Adriana Lukas's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
-
the law would not only require ISPs to remove websites from the global network at the request of the government or the courts (by blocking any requests to the central domain-name system that directs internet traffic), but would also be forced to monitor their users’ behavior in order to police acts of copyright infringement.
-
The bottom line is that if it passes and becomes law, the new act would give the government and copyright holders a giant stick — if not an automatic weapon — with which to pursue websites and services they believe are infringing on their content. With little or no requirement for a court hearing, they could remove websites from the internet and shut down their ability to be found by search engines or to process payments from users. DMCA takedown notices would effectively be replaced by this nuclear option, and innocent websites would have to fight to prove that they deserved to be restored to the internet — a reversal of the traditional American judicial approach of being assumed innocent until proven guilty — at which point any business they had would be destroyed.
myth no.1 and 2 are certainly not myths. shame, otherwise, a good premise for an article...
"People often have a hard time believing that the terms "authoritarian" and "tyranny" apply to their own government, but that's because those who meekly stay in line and remain unthreatening are never targeted by such forces. The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively challenge its authority: do they act within the law or solely through the use of unconstrained force?"
-
People often have a hard time believing that the terms "authoritarian" and "tyranny" apply to their own government, but that's because those who meekly stay in line and remain unthreatening are never targeted by such forces. The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively challenge its authority: do they act within the law or solely through the use of unconstrained force?
Eben Moglen is one of my heroes. There, I said it.
-
“do not track” should be called “do not surveil” and called for comprehensive national privacy legislation.
“How much surveillance is socially tolerable?” he asked. “How much are we prepared to abandon our traditional understanding that what we do in our daily life is nobody’s business except those with whom we choose to share?”
very worrying trend. really. the copyright laws are flawed as they are already, to bypass due process even for those is very disturbing.
-
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seizing sites directly from ICANN because of complaints filed against them; the agency is not doing so under the auspices of the Digital Millenium Coptyright Act (DMCA) or a more recently introduced, so-called “censorship” bill, the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act, or COICA, which was created specifically to address the issue of piracy.
-
The DHS is bypassing typical laws and procedures to quickly stamp out file-sharing and counterfeiting — perhaps in time to thwart knock-off holiday shopping, we could speculate. We might also speculate that the reason for the rush job has something to do with the impending passage of COICA, which would create a longer process for closing these sites.
lovely analogue with copyright and IP
The battle continues...
-
“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”
-
Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes — like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers — they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.
Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
pretty serious FAIL
-
Mrs Romano “consented to the fact that her personal information would be shared with others, notwithstanding her privacy settings”.
I think that’s flawed in several respects. First, based on the parts of Facebook’s privacy policy which Justice Spinner quotes in his ruling, Facebook’s position is clearly that, while they try to keep your data secure, no security system is foolproof and therefore you should be aware that it might be inadvertently disclosed because of a security breach, whatever privacy settings you choose. However, that is not at all the same thing as saying “we will share your data with third parties of our choosing, regardless of your privacy settings”. It is not credible to suggest that, in restricting access to parts of her Facebook profile, Mrs Romano was consenting that her personal information would be shared without restriction.
-
A former colleague of mine at Sun Microsystems, Michelle Dennedy (then CPO), pithily remarked that personal data ought to be treated like toxic waste. Manage it rigorously, be vigilant about the possibility of leaks, plan how to clean it up if there is one… and the golden rule: if at all possible, just don’t have it on the premises in the first place.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Not good. In fact, double plus ungood. Especially the last paragraph.
-
James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.
“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”
-
Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes — like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers — they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in law
-
Episode 52
The show notes for the 52nd ...
Items: 16 | Visits: 192
Created by: Jonathan Bailey
-
Law
Items: 64 | Visits: 197
Created by: sussex cdec
-
2 Information Science: Library, Archive, Documentation
Websites about information s...
Items: 42 | Visits: 139
Created by: Conrad Ferdinand
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo
