Saturday, 27 September 2014

No, I am not interested in joining your proprietary social network

No, I am not interested in joining your proprietary social network - mathew's web site: "What we need are social networks which are open, like e-mail and the web; where anyone who wants to can set up their own server (or pay someone else to do it) and join the conversation via a system they control. We need social systems which are decentralized, rather than centralized and corporate. Systems where at a minimum, there are multiple independent organizations running servers, and you can migrate if you decide you don’t like the one you’re relying on.

There’s a system which is built that way. It also has no ads, doesn’t require that you provide your “real” name or specify your gender, doesn’t aggregate your data for sale to corporations, and doesn’t run ads. It has per-post privacy settings, so you can share just with the people you trust. You can post pictures and comments, discuss things with friends in discussion threads, and do most of the other stuff you do on Facebook or Twitter." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 4 September 2014

UK Culture Secretary: Search Engines Must Magically Stop Piracy Or Else! |

UK Culture Secretary: Search Engines Must Magically Stop Piracy Or Else! | Techdirt:

"Now, copyright law absolutely does enable one particular business model, but to argue that there would be no industry, no producers, no session musicians, no publicity and no artwork without enforceable copyright is just silly. And easily disproved since (1) there was plenty of artwork and music before that (2) there are still plenty of people who produce music without relying on copyright as a business model and (3) "session musicians" tend not have a copyright in the music they play anyway. They get paid session wages. That's not about copyright.

 Note how he insists that the recording industry is not in it for the money, but for the "passion." He's pretty sure of this, even though copyright has nothing to do with passion, and everything to do with money." 'via Blog this'

Friday, 8 August 2014

How We’ll Know the Wikimedia Foundation is Serious About a Right to Remember

How We’ll Know the Wikimedia Foundation is Serious About a Right to Remember - Concurring Opinions: "If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about advocating a right to remember, it will apply the right to the key internet companies organizing online life for us. I’m not saying “open up all the algorithms now”, I respect the commercial rationale for trade secrecy. But years or decades after the key decisions are made, the value of the algorithms fades. Data involved could be anonymized. And just as Asssange’s and Snowden’s revelations have been filtered through trusted intermediaries to protect vital interests, so too could an archive of Google or Facebook or Amazon ranking and rating decisions be limited to qualified researchers or journalists. Surely public knowledge about how exactly Google ranked and annotated Holocaust denial sites is at least as important as the right of a search engine to, say, distribute hacked medical records or credit card numbers." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 28 July 2014

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden Kept His Oath Better Than Anyone in the NSA

Daniel Ellsberg: Snowden Kept His Oath Better Than Anyone in the NSA - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic: "people ask, is he a patriot or a traitor? That drives me nuts, the very thought that people could regard you as a traitor. The ignorance of the media and the congresspeople and the other interviewers who raised that question offends me as an American, that they think that it can be traitorous to tell the truth to your fellow countrymen. Here's the standard I would like to see set: "Snowden was the one person in the fucking NSA who did what he absolutely should have done."

How many people should've done what you did! I said this about Chelsea when that came out and I say it now.

We all took the same oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There are people who violate it all the time. There are people who are against it, like Cheney and some others. But when it comes to upholding that oath, no one in the U.S. military services including the commander in chief has fulfilled her oath to defend and support the Constitution like Chelsea Manning." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 3 July 2014

EU's Almunia says could probe Google's YouTube dominance

EU's Almunia says could probe Google's YouTube dominance | Reuters: ""We are receiving more complaints, for instance the way Google leverages the search engine," Almunia told a Chatham House conference.

"YouTube for instance, it's another kind of activity where Google can also leverage their market power in search engine, and maybe this will give way to another investigation," he said.

Almunia said one issue was whether to extend the ongoing case against Google following new complaints or to open a separate investigation." 'via Blog this'

Friday, 27 June 2014

GAC rejects multistakeholderism, tells ICANN to ignore the GNSO

GAC rejects multistakeholderism, tells ICANN to ignore the GNSO | DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion: "The GAC seems to have screwed up, in other words, by not asking for all the protections it wanted three years ago.

And now it’s apparently demanding that its new, very late demands for protection get implemented by ICANN without a PDP and with no input from any other area of the ICANN community.

 The GAC spent a lot of time this week talking up the multistakeholder process, but now it seems prepared to throw the concept under a bus either in the name of expediency or to cover up the fact that it seriously dropped the ball.

Nobody can deny that its heart is in the right place, but is abandoning support for multistakeholderism really the best way to go about getting what it wants, at a time when everyone is claiming governments won’t control the newly liberated ICANN?" 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 1 May 2014

What happens next: European Commission & Google’s commitments

Breaking news: European Commission will accept Google’s commitments | Chillin'Competition: "What happens now is that the Commission will send complainants a letter (pursuant to Article 7(1) of Regulation 773/2004 informing them that the Commission has obtained what it considers adequate commitments and that in its view there are no longer grounds to pursue the case. They will then have a chance to complain again. The Commission will then adopt a number of decisions: one under Art. 9 of Regulation 1/2003 in order to make those commitments binding, and a number of decisions rejecting all complaints received. I suppose that Google’s very active and well funded rivals will want to appeal those decisions before the General Court (with, I believe, arguable chances of success after the Court’s recent ruling in Microsoft/Skype, which was extremely favorable to Google for reasons that I might explain in a later post). This is, by the way, the outcome we always predicted." 'via Blog this'