A quick look around the blogosphere suggests that for many England fans the idea of watching the World Cup qualifier against Ukraine in front of a computer screen at the mercy of an ISP, or at a crammed cinema, sounds about as appealing as making the long trip to Dnipropetrovsk.

But do not despair, England fans, because there is an option for those of you determined to watch it on telly.

Croatia's HRT 2 state television, also viewable in Serbia on cable, is showing the game live, so here is your chance to combine a bit of light football watching with an autumn dip in the Adriatic somewhere along Croatia's mesmerising coast, or an evening spent sampling Belgrade's unique and vibrant nightlife, epitomised by boat-bars and clubs along the Danube.

And fear not that the Croatian faithful might have a go at you after their team's recent 5-1 drubbing at Wembley. They will be praying for an England win that would leave their boys in the driving seat for a runners-up spot in Group Six.

PHOTO: A subscription page is shown on a laptop computer at a cafe in central London October 5, 2009. REUTERS/Toby Melville

What if the Internet is not really a utopian democratic catalyst of change?

The Web is often seen as a positive means of instilling democratic freedoms in countries under authoritarian rule, but many regimes are now using it to subvert democracy, Evgeny Morozov, a contributing editor at "Foreign  Policy", proposes.

The Internet can actually inhibit rather than empower civil society, Morozov, argued in a lecture on Tuesday at London's Royal Society of Arts.

Social media platforms are being used by certain governments to create a "spinternet" to influence public opinion. They are also being used as part of a process of "authoritarian deliberation" to try and increase the legitimacy of authoritarian rule, he said.

Morozov spoke with Reuters after the lecture.

Repeat offenders who persist in illegally downloading music from file-sharing sites such as Limewire could be blocked from accessing the Web under government proposals.

“Technology and consumer behavior is fast-changing and it’s important that Ofcom has the flexibility to respond quickly to deal with unlawful file-sharing,” says Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms.

Opponents of the idea are more succinct. They say cutting people off is unnecessary and potentially illegal. Human rights have been invoked.

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, they say, has been successfully leaned on by lobbyists for the creative industries whose products are being hijacked.

The music industry, which is losing millions through illegal downloads, is naturally  pleased. The industry body UK Music says: “UK Music is pleased that Government is proposing accelerated and proportionate action to meet their stated ambition of reducing illegal file-sharing by 70-80% within 2-3 years.”

What do you think? Is there a case for such drastic measures?

Related blog: Who benefits from a file-sharing crackdown?

The Pirate Party, which originated in Sweden, is now a registered political party in Britain and set to run candidates in the next general election.  Its aim is to reform copyright law, abolish the patent system and ensure privacy rights for all citizens.

The party, with branches in more than 25 countries, argues that file-sharing and peer-to-peer networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized, based on the idea that “the Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.”

Combatting  levels of surveillance and control put in place by governments in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York are also top of the agenda.

The party wants to introduce an alternative to pharmaceutical patents throughout Europe that it says will save on drug costs to governments.

Would you vote for the Pirate Party in a general election?

Google’s “Street View” service has survived calls to have it shut down. The UK’s privacy watchdog has ruled that removing the service, which allows users to navigate around a 360-degree view of streets and houses in 25 cities, would be “disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment.”

Google promised to obscure images of pedestrians or car licence plates but some slipped through the net. The media reported a number of embarrassing images including a man walking out of a sex shop and another being sick outside a pub.

The residents of one village, meanwhile, tried to block the cameras, claiming the service would allow burglars to scope out their homes. The campaign group Privacy International complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

A spokesperson for the ICO said: “Google Street View does not contravene the Data Protection Act and, in any case, it is not in the public interest to turn the digital clock back.

“In a world where many people tweet, Facebook and blog it is important to take a common sense approach towards Street View and the relatively limited privacy intrusion it may cause.”

He also said there was no law to stop anyone taking pictures of people in the street, providing they were not harassing them, while members of the public appeared every day on TV reports.

Google has promised to address people’s privacy concerns and said that all requests to remove or black out images would be carried out.

What do you think of Google Street View? Have you used the site? Do you feel that your privacy has been invaded and that it should be shut down? Or do you think it is a fantastic service? Finally, have you been caught on camera?

The trouble with banking, a private equity chief told a hearing of MPs this week, is that it has just become “too damn complicated” and needs to get back to basics.

Many readers might agree with those refreshingly candid words — and they might think too that it’s not just banking that has become tangled up in glue.

“It used to be so easy — now it takes for ever,” we sigh in unison.

Maybe the Internet is partly to blame. It was supposed to simplify things but, for many, it has made whole areas of life vastly more frustrating. “Simply click” may be meant as a breezy invitation to a stress-free transaction — but in reality it is often the gateway to Hell.

Need help? – simply phone our 24/7 advisers in Asia. (But let’s not go there…)

Could the apparent growth of office bureaucracy also be playing its part? Commentators have frequently bewailed the growing tide of fussy, box-ticking procedure and the swelling ranks of email-happy bureaucrats with grand-sounding titles. Got any of those?

Do you find any particular areas of home or office life more complicated than they used to be?

If so, simply click on that “post comment” link down there. Easy eh?

A woman who shared a pinball game online has been ordered to pay 16,000 pounds in compensation and legal costs to its creator.

The Patents County Court in London ruled in favour of TopWare Interactive, a U.S. computer game developer that said she had infringed its copyright.

The case is the latest attempt by the entertainment industry to try to protect its music, games and films from growing threat of online piracy, which it says is killing business.

Quicker Internet connections have sparked a boom in people swapping music, films or TV programmes.

The Recording Industry Association of America says file sharing has hit profits, put songwriters out of work and made it harder for new bands to get a contract.

“The crime is theft,” it says on its website. “Everyone who makes, enjoys or earns a living in music is hurt.”

File sharers hotly dispute that argument.

Copyright infringement is not the same as theft because the owner is not deprived of their property.

You wouldn’t expect to end up in court if you loaned a book or DVD to a friend, they argue. So why should it be any different with digital tracks or films?

Cracking down on file sharers will simply drive them further underground, making it even harder for companies to make money out of their content, according to contributors on the Open Rights Group website. 

Regardless of the legal arguments, do you think file sharing is morally wrong? Do you think it stifles creativity by reducing the amount available to spend on new acts?

 In an age of viruses, fraud and identity theft, who should be responsible for policing the Internet?

Governments, private security companies and law enforcement agencies all play a part in tackling cyber-crime.

But author and academic Jonathan Zittrain argues that we should be wary of “locking down” the Internet with increasing amounts of centralised rules and sealed gadgets that can’t be tinkered with.

In a new book published by Penguin and Yale University Press, he says part of the answer lies in greater freedom and trust, rather than more rules or technological solutions.

We don’t have police on every street corner in the real world, so why have that online, he asks?

People should be encouraged to see themselves as “netizens” — active participants in the online world, rather than passive consumers of Internet content.

They could share the load of policing the net, reporting threats and working together to combat the risks.

He says Wikipedia has shown that online collaboration can work.

“The challenge to the technologists is to build technologies to let people of good faith help without having to devote their lives to it,” he says.

Supporters say it’s just common sense, while at least one critic has described the approach as “utopian”. Who do you think should shoulder the burden of Internet security?

First there was “phishing” - where criminals try to steal people’s personal details using dodgy emails that look like they’re from the bank.

Then there was “spear phishing” - more sophisticated, targeted attempts to defraud specific organisations or their customers.

Now online fraudsters are trying to land even bigger catches by harpooning company bosses and their senior managers.

This latest and most audacious technique is called “whaling”

Fraudsters attempt to lure executives to reveal sensitive details about their business or click on a link in an email that will secretly download malicious software onto their computer.

Criminals could then attempt to defraud the company using the information they quietly gather.

Guy Bunker of Symantec, the Internet security company, says: “Whaling is basically going after the big fish in the sea. It’s targeting people at the top of the organisation.”

“There have been attacks in the States where a whole bunch of CEOs get sent a very official looking email that say you’ve been subpoenaed in court. If you click on this link you’ll get the citation.”

The link was the bait and the boss has exposed his corporation to fraud.

The extent of that problem was laid bare at Infosecurity Europe, an annual computer security conference held in west London.

A government-sponsored survey carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers said online fraud costs the British economy alone about 6 billion pounds a year.

And with more business carried out online, the problem shows no signs of going away.

Lord Erroll, a technology expert in the House of Lords, told the conference: “The world isn’t going to change with a new generation coming through. It will have gullible and greedy people in it as well.

“So there will be people who do things wrong and are stupid and get conned. Technology alone isn’t going to protect people.”

Ofcom says millions of children who use social networking sites are exposing themselves to potential danger by leaving their privacy settings on “open,” thereby allowing all and sundry to peruse their personal details.

Its figures show a no less than a quarter of all children aged 8 to 11 in Britain, are registered with a social networking site.

It is the latest in a long series of warnings about Internet danger to children — which may suggest that either the children or their parents do not seem to care too much.

Do you think users are being too blasé, or are the dangers being exaggerated? Have you ever had any personal experience of the dangers Ofcom and others warn us about?