Saturday, 5 April 2008

Government and Regulators and ISPs

Many people believe that the Internet is a legislative nowhere land. The truth however is quite different with the majority of governments acting quickly correcting legal deficiencies and holes in recognition of the importance and value of information technology and the Internet. In many ways, law reform has moved faster around the Internet than many other technologies. The US in particular, has been quick to act introducing various specific immunities for Internet intermediaries. Many other jurisdictions including the EU have implemented substantial programs aimed at curtailing any legislative flaws.

The US has introduced a detailed set of immunities is a part of the online copyright infringement liability limitation act[1] (contained within the Digital millennium Copyright act) in order to ratify the provisions of the WIPO Copyright Treaty[2]. These provisions provide immunity from prosecution to Internet intermediaries involved in the mere transmission of packets[3], who maintain automated cache Systems, who host third-party resources and those who provide search tools. There are conditions associated with these immunities. It is required that the Internet intermediary has a lack of knowledge of the transgression, but they do not receive direct financial benefit from it, and that they respect and do not try to bypass copyright protection technologies.

General immunity provisions have also been introduced within the US through the Communications Decency Act (1996)[4]. This act introduced new criminal offences of knowingly creating, sending, transmitting or displaying of obscene or indecent materials to minors. This act introduced a number of “Good Samaritan” provisions permitting ISPs to introduce blocking or filtering technology while not becoming classified by the courts to be a publisher or editor. This allows an ISP to filter this material without assuming any responsibility for third-party content.
The EU E-Commerce Directive[5] provides a similar provisions offering protection for both packet transmitters and cache operators[6]. It is still possible however that an ISP could be required to either actively monitor content or at the least to take down prescribed content following a notification or advice as to its existence. If, following being advised, the ISP had not removed the offending content, liability would still apply.

The US Senate has approved S.B. 2248, a measure that grants immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies such as ISPs that cooperate with intelligence gathering requests from the government[7]. This amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)[8] would if passed increases government powers to eavesdrop on communications in certain cases without a warrant. Though there is an increase to selected protections for Internet intermediaries, there are still issues. If for instance an ISP sees an action to violate the constitutional rights of their clients and does not immediately respond, they do not receive immunity if eventually forced to respond. Further, the immunity only applies selectively to government agencies and no other actions.

The UK at the moment is in a state of flux. The release of the “Creative Britain; new talents for the new economy”[9] proposal carries with it the potential to create additional liabilities for Internet intermediaries. It is proposed that either Internet service providers engage in a voluntary code of conduct that provides security controls and monitoring, or else it is likely that the government will implement these controls. Ideally, intermediaries will work together formulate an industry code of practice thus negating the need for government intervention and also reducing their exposure to both contractual breaches[10] and tortuous liability.
[1] The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) is a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act known as DMCA 512 or the DMCA takedown provisions. It is a 1998 United States federal law that provided a safe harbour to online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs, internet service providers) that promptly take down content if someone alleges it infringes their copyrights. Section 512 was added to the Copyright law in Title 17 of the United States Code (Public Law No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2877).
[2] The European Union's Electronic Commerce directive contains similar notice and takedown provisions in its Article 14. In France, the Digital Economy Law ("Loi relative à l'économie numérique") implements this directive. In Finland "Laki tietoyhteiskunnan palvelujen tarjoamisesta" implements the directive.
[3] The UK legislation, Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2013, The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 states in section, “Mere conduit” is functionally equivalent to this provision..
[4] Communications Decency Act (1996)
[5] Directive 2000/31/EC on Electronic Commerce OJ L 178 p1, 17 July 2000
[6] Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2013, The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 states in section, “Caching”: “Where an information society service is provided which consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that transmission where -
(a) the information is the subject of automatic, intermediate and temporary storage where that storage is for the sole purpose of making more efficient onward transmission of the information to other recipients of the service upon their request, and
(b) the service provider -
(i) does not modify the information;
(ii) complies with conditions on access to the information;
(iii) complies with any rules regarding the updating of the information, specified in a manner widely recognised and used by industry;
(iv) does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information; and
(v) acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information he has stored upon obtaining actual knowledge of the fact that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network, or access to it has been disabled, or that a court or an administrative authority has ordered such removal or disablement.”
[7] See,
[8] The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62.[1] The subchapters of FISA provide for Electronic Surveillance, Physical Searches, Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes, and Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes.
[9] Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 22 Feb 2008
[10] The major uncertainty with electronic contracts stems from the facts of the individual dispute. This can lead to breaches as parties who do not understand the issues surrounding the contract seek to get around them. Fundamentally; offer, acceptance and consideration to fill the requirements of creation of the contract. Being that the offeror may stipulate the method of acceptance, it would be prudent for the contracting parties to agree to the form of acceptance prior to the conclusion of the contractual negotiations.

Friday, 4 April 2008

Where to look for digital evidence

The simple answer is:

  • Bad clusters
  • Computer date, time, and password
  • Deleted files
  • Free space
  • Hidden partitions
  • Lost clusters
  • Metadata
  • Other partitions
  • Reserved areas
  • Slack space
  • Software registration information
  • System areas
  • Unallocated space

Documents – this is what you are looking for. Whether completed or still in draft, and working notes or scrap paper - these include:

  • Computer Based Information
  • Photographs, Maps and Charts
  • Internal Correspondence and email
  • Legal and Regulatory Filings
  • Company Intranet access and Publications
  • Formal meeting minutes or transcripts
  • Casual conservations
  • Conversations at trade shows and events.
  • A competitive organization may also be able to make use of and gain an advantage using:
  • Marketing and product plans (esp. prior to release)
  • Source code
  • Corporate strategies and plans
  • Marketing, advertising and packaging expenditures
  • Pricing issues, strategies, lists
  • R&D, manufacturing processes and technological operations
  • Target markets and prospect information
  • Plant closures and development
  • Product designs, development and costs
  • Staffing, operations, org charts, wage/salary
  • Partner and contract arrangements (including delivery, pricing and terms)
  • Customer and supplier information
  • Merger and acquisition plans
  • Financials, revenues, P&L, R&D budgets

With the rise of identity fraud and other related offenses, the theft of proprietary company information and private personnel records is also increasing. The records sought include:

  • Home addresses
  • Home phone number
  • Names of spouse and children
  • Employee’s salary
  • Social security number
  • Medical records
  • Credit records or credit union account information
  • Performance review
A Digital Forensic professional needs to effectively and efficiently identify relevant electronic evidence associated with violations of specific laws, as a part of a discovery order and per instructions.
  • Identify and articulate probable cause necessary to obtain a search warrant and recognize the limits of warrants.
  • Locate and recover relevant electronic evidence from computer systems using a variety of tools.
  • Recognize and maintain a chain of custody.
  • Follow a documented forensics investigation process.

Thursday, 3 April 2008

Internet Piracy, Contraband and Counterfeit Products

Data Recovery is likely to show some level of copyright violation in nearly all Australian Companies
In Moorhouse v. University of New South Wales, a writer initiated a “test case” asserting copyright infringement against the University of New South Wales. The University had provided a photocopier for the function of allowing photocopying works held by the university’s library. A chapter of the plaintiff’s manuscript was copied by means of the photocopier. The library had taken rudimentary provisions to control the unauthorised copying. No monitoring of the use of the photocopier was made. Further, he sign located on the photocopier was unclear and was determined by the Court to not be “adequate”. The Australian High Court held that, whilst the University had not directly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright, the University had sanctioned infringements of copyright in that the library had provided a boundless incitement for its patrons to duplicate material in the library.

In July 1997, the Attorney-General published a discussion paper that proposed a new broad-based technology-neutral diffusion right as well as a right of making available to the public. This provides the position where direct infringement by users of a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing network would be covered in Australian law in a manner comparable to the US position in both Napster and Grokster.
[1976] R.P.C. 151.

This is similar to the findings in RCA Corp. v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1982] R.P.C. 91 at 100 in which the court stated that “[A] person may be said to authorize another to commit an infringement if he or she has some form of control over the other at the time of infringement or, if there is no such control, if a person is responsible for placing in the hands of another materials which by their nature are almost inevitably to be used for the purpose of infringement.” [1976] R.P.C. 151 “[A] person who has under his control the means by which an infringement of copyright may be committed - such as a photocopying machine - and who makes it available to other persons knowing, or having reason to suspect, that it is likely to be used for the purpose of committing an infringement, and omitting to take reasonable steps to limit use to legitimate purposes, would authorize any infringement that resulted from its use”.

See the Attorney-General’s Discussion Paper, “Copyright and the Digital Agenda”, July 1997 at 71 for more details. The goal of this paper was to indicate the method by which Australia could implement the international copyright standards agreed at the December 1996 WIPO meeting.

A&M Records Inc v Napster, Inc 114 F Supp 2d 896 (ND Cal 2000) & A&M Records Inc v Napster, Inc 239 F 3d 1004 (9th Cir 2001); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd No.s CV-01-08541-SVW, CV-01-09923-SVW (CD Cal, 25 April 2003) ('Grokster') (available at & Grokster Nos CV-01-08541-SVW, CV-01-09923-SVW (CD Cal, 25 April 2003), 21-2.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Digital Forensics

A small sample of where digital forensics can help organisations includes:

  • Computer break-ins (or Trespass) including the illegal access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right;
  • Illegal interception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system;
  • Data Interference or the damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data without authorization;
  • Interfering with a system or the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data;
  • Possession of obscenity/prohibited pornography (e.g. child pornography and bestiality);
  • Industrial espionage;
  • E-mail Fraud;
  • Harassment;
  • Web page defacements (cyber vandalism);
  • Theft of company documents.
  • Contractual disputes

Digital forensics offers advantages over traditional forms of discovery, but competent counsel needs to recognise how to integrate this significant, fast-changing discipline into practice.

E-discovery refers to finding and producing documents stored in electronic form in response to litigation or regulatory requirements.

It is becoming increasingly common to ask for copies of selected e-mail communications or make broad requests for all electronic records. That trend will only intensify in the future.

The Victorian Crimes (Document Destruction) Act 2006 (the Document Destruction Act) was passed into law in Victoria in 2006. Together with the Evidence (Document Unavailability) Act 2006 (the Document Unavailability Act), these pieces of legislation amend the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 and Evidence Act 1958, correspondingly. They where issued in response to concerns raised by the Report on Document Destruction and Civil Litigation in Victoria, by Professor Peter Sallmann. It is imperative that all companies comprehend their responsibility in respect of how they store or destroy any documents. This incorporates email and other electronic files.

The Document Destruction Act establishes additional criminal penalties and the Document Unavailability Act sets up new civil consequences. The Document Destruction Act affects acts carried out in Victoria such as those by companies resident (or engaging in business) within Victoria. The Document Unavailability Act pertains to civil proceedings initiated within Victoria.

The Australian Electronic Transactions Act 1999

The production and storage of documents may be conducted online using electronic means. The Act states:

Requirement to produce a document
(1) If, under a law of the Commonwealth, a person is required to produce a document that is in the form of paper, an article or other material, that requirement is taken to have been met if the person produces, by means of an electronic communication, an electronic form of the document, where:
(a) in all cases--having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time of the communication, the method of generating the electronic form of the document provided a reliable means of assuring the maintenance of the integrity of the information contained in the document; and
(b) in all cases--at the time the communication was sent, it was reasonable to expect that the information contained in the electronic form of the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference; and
(c) if the document is required to be produced to a Commonwealth entity, or to a person acting on behalf of a Commonwealth entity, and the entity requires that an electronic form of the document be produced, in accordance with particular information technology requirements, by means of a particular kind of electronic communication--the entity's requirement has been met; and
(d) if the document is required to be produced to a Commonwealth entity, or to a person acting on behalf of a Commonwealth entity, and the entity requires that particular action be taken by way of verifying the receipt of the document--the entity's requirement has been met; and
(e) if the document is required to be produced to a person who is neither a Commonwealth entity nor a person acting on behalf of a Commonwealth entity--the person to whom the document is required to be produced consents to the production, by means of an electronic communication, of an electronic form of the document.

Digital Forensics or also termed Computer Forensics (and sometimes referred to as Cyberforensics) is a study / term that relates to the study of evidences, by following through investigation and analysis, following the set of standards established for collecting admissible evidences (such as the Evidence Act 1995).

The question to ask is "what my firm doing?"

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

Downloading infringements

“How is a BitTorrent downloader an infringer?”

Take the simple (?) case of music files (where most case law lies). Access to the copyright material without license is illegal in itself. It is analogous to receiving stolen property. Receiving stolen intellectual property is no different. A simple example is friend-net. This is where a friend burns a cd and hands it to you. This is still illegal for both parties (being caught is another issue).

You “may” have a defence if you can validly prove (and this is for you to prove) that you where under the belief that the file was for public distribution. Being in the IT security field, any such claim for credit card details, banking info etc has about a snowflakes chance in hell.

RIAA for instance has determined that it is effective to charge the downloaders. You do not get access to all files on a P2P network. You have to select access and as such you make the decision to access the file.

“So far, the *AAs have only targeted sharing not downloading.”
Actually there have been over 100 suits filed for this. So the truth is that downloaders are also targeted.

Making files available for download = distribution. The case, Elektra v. Perez (Elektra v. Perez, D. Or. 6:05-cv-00931-AA) set this into US law.

In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff needs to both:

  • demonstrate ownership of the material,
  • and show that the party accused of infringement "violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106."

It was determined in Elektra v. Perez that the making available of a file for download fulfills the second requirement.

"[P]laintiffs' Amended Complaint refers to 'Exhibit B' attached to the complaint, which allegedly represents music files being shared by user 'perez@KaZaA' at the time plaintiffs' investigator conducted the investigation... I find that Exhibit B, in the context of the allegations in the Complaint, supports plaintiffs' allegation that defendant made copyrighted materials available for distribution. In sum, plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges the necessary elements of a copyright infringement action pursuant to the Copyright Act"

For a selection of cases see the following cases:

Andersen v. Atlantic (Oregon)
Arista v. Does 1-9 (Denver, CO)
Arista v. Does 1-9 (Columbus, OH)
Arista v. Does 1-11 (Cleveland) (Cleveland, OH)
Arista v. Does 1-11 (Oklahoma City) (Oklahoma City, OK)
Arista v. Does 1-15 (Columbus, OH)
Arista v. Does 1-17 (Portland, OR)
Arista v. Does 1-19 (District of Columbia)
Arista v. Does 1-21 (D. Mass.)
Arista v. Does 1-22 (Providence, RI)
Arista v. Does 1-27 (Portland, ME)
Arista v. Does 1-34 (Raleigh, NC)
Arista v. Finkelstein (Brooklyn, NY)
Arista v. Greubel (Fort Worth, TX)
Arista v. LimeWire (New York, NY)(RIAA case against LimeWire)
Arista v. Tschirhart (San Antonio, TX)
Arista v. Usenet (New York, NY)
Atlantic v. Andersen(Portland, OR)
Atlantic v. Anderson (Houston, TX)
Atlantic v. Boggs (Corpus Christi, Texas)
Atlantic v. Brennan (New Haven, CT)
Atlantic v. Dangler (Rochester, NY)
Atlantic v. DeMassi (Houston, TX)
Atlantic v. Does 1-25(New York, NY)
Atlantic v. Howell (Arizona)(pro se)
Atlantic v. Huggins(Brooklyn, NY)
Atlantic v. Lenentine (Portland, ME)
Atlantic v. Myers (Jackson, MS)
Atlantic v. Njuguna (Charleston, SC)
Atlantic v. Serrano (San Diego, CA)
Atlantic v. Shutovsky (New York, NY)
Atlantic v. Zuleta (Atlanta, GA)
BMG v. Conklin (Pro se case in Houston, TX)
BMG v. Doe (Canada)
BMG v. Does (E. D. Pa. CV 04-650)
BMG v. Gonzalez (USCA 7th Cir.)
BMG v. Thao (Chicago, IL)
Capitol v. Does 1-16 (D. New Mexico)
Capitol v. Fanguiaire (Boston, MA)
Capitol v. Foster (Oklahoma)
Capitol v. Frye (Winston Salem, NC)
Capitol v. Laude (Portland, ME)
Capitol v. Sitaras (Brooklyn, NY)
Capitol v. Thomas (formerly Virgin v. Thomas)(Duluth, MN)
Capitol v. Weed (Phoenix, AZ)
Elektra v. Barker (New York, NY)
Elektra v. Dennis (Jackson, MS)
Elektra v. Does 1-9
Elektra v. Harless (Detroit, MI)
Elektra v. Licata, Cincinnati, OH
Elektra v. McCall (Minnesota)
Elektra v. McDowell (Columbus, GA)
Elektra v. O'Brien (C.D. CA)
Elektra v. Perez (Oregon)
Elektra v. Santangelo (White Plains, NY)
Elektra v. Santangelo II (White Plains, NY)
Elektra v. Schwartz (Brooklyn, NY)
Elektra v. Torres (Brooklyn, NY)
Elektra v. Werry (Providence, Rhode Island)
Elektra v. Wilke (Chicago, IL)
Fonovisa v. Alvarez (Abilene, TX)
Fonovisa v. Does 1-41 (Austin, TX)
Foundation v. UPC Nederland (Netherlands, District Court of Utrecht)
Greenbaum v. Google (New York, NY)
Interscope v. Does (New York, NY)
Interscope v. Does 1-7 (Newport News, VA)
Interscope v. Does 1-40 (Tampa FL)
Interscope v. Duty (Arizona)
Interscope v. Kimmel (NDNY Binghamton Divis.)
Interscope v. Korb (Charleston, SC)
Interscope v. Leadbetter (Seattle, WA)
Interscope v. Rodriguez (San Diego, CA)
LaFace v. Does 1-5 (Kalamazoo, MI, and Marquette, MI)
LaFace v. Does 1-38 (Raleigh, NC)
Lava v. Amurao (White Plains, NY)
Lewan v. Sharman (Chicago, IL)(class action, Kazaa)
Loud v. Does (New York, NY)
Loud v. Sanchez (Tucson, AZ)
Maverick v. Becker (Brooklyn, NY)
Maverick v. Chowdhury (Brooklyn, NY)
Maverick v. Goldshteyn (Brooklyn, NY)
MGM v. Grokster (C.D. California)
Motown v. DePietro (Pro Se Case) (Philadelphia, PA)
Motown v. Does 1-99 (New York, NY)
Motown v. Liggins (M.D. Alabama)
Motown v. Lisberg, (Los Angeles, CA
Motown v. Nelson (Detroit, MI)
Priority v. Beer (Columbus, GA)
Priority v. Chan (Detroit, MI)
Priority v. Chan II (Detroit, MI)
Priority v. Vines (Indianapolis, IN)
SONY v. Arellanes (Sherman, TX)
SONY v. Crain (Beaumont, TX)
SONY v. DeMaria (Charleston, SC)
SONY v. Does 1-5 (Los Angeles, CA)
SONY v. Does 1-10 (Fresno, CA)
SONY v. Does 1-40(New York, NY) SDNY 04cv473
SONY v. Merchant (California)
SONY V. Reese (Houston, TX)
SONY v. Scimeca (Newark, NJ)
UMG v. Del Cid (Tampa, FL)
UMG v. Guin (Brooklyn, NY)
UMG v. Heard (Birmingham, Alabama)
UMG v. Hernandez (Brooklyn, NY)
UMG v. Hightower (Houston, TX)
UMG v. Hummer Winblad (San Francisco, CA)
UMG v. Landau (Utica, NY)
UMG v. Lindor (Brooklyn, NY)
Universal v. Hogan (San Diego, CA)(MPAA case)
Virgin v. Does 1-33 (Knoxville, TN)
Virgin v. Marson (Central Dist. California, Western Divis.)
Virgin v. Morgan (Pensacola, FL)
Virgin v. Thomas (Duluth, MN)
Virgin v. Thompson (W.D. TX)
Warner v. Attal (Brooklyn, NY)
Warner v. Cassin (White Plains, NY)
Warner v. DeWitt (N.D. Ill. Eastern Div.)
Warner v. Does 1-149 (New York, NY)
Warner v. Lewis (Lafayette, LA)
Warner v. Maravilla (C.D. California)
Warner v. Paladuk (E. D. Michigan)
Warner v. Payne (Waco, TX)
Warner v. Pidgeon (E. D. Michigan, Southern Div.)
Warner v. Scantlebury E.D. Michigan, Southern Division)
Warner v. Stubbs (Oklahoma City, OK)

An up to date list is maintained by Ray Beckerson.

Monday, 31 March 2008

Click fraud and related considerations

When thinking of click fraud and related issues, it is essential to consider a number of areas, first there are the physical attacks that come from human such as “Paid to Read” and “Pay to Click” sources. Looking at correlations from time and location I would look at correlation browsing patterns to find sources that are likely to be engaging in unacceptable activities.

If the cost of directly paying or coercing a human to click on a banner is less than the returns of clicking on the banner fraud will occur. Reference sources and referrers sites could be a pornographic site as well with many sites offering access to porn if they solve CAPTCHA’s for instance.

Impression spam comes about as a consequence of HTTP requests for web pages that contain advertisements, but that do not inevitably match up to a user viewing the page. A web crawler or “scraping” program could be used to issue an HTTP re-quest for a web page that happens to contain a banner. Statistically, this variety of request could be distinguished from those requests issued by human users as the banner requests would not correlate to the other images and calls made by the page.

Next there are invalid clicks – these occur due to malicious intent from either “advertiser competitor clicking” or “publisher click inflation”. I see advertiser competitor clicking being the type that is a problem in this instance. For this it would be necessary to analyse click sources against competitor keywords.

Next there is the issue of Tor networks and open Proxies and also those that strip cookies, modify identifying information and change requests. Infected cyber-cafes are also an issue. However, source address location to client market may be used in many cases to determine fraud. Also, over time these are likely to succumb to analysis.

Next there are the particular robotic attacks that could be deployed. I would be checking for signs of “bots”. There is a possibility of invalid user-agent string or unlikely fields in the headers of the HTTP requests. The statistical distribution of the user-agent string should have some correlation to the distribution of browsers.

Clickbot networks have a level of predictability as do for-sale/ for-rent botnets.
“Forced browser clicks” are more difficult. This is more likely to require offline detection. The aggregate set of clicks should correlate to the distribution of files on the web server.
Next there are a number of other areas to consider:

  • Covert_TCP and other covert channel methods,
  • Rootkits
  • DNS rebinding attacks
  • Distributed malware
  • XSS, Flash with HTTP calls, etc
  • Splogs
One thing that has occurred in the past has been a strong correlation across the IP addresses in email spam blacklists and click-bots – thus infected hosts may be participating in email spam botnets as well.

Some other considerations would have to include p0wf (Passing Fingerprinting of Web Content Frameworks) and time based correlations.

Sunday, 30 March 2008

Last week...

A few people have wondered where I have been for the last couple weeks.
The following are a few of the 1,200 or so pictures I have added to myt collection.
So this was a combination of travel in the Americas and the subsequent jetlag and catchup game.
The US certainly likes its flag. This was something I noticed all over the place.

Personally I like the simpler things such as the image above from a car park.
And the technical as above.
But one also has to see certain sights to remember the costs of society and what we have built it on.