese workers than British were made redundant shows that Huawei in no way prioritised Chinese employees."

Huawei has been pushing its European business hard in the past year, paying particular attention to Britain.

The company recently chose London for the the launch of its MediaPad tablet and Vision smartphone devices.

Huawei also recently took former Government CIO John Suffolk on as global head of cyber security.

Samsung plans to ban the just-announced Apple iPhone 4S in France and Italy.

Samsung claims Apple has used a part of Samsung's-own 3G wireless technology without paying for it.

Samsung will ask the courts for preliminary injunctions in Paris and Milan to be followed by similar actions in other countries yet to be determined, according to patent law blogger Florian Mueller.

"Apple has continued to flagrantly violate our intellectual property rights and free ride on our technology, and we will steadfastly protect our intellectual property," Samsung said in a statement.

Samsung's claim centers around two patents covering Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), which is part of the iPhone's 3G wireless connectivity.

Because the 3G wireless technology patents essential to all smartphones, Samsung is obligated to license them to other manufacturers under the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms. Not all of the intellectual property rights under dispute, including those asserted by Apple against Samsung, have to be licensed under FRAND terms though.

"Samsung's determination to fight hard is admirable. They're clearly giving Apple a run for the money," Mueller said.

Apple itself has successfully gotten Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet banned in the Netherlands and Germany and is seeking similar rulings in other countries, such as Australia. This legal war has been going on for months now in courtrooms all around the world.

A Dutch court has banned the sale of a number of Samsung Galaxy phones, although the company may be able to get around the injunction with software updates.

Yesterday, it emerged the court had banned sales of three Samsung Galaxy phones in a number of European countries, but only because of an infringement of one Apple patent.

Today's ruling is an affirmation that the Galaxy range of products is innovative and distinctive.

That patent, which relates to a photo scrolling function, would not be infringed by Android 3, otherwise known as Honeycomb, according to reports.

The ban on the Samsung Galaxy S, the Samsung Galaxy S II and the Ace would come into force from 15 October.

Samsung therefore has to add Android 3 to those devices, or change the software so it does not infringe the photo scrolling patent, if it wants to be able to sell them across Europe.

As for the other patents being fought over, the judge did not uphold several of them, including claims Samsung had stolen design ideas from Apple.

The Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 was not affected by the court ruling either.

Samsung welcomed the judgement, appearing convinced it would only affect Dutch customers, reports found.

However, as industry onlookers have noted, Samsung uses the Netherlands to import most of its devices into the EU, meaning the injunction would prevent sales in other European nations, including the UK.

"Today's ruling is an affirmation that the Galaxy range of products is innovative and distinctive," Samsung said in a statement.

"With regard to the single infringement cited in the ruling, we will take all possible measures including legal action to ensure that there is no disruption in the availability of our Galaxy smartphones to Dutch consumers."

As the patent infringement was related to Android issues and was upheld, it could mean Apple has grounds to take court cases to other competitors across Europe.

BT has been told to block access to Newzbin 2, a site sharing links to pirated films.

The landmark case marking the first time an ISP has been told to block such a site was originally brought by Motion Picture Association (MPA).

BT and MPA will meet later in the year to discuss how the blocking of Newzbin 2 will work.

At the High Court, Justice Arnold said he believed "it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright," the BBC reported.

"It knows that the users and operators of Newzbin 2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," he added.

"It knows that the users of Newzbin 2 include BT subscribers, and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin 2."

BT was pleased a decision had been made to clarify what steps rights holders need to take if they want the ISP to block a website.

"This is a helpful judgement, which provides clarity on this complex issue," an official statement read.

"It clearly shows that rights holders need to prove their claims and convince a judge to make a court order. BT has consistently said that rights holders need to take this route. We will return to court after the summer to explain what kind of order we believe is appropriate."

Chris Marcich, president and managing director of MPA Europe, said the ruling was "a victory for millions of people working in the UK creative industries and demonstrates that the law of the land must apply online."

"This court action was never an attack on ISPs but we do need their co-operation to deal with the Newzbin site which continually tries to evade the law and judicial sanction," he added.

"Newzbin is a notorious pirate website which makes hundreds of thousands of copyrighted products available without permission and with no regard for the law."

Of course, not all were overjoyed by the decision. Peter Bradwell, copyright campaigner at the Open Rights Group, said website blocking was "pointless and dangerous."

"These judgements won't work to stop infringement or boost creative industries and there are serious risks of legitimate content being blocked and service slowdown," Bradwell said.

"If the goal is boosting creators' ability to make money from their work then we need to abandon these technologically naive measures, focus on genuine market reforms, and satisfy unmet consumer demand."

Microsoft has claimed Google was not honest about the security credentials of Apps for Government, as the rivalry between the two firms hotted up.

The Redmond giant called for Google to stop advertising its Apps for Government as certified under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

Court papers containing statements from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) indicated the certification was false, Microsoft said.

"Isn't it past time for Google to issue a correction on its website? The Department of Justice has concluded squarely that Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification," said David Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for Microsoft, on a blog.

"Open competition should involve accurate competition. It's time for Google to stop telling governments something that is not true."

The court papers came to light after Google chose to sue the US Government, claiming the Department of the Interior unfairly favoured Microsoft when choosing a cloud-based email system.

The Justice Department acknowledged the General Services Administration (GSA) certified Google Apps Premier for its own particular use under FISMA last July, but no such certification was given to the wider Apps for Government, Microsoft said.

"Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government," the DOJ statement read.

"To be clear, in the view of the GSA, the agency that certified Google's Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government."

At the time of publication, Google had not responded to a request for comment on the situation.

Google vs. Microsoft

The revelations will do little to cool relations between Google and Microsoft, who have come to blows over a number of issues recently.

At the end of last month, Microsoft filed a formal complaint against Google with the European Commission, claiming the latter was trying to create a walled garden around search.

Google is currently being investigated by the EC over whether it broke European competition law.

The search spat between Microsoft and Google stepped up a notch earlier this year, when the Redmond giant was accused of copying Google results.

Google claimed it saw various URLs from its own search results appear in Bing "with increasing frequency for all kinds of queries."

Microsoft denied the claims, saying it used "multiple signals and approaches in ranking search results."

Phorm and BT - a trial user of its controversial behavioural advertising system - have been let off the hook by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which has decided not to prosecute.

The CPS probe was in response to a complaint lodged by anti-Phorm campaigner Alexander Hanff back in 2008. The complaint related to Phorm itself and two trials carried out by BT in 2006 and 2007.

Following an investigation, the CPS deemed the pair's actions could be construed as the "result of an honest mistake or genuine misunderstanding of the law."

It also determined BT and Phorm both obtained legal advice before acting, co-operated fully with police and were very unlikely to allow history to repeat itself.

Furthermore, the CPS said there wasn't any evidence to suggest anyone involved was harmed or suffered loss as a result. The ICO had also investigated and decided not to take action.

"Prosecutions for unlawful interception require the CPS's consent. After a thorough review of the available evidence, the CPS has decided there is currently insufficient evidence to begin a prosecution under section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and it would not be in the public interest to proceed any further," the CPS said in a blog post.

Andrew Hadik, reviewing lawyer for CPS London's Complex Casework Unit, added: "We obtained expert evidence to enable us to understand how the technology worked, how many people were affected and how they were affected.

"Those are the key elements of the alleged offending. Even if further evidence were available and collected, we are satisfied that it could not change our assessment."

Hanff was clearly not happy with the decision. He said on Twitter it was "a massive step backwards."

"If big business obtains a legal opinion which says it is ok to break the law, CPS will not prosecute on grounds of no criminal intent," he added.

"This is a very dangerous decision by the CPS which could have incredibly far reaching consequences and is completely unacceptable."

BT has confirmed customer data held by MediaCAT, the porn licensee involved in the controversial ACS:Law case, has been deleted.

MediaCAT used the data to locate customers who were suspected of illegal filesharing and employed ACS:Law to send letters to those people, telling them to pay a fine or face court action.

BT was ordered in July 2010 to hand over yet more data on thousands of customers, but refused to do so and has now confirmed that information would not be sent to MediaCAT.

The porn licensee confirmed all BT customer data it held was deleted.

The telecoms giant has also been working to ensure it does not have to hand over additional data to other former ACS:Law clients and is hoping to see more information expunged.

BT managed to gain a court order meaning it would not have to send further details to Ministry of Sound, whilst a battle with media company DigiProtect looks set to see customer data erased.

"We have now taken the matter back to court and secured an order requiring DigiProtect either to issue proceedings or delete the data. The time for issuing proceedings has now expired and the data should be deleted," BT said in a community forum post.

BT had disclosed some customer details to DigiProtect under a court order in early 2010.

"As a business we must facilitate genuine rights holders who wish to enforce their copyright in a proportionate way," the firm added.

"With that in mind we have been working on a new framework policy to deal with future applications, in a bid to protect our customers."

The DEA judicial review

BT will be arguing its case against the Digital Economy Act (DEA) today as part of a judicial review into the legislation.

The firm, which believes the Act was rushed through Parliament, wants to know whether or not the law is enforceable under European telecoms, e-commerce and privacy directives.

BT and TalkTalk joined forces last year to question the Act and were successful in getting a judicial review.

Many have raised concerns about the DEA's allowance to block internet access of those suspected of repeatedly downloading copyright material.

The London School of Economics this week published a report criticising the legislation, claiming it played too much into the hands of copyright holders and ignored interests of others such as web users and ISPs like BT.

The Open Rights Group, meanwhile, has suggested the review should mark the beginning of the end for the DEA.

"We hope that this is the first step on the road to abandoning this deeply flawed Act," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group.

"It is an Act which simply won't work except in disproportionately harming the UK's internet providers and users. We need to start again and find a new policy settlement which embraces, rather than tramples on, the exciting possibilities that the digital age offers."

ACS:Law and its client MediaCAT have failed to see 27 cases of alleged illegal filesharing discontinued, the London Patents Count Court heard today.

Judge Birss QC confirmed the cases have been stayed, saying the notices of discontinuance were an abuse of the court's processes.

Earlier this month, it emerged both MediaCAT and ACS:Law had shut down and wanted the proceedings, which they initiated, to come to a close.

ACS:Law courted controversy after it sent letters to people it suspected of illegal filesharing, asking recipients to pay hundreds of pounds or risk being taken to court.

Just 27 cases have been brought to court despite thousands of letters being sent out.

Last month, the law firm chose to stop sending letters after Andrew Crossley, head of ACS:Law, said he had received death threats and had his email hacked.

Porn licensee MediaCAT has been invited by the court to join copyright holders if they wish to have a say in the case.

Just two of the copyright holders have been identified Sheptonhurst and Darker Enterprises.

Claimants have until 22 February to make applications in the cases or attempt to discontinue the cases properly.

If they fail to do so then the cases against the defendants could be struck off, Judge Birss explained.

If no additional applications have been by the claimants, the case will resume on 16 March, when the first stage of applications for wasted costs on behalf of the defendants will begin.

Barrister Guy Tritton, acting on behalf of the defendants, said the accused wanted to have matters dealt with as soon as possible.

"What we don't want to do is have this in a state of limbo in perpetuity," Tritton said.

Judge Birss agreed the defendants "don't want to be left hanging around."

Tritton also raised concerns that although ACS:Law had folded, Crossley would return "in another guise" and launch actions against the alleged file sharers.

Furthermore, he said the defendants wanted to have the matter of costs addressed as soon as possible.

Applications for wasted costs orders on behalf of the defendants, represented by the national law firm Ralli, were sent to the court last month.

Michael Forrester, from Ralli's intellectual property and IT law team, said his firm had dealt with cases where consumers complained of being pursued even though they were sure they had not downloaded copyright protected material.

"It can be incredibly upsetting for people to receive these letters and they may well have a claim in harassment, so I am urging them to come forward," Forrester added.

The rules on communications devices in court rooms could be overhauled as the head of the England and Wales Judiciary allows tweeting from court as an interim measure.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has ruled live text communications should be allowed during trials but only if the judge in charge believed it would not interfere with the case.

Live text communications include mobile email, social media including Twitter and internet enabled laptops.

In the ruling, he said: "There is no statutory prohibition on the use of live text-based communications in open court. But before such use is permitted, the court must be satisfied that its use does not pose a danger of interference to the proper administration of justice in the individual case."

"Subject to this consideration, the use of an unobtrusive, hand held, virtually silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice."

The ruling is only temporary, however, and a consultation about an ongoing code of practice will begin soon. It will involve the Judiciary, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Bar Council and the Law Society, the Press Complaints Commission and the Society of Editors.

Members of the public who want to put their views across will also be able to contribute via the Judiciary's website.

The move to allow Twitter in court came as a result of the Julian Assange bail hearing held last week, The presiding judge, Howard Riddle, granted reporters permission to tweet updates from the case at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court as he had no objections.

The Criminal Justice Act 1925 still prohibits the use of photography and sound recording equipment in court rooms.

The patent war between Apple and Nokia has gone up a notch after the Finnish phone maker filed an extra 13 patents against the Cupertino company.

Earlier this year, the legal tussle between the two firms made its way across the pond as Apple accused Nokia of infringing nine patents around smartphone technology, just as the iPhone maker did towards the end of 2009 in the US when it had countersued the Finnish firm.

Now Nokia has filed claims in the UK High Court, Dusseldorf and Mannheim District Courts in Germany and the District Court of the Hague, Netherlands.

Nokia alleged Apple infringed its patents in numerous products sold in the countries, including the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch.

In the UK, the filing covered four Nokia patents related to touch user interface, on-device app stores, signal noise suppression and modulator structures.

"These actions add 13 further Nokia patents to the 24 already asserted against Apple in the US International Trade Commission and the Delaware and Wisconsin Federal courts," said Paul Melin, vice president of intellectual property at Nokia.

"The Nokia inventions protected by these patents include several which enable compelling user experiences. For example, using a wiping gesture on a touch screen to navigate content, or enabling access to constantly changing services with an on-device app store, both filed more than ten years before the launch of the iPhone."

At the time of publication, Apple had not offered a response to the Nokia filings.

The legal battle between Nokia and Apple is one of many patent arguments going on in the tech world.

Apple has been involved in a number of disputes this year against fellow phone manufacturers, including Motorola and HTC.

An outright ban on using Twitter in court would not be "feasible or reasonable," a lawyer has said.

Stewart Room, partner in Field Fisher Waterhouse's Privacy and Information Law Group, told IT PRO that the issue needs serious consideration but it is vital journalists be able to report on court proceedings.

"Twitter is a tool for journalism as well as for social networking," Room said. "So if tweeting by journalists in court is banned, what is the difference if they step outside the courtroom to post their messages?"

Room also questioned whether restrictions on the use of Twitter should be evidence-based or not.

Proceedings surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's appeal for bail, which has now been granted, were kept fully secret today after Twitter usage was banned inside the courtroom. Journalists had been permitted to tweet from court before Thursday.

The Lord Chief Justice, meanwhile, has called for a debate on tweeting from the courtroom, according to reports.

Whilst journalists should be allowed to tweet from court, albeit within a set of rules, other parties involved in cases may need different rules, Room said.

"Banning the use of Twitter in court by the parties to the proceedings, by witnesses and jury members is much easier to reconcile with public policy," he said.

"Mature thought is required to create workable and justifiable rules for everyone else. But, of course, some evidence will always need to be kept strictly confidential, but journalists know the rules and the courtroom is usually cleared of lay persons when such materials are being discussed."

Twitter was at the centre of another court battle earlier this year, when a user was handed a 1,000 fine and a criminal conviction for threatening to blow up an airport on the micro-blogging service.

Chambers then lost an appeal, much to the vexation of supporters who voiced their dismay on Twitter at the court's decision.

Three Pirate Bay founders have been unsuccessful in their attempt to overturn their prison sentences for copyright infringement.

It all stems back to a court ruling over a year ago, when Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundstrom were found guilty of assisting users of the still-active Pirate Bay to break Sweden's copyright law and sentenced to one-year jail sentences.

Whilst the appeals court did not overturn the guilty verdict, the co-founders jail sentences were cut as Neij will serve 10 months, Sunde eight and Lundstrom four.

Their fines, however, have doubled, going up from a collective $2 million (1.3 million) to $6.5m (4.1 million).

A fourth founder who was also convicted last year, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, did not appear in court, citing illness. He will have his case heard at a future date.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), which helped bring the initial case on behalf of a number of the rights owners, called for the Pirate Bay to now be closed down.

"Today's judgment confirms the illegality of the Pirate Bay and the seriousness of the crimes of those involved," said IFPI's chief executive (CEO) Frances Moore.

"It is now time for the Pirate Bay, whose operators have twice been convicted in court, to close. We now look to governments and ISPs to take note of this judgment, do the responsible thing and take the necessary steps to get The Pirate Bay shut down."

The Pirate Party UK, meanwhile, has raised concerns about the knock-on effects of the court's decision.

"I am deeply concerned that this will encourage ever more draconian legislation in the UK aimed at restricting people's access to the internet," Loz Kaye, leader of the Pirate Party UK, told IT PRO.

"The internet community feels under siege and frustrations are building."

There were indications earlier in the year that rather than damaging the Pirate Bay, the court proceedings had actually boosted the popularity of the group.

"Despite the high-profile nature of the case, file-sharing continues to rise in Sweden, and worldwide," Kaye claimed.

"Just as home taping did not kill music, neither will downloading."

UPDATED The head of a major cyber gang who targeted many UK homes and businesses has been sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Matthew Anderson, a 33-year-old security expert, was helping run a collection of cyber criminals known as the m00p group, who sent millions of malicious emails to both homes and businesses.

A court heard this week that Anderson was using his mother's cottage as a base for launching attacks, according to various reports.

Last month, Anderson pleaded guilty to causing unauthorised modification to the content of computers, contrary to Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, but now more details have emerged about his role.

Southwark crown court heard how the father of five managed to compromise computers to allow him to steal data and take over webcams to snoop on people.

He collected CVs, wills and medical reports, and on one occasion was believed to have seriously distressed a teenage girl when controlling a webcam.

The gang targeted hundreds of businesses from 2005 onwards, including Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital, the publishers Macmillan and car maker Toyota.

The scam emails used fake anti-virus tactics, adopting the front of an online business offering software called Optom Security, the Metropolitan Police said last month.

Two other men were arrested as part of the investigation into m00p, one released without any further action, while the other pleaded guilty in Finland in 2008 and received a custodial sentence of 18 days and a community service order.

Ash Patel, country manager for UK and Ireland at Stonesoft, said the Anderson case proves bedroom hackers are still around.

"For those old enough to remember, the 1983 film War Games came to represent the hacker with an ego in their bedroom scenario," Patel told IT PRO.

"Almost 30 years later, the Matthew Anderson case shows us that that hacker is still with us today but, with more money on the table, they're now dwarfed by the number of well-funded, well-organised hackers."

Patel also suggested law enforcement and security researchers are getting better at identifying and taking down cyber criminals.

"As hackers are better resourced so are the authorities and they're ably supported by a wiser general public," he added.

It has been one of the best years yet for cyber crime takedowns, Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure, recently told IT PRO.

Various botnet takedowns have even managed to reduce the amount of spam doing the rounds.

Code produced by Oracle in court, in a bid to prove its copyright was infringed by Google, was edited, the search giant has alleged.

An ongoing court case between the two tech behemoths is trying to decide whether Google stole Oracle's copyrighted Java code when creating Android.

Oracle had produced a comparison of Java code and the code used in Android, as it sought to prove similarities between the two.

Subsequently Google claimed the comparison was not accurate as Oracle "redacted or deleted... both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question," as Groklaw noted.

This is just one of Google's defences, though. The search giant has alleged the patents issued by Oracle were in fact invalid as "one or more claims are directed to abstract ideas or other non-statutory subject matter."

In other defences, Google claimed Android was "created independently and without reference to any works protected by the Asserted Copyrights," and said Oracle had "not suffered any irreparable injury."

The lawsuit is one of a host of cases between some of the tech big boys.

The biggest also involves Oracle in a case against SAP. The former's chief executive Larry Ellison was in court this week, claiming SAP's alleged theft of Oracle software cost his company $4 billion (2.5 billion).

Prosecutors have dropped their case against a teenager accused of piracy, saying it wasn't in the public interest to continue.

Matthew Wyatt was 17 when he was charged in 2007 for sharing three albums and one single over BitTorrent site OiNK - that site was itself in court over the past two years, with 26-year-old founder Alan Ellis acquitted this January.

David Cook, of Wyatt's solicitors Burrows Bussin, said the teen's home was raided on 10 September 2007 by six people, but not all were police.

The group included employees from Trading Standards as well as members of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - the latter of which raised a ruckus by contributing an entire amendment to the Digital Economy Bill.

Cook said Wyatt was charged with no warning from the local Cleveland Police. Under the Digital Economy Bill's three strike rules, he would have been given warnings first.

Wyatt was charged with distributing copyrighted material to such an extend as to prejudicially affect the copyright holder, Cook said. That could have lead to a 10 year sentence, had the prosecution not dropped the case.

The CPS said that it made "the decision to discontinue on public interest grounds following further conferences with counsel and the police," saying the likely penalty would not have been "substantial."

Cook argued a civil case would have been a better fit. "Case law definitively states that copyright offences arising out of BitTorrent should be put before a civil judge. In this case, there appeared a simple reason behind the decision to charge with a criminal act the IFPI wanted to make an example of Matthew Wyatt."

Wyatt is naturally happy the case is over. "I am delighted that the CPS has finally decided to end this misguided and disproportionate prosecution. The last two and a half years have been stressful and disruptive for my family and for me."

Proving copyright

Cook claimed that the material was never even proven to be under copyright.

"In a world where kudos can be gained through early leaks, and fake tracks consisting of live versions, white noise and loops are rife, we believed that this was a dangerous gap in the evidence," he said. "We also found it extraordinary that the copyright holder was never asked to identify the tracks as being theirs."

Cook said the prosecution's computer experts said there was a digital watermark on the tracks, but it was never traced. He claimed the songs were likely leaked from a music critic, band insider or record company employee, and not ripped from a disc.

"But rather than alienate themselves from these useful allies, the IFPI, which represents the interests of the four major record companies, chose instead to make a scapegoat of a 17-year-old boy," Cook claimed.

Manipulation

Cook accused the music industry groups of manipulating the police to make an example of Wyatt.

"It was clear throughout this case that Matthew Wyatt was the victim of a cynical attempt by the record industry to legitimise its heavy-handed tactics and dubious methods by using police resources and the public purse," he claimed.

"The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and British Phonographic Industry used their influence to gain entry to Matthew Wyatt's family home, gather evidence and dictate the direction of inquiries," he continued.

"Government ministers have categorically stated they do not want to see teenagers arrested in their bedrooms for file-sharing. This case makes clear such assurances are hollow."

The BPI disagreed, saying the case was thoroughly investigated by the prosecution.

"We are disappointed with this decision by the CPS," a spokesperson said in a statement. "It comes after a thorough investigation by Cleveland Police and follows a complaint by the industry concerning illegal distribution of pre-release music."

"However, this decision does not undermine the strong case for tackling the serious damage done by pre-release piracy," the statement added.

When asked for comment, the IFPI directed us to the BPI's statement.

Ciena this week received court approval for its stalking horse bid for Nortel's Optical Networking business.

Judges from both the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have given the go ahead for the deal, but not until changes were made to the initial proposal from the companies.

Reports have suggested that Ciena asked for a breakup fee to be paid to the company if the deal fell through, as well as asking for any other deposits from bidders not to be returned.

Judges are said to have refused these conditions so the companies had to think again before getting their approval.

A spokesperson from Nortel told IT PRO: "There were changes to the bidding procedures and a change to the termination provisions of the stalking horse agreement. We cannot provide specific details on those changes at this time. However any modifications will be reflected in the court orders which will be publicly available."

It has now been confirmed that the deadline for bids to be received for these assets is 9 November. The auction process should take place on 13 November.

Ciena made its offer of $521 million for the assets earlier this month and has been asked by the courts to put down a five per cent deposit to confirm its interest.

But regardless of how far ahead the deal has gone between the two companies there is still time for other bidders to come in and snatch the deal.

Ericsson ended up winning the auction for Nortel's wireless assets after being a late bidder back in July.

IBM is currently under investigation by the US Justice Department for allegedly taking advantage of its monopoly in the mainframe computer market.

The investigation began in response to complaints from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) that IBM has been revoking software licences from clients that don't also buy its hardware.

Neither IBM nor the CCIA were available for comment, but the BBC reported that IBM denied the claim and said it will cooperate with regulators.

The anti-competition complaints against IBM centre on the company's licensing of its mainframe software, according to an article in The New York Times.

In August, similar accusations were filed against IBM by software developer T3 Technologies. A Manhattan judge dismissed the case last week.

A Swedish court has thrown out an appeal for a retrial by the four men behind the Pirate Bay, according to reports.

The Swedish court of appeal ruled that the judge who sentenced the four men to prison was not biased, even though he was a member of several copyright groups. The decision is not appealable.

Back in April the copyright case against the Pirate Bay ended with the four defendants found guilty and all sentenced to one year in prison.

They were also sentenced to pay around 2.4 million to cover lost revenues.

The Pirate Bay has always argued that it does not infringe copyright as they simply link to the material rather than store it, but it has also had a rather confrontational attitude to the big companies.

The Pirate Bay said on its website blog that they were likely to file charges against the Swedish legal system to the European Court of Human Rights.

Here are some of the IT PRO reader's views on the case.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will not prosecute McKinnon in the UK for computer misuse, claiming the charges don't match the seriousness of what he's been accused of in the US.

British hacker Gary McKinnon is one big step closer to extradition after the [a href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/109_09.html"

rel="nofollow"]Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced[/a] that it won't be prosecuting him in the UK for allegations of computer misuse.

Alison Saunders, head of the CPS Organised Crime Division, said in a statement that there was although there was evidence to prosecute McKinnon for nine occasions where he admitted to criminal activity, it did not come near to reflecting the [a

href="https://www.itpro.com/104684/alleged-nasa-hacker-begins-extradition-fight" target="_blank"]criminality alleged by the US authorities[/a].

"These were not random experiments in computer hacking, but a deliberate effort to breach US defence systems at a critical time which caused well documented damage," she said.

"They may have been conducted from McKinnon's home computer and in that sense there is a UK link but the target and the damage were transatlantic."

The CPS did not consider McKinnon's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, as the case had not reached the second stage, which focuses on whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, was consulted on the decision.

Graham Cluley, security consultant at Sophos, said that the news would come as a blow to the IT community as he had [a

href="https://www.itpro.com/607857/politicians-want-mckinnon-to-serve-time-in-uk" target="_blank"]a lot of sympathy and support[/a].

He said: "The real question is should we really be making such an example of a guy who was apparently just a UFO conspiracy theory nut?

"There's a danger that McKinnon is being used as a whipping-boy by a country embarrassed about the poor security of its computer in the months after 9/11."

However, this isn't the end of McKinnon's legal battle. Last month, the High Court ruled that McKinnon [a

href="https://www.itpro.com/609628/hacker-mckinnon-can-challenge-us-extradition" target="_blank"]could seek a judicial review [/a] of the government's decision to extradite him.

UPDATED: Admitted hacker Gary McKinnon is on the point of extradition after cracking into NASA and Pentagon systems in 2001 and 2002.

McKinnon has said the hacks were harmless and that he was just looking for proof of the existence of aliens. Since the hacks, he's also been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.

He has been trying to avoid extradition to the US, where he could face a long sentence in an American jail. Home Secretary Alan Johnson has refused to step in.

Here's our timeline of how it's all gone down.

February 2007: Alleged NASA hacker begins extradition fight

Lawyers for McKinnon begin their fight to stop his extradition to the US. McKinnon admits accessing the computers, but he claimed that he was only looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life.

October 2007: McKinnon given leave to appeal hacking extradition

After making a failed case to the High Court, the House of Lords give McKinnon another chance to appeal his extradition to the US, on the grounds that US prosecuting authorities were coercive and threatening during plea bargaining discussions.

June 2008: British hacker takes appeal to Law Lords

McKinnon continues his fight against extradition and begins his case at the House of Lords. McKinnon's lawyers claim that an extradition could see him sentenced for anything up to 45 years.

July 2008: Hacker McKinnon loses final appeal

The hacker loses his appeal to the Law Lords. The only option now is the European courts.

August 2008: Hacker McKinnon gets extradition delay

The European Court of Human Rights grants McKinnon a two-week delay on his extradition, giving it a chance to look at his case.

August 2008: Hacker faces justice after lost Euro appeal

The European courts reject the appeal. Plans are made to appeal to the Home Secretary, which are also rejected.

12 January 2009: McKinnon could be tried for hacker crimes in Britain

McKinnon's lawyers say he will plead guilty to a UK offence under the Misuse of Computers Act. The request has already been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

15 January 2009: Gary McKinnon and supporters make last-ditch appeal

McKinnon and supporters make a public appeal before the High Court on whether they will accept his bid to be tried in the UK.

23 January 2009: Hacker McKinnon can challenge US extradition

McKinnon achieves a victory, as he is granted a judicial review to challenge his case in the High Court.

24 February 2009: Gary McKinnon supported by anti-terror law watchdog

Independent reviewer of ant-terror laws Lord Carlile gives his backing for McKinnon to have a UK trial.

26 February 2009: CPS will not prosecute McKinnon in UK

The Crown Prosecution Service decides not to prosecute McKinnon for computer misuse, claiming the charges don't match what he has been accused of in the US.

17 March 2009: McKinnon just looking for 'little green men'

Terry Waite is the latest high-profile supporter of McKinnon, saying that he was "harmless" and "common sense" was needed.

10 June 2009: Will High Court stop McKinnon's US extradition?

A round-up of McKinnon's journey to his High Court judicial review which could decide his fate.

16 July 2009: Conservatives lose Gary McKinnon extradition battle

The government rejects a Tory call to step in and prevent McKinnon being extradited.

17 July 2009: Your Views: Gary McKinnon

IT PRO readers reveal what they think about Gary McKinnon's case - most want him to be given a job, not a jail sentence.

31 July 2009: McKinnon loses High Court appeal

McKinnon's mother is "heartbroken" after a final appeal to the High Court proves fruitless.

3 August 2009: Gary McKinnon may serve hacking time in UK

Labour leaders including Harriet Harman suggest that although McKinnon may have to go the US to face trial, he could serve his sentence in the UK.

9 September 2009: More MPs back McKinnon in extradition battle

A group of MPs from all the big parties join forces to pressure Home Secretary Alan Johnson to prevent McKinnon's extradition, largely on the grounds of his health.

9 October 2009: McKinnon loses latest battle against extradition to US

McKinnon is told he won't be able to take his fight to the new Supreme Court, and is given two weeks to come up with a new way to avoid extradition.

18 October 2009: Gary McKinnon's extradition put on hold

McKinnon finally gets some help from the Home Office, as Alan Johnson puts the extradition clock on hold to give the government time to consider a new report into the hacker's mental health.

13 November 2009: Home Affairs Committee calls for Johnson to halt the extradition of McKinnon due to his 'precarious' mental health.

26 November 2009: Johnson refuses to step in, saying that there was nothing he could do to prevent the extradition, and should proceed forthwith.

1 December 2009: A barrage of questions fails to convince Johnson that he should change his decision, though McKinnon does buy a bit of time.

The Government is to review it's own use of technology data and who can access it, in order to balance the privacy intrusion with the potential for protection.

Speaking to IT trade body Intellect, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed that the public expects the government to use technology to protect them, but added that people also expect privacy. Therefore, the govenrment will be looking into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and the DNA database next year.

RIPA gives investigative powers to bodies such as local authorities to use tech such as CCTV to look into flytipping or disrupitive people. Next year, Smith said, the government will look into possible changes to the act, including which public bodies can use it, deciding who will authorise such use, and changing the code of practice which goes along with it.

The government will also produce a white paper on forensics, to look into the records held on the DNA database, and review whose data is held on it possibly removing the DNA records it holds of children under 10 and data taken from people who haven't committed violent crimes.

"These changes will see some people coming off the system. But as I said, we need to strengthen the dividing lines between innocence and guilt and so I want to do more to ensure we get the right people onto the system as well," she explained in her speech, which can be read in full here.

Finding the right balance between civil liberties and using technology to protect against "terrorism, crime and disorder" was one of the most pressing questions the UK faces, Smith added.

"Balancing these individual and collective rights has always been a key responsibility of government. And in an era of rapid technological change, it is right that we should constantly satisfy ourselves that we have got the balance right," she said in the speech.

Smith brought up a piece of graffiti as an example. Last April, the artist known as Banksy painted a mural with the words "One Nation Under CCTV" 30 feet high on a wall just off Oxford Street. "Eight months later, it's still there with a CCTV camera watching over it. And while it's probably done wonders for the value of that gable wall, we're entitled to ask how much this effort, and others like them, have hit the right target."

With that in mind, Smith wondered if we are indeed living in a surveillance society. Her answer likely doesn't surprise. "I don't believe so, not for one moment. But I welcome the debate. And while not condoning graffiti per se, I understand the need to keep revisiting these issues in an open and democratic society," she said.

Defendants will have to give encryption keys to police even if the data it unlocks incriminates them, a British appeals court has ruled.

An appeals court has heard the case of two defendants who were arrested under the terrorism prevention act. One suspect's homes was searched, revealing computer material which was partially encrypted.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act imposed a legal obligation for them to reveal the full encryption keys and allow access to the encrypted material, the ruling said. However, the suspects appealed, claiming that it was incompatible with the privilege against self-incrimination.

The appeals ruling said that as the encryption key was no different to a physical key, it existed separately from their will and so the self-incrimination defence couldn't be used.

The court said: "The key to the computer equipment is no different to the key of a locked drawer. The contents of the drawer existed independently of the suspect; so did the key to it. The contents might or might not be incriminating; the key was neutral."

It is Part three of the RIPA act which requires people under particular circumstances to supply encryption keys to particular authorities. It has caused controversy as a failure to disclose decrypted data could lead to a penalty of up to two years in jail.

Critics have said that law enforcement could cost businesses by mishandling this data, with some of the provisions complex and even unworkable.

Courtrooms all over the country have been fitted with Wi-Fi hotspots in a bid to provide barristers and solicitors with access to "legal reference material".

The service will also be open to jurors, victims and defendants, although all will be subject to an access charge.

"HMCS recognises that going to court as a victim, witness or juror can be disruptive for many people who may need to keep in touch with their business, work or family during the day," said courts minister Maria Eagle. We await with anticipation the first case of contempt for accessing Facebook from the dock.

The service was funded by Her Majesty's Courts Service, which will in turn receive a percentage of income generated by the BT Openzone hotspots.

A range of payment options are available for Openzone hotspots, although BT Total Broadband customers are entitled to use the service at no cost.

Openzone currently has 3,000 hotspots around the country, as well as those created by its 95,000 BT FON Wi-Fi community members.