So governments should ban WiFi and SD cards...?!
Thursday, 28 February 2013
WiFi and SD card used for biggest military leak in history
So governments should ban WiFi and SD cards...?!
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Asymmetric Warfare on the Internet: Google and Microsoft Challenge Amazon in the Cloud
Asymmetric Warfare on the Internet: Google and Microsoft Challenge Amazon in the Cloud: "Amazon is commoditizing the “device” in order to increase sales of its content. Google, for its part, is doing the same thing. However, it falls back on its own core revenue driver, targeted advertising. By putting its weight behind open-source operating systems (Android and Chrome), it too is seeking to commoditize the “device” market to increase the revenue it receives from its top-of-the-line ad targeting algorithm.
Although the examples above are short anecdotes, the moral of the story is that to understand the competitive battles in the tech world, one needs to zoom out. “Cloud computing” is just one component of the ecosystem that is interrelated with other parts of the tech world. Competition is not siloed and competitors change quickly." 'via Blog this'
Although the examples above are short anecdotes, the moral of the story is that to understand the competitive battles in the tech world, one needs to zoom out. “Cloud computing” is just one component of the ecosystem that is interrelated with other parts of the tech world. Competition is not siloed and competitors change quickly." 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Wonderful endorsements for Regulating Code
Regulating Code | The MIT Press: "“Ian Brown and Christopher Marsden have adopted a clear-eyed, multidisciplinary approach to Internet governance and regulation, which they employ successfully to tackle some of the most challenging public policy issues of the day in their so-called five ‘hard cases.’ By hard-wiring interoperability, transparency, and standards-setting into a coherent framework, they have rescued user rights from potential irrelevancy and paved the way for a more holistic understanding of Internet regulation.”
—Richard Whitt, Global Head of Public Policy and Government Relations, Motorola Mobility LLC
“Regulating Code is the best single resource on the contemporary global landscape of Internet regulation. By examining how both governmental and private measures interact with the Internet’s technical code, Brown and Marsden show how the Internet is disrupting and potentially reformulating the very notion of regulation. A rare book about the Internet that is equally sophisticated in its analysis of law, technology, and political economy.”
—Kevin Werbach, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania" 'via Blog this'
—Richard Whitt, Global Head of Public Policy and Government Relations, Motorola Mobility LLC
“Regulating Code is the best single resource on the contemporary global landscape of Internet regulation. By examining how both governmental and private measures interact with the Internet’s technical code, Brown and Marsden show how the Internet is disrupting and potentially reformulating the very notion of regulation. A rare book about the Internet that is equally sophisticated in its analysis of law, technology, and political economy.”
—Kevin Werbach, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania" 'via Blog this'
Friday, 1 February 2013
Patent Bully: Steve Jobs’ Unethical Use of Patents
Patent Bully: Steve Jobs’ Unethical Use of Patents: "Although the antitrust case will focus on the agreements not to hire each other’s employees (collusive agreements in restraint of trade — whether the “trade” is in physical products or the supply of labor — are an antitrust no-no punishable by steep fines and, in some cases, even criminal sanction), I think the patent “stick” used in this case is far more telling — and a far bigger deal — than the alleged do-not-poach-our-employees agreements. (Note: the DOJ already extracted a settlement agreement from Apple, Adobe, Google, Pixar, Intuit and Intel preventing them from enacting a broad array of “no solicitation agreements” with rivals.) I put quotation marks around the word “proposed,” as the offer was extended in much the same manner that a mob boss proposes a protection deal. “Accept my proposal or I cannot promise that something bad will not happen to you.”" 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Book UK release date confirmed: 22 March!
Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age Information Revolution and Global Politics Series: Amazon.co.uk: Ian Brown, Christopher T. Marsden: Books: "Publication Date: 22 Mar 2013 | ISBN-10: 0262018829 | ISBN-13: 978-0262018821
Internet use has become ubiquitous in the past two decades, but governments, legislators, and their regulatory agencies have struggled to keep up with the rapidly changing Internet technologies and uses. In this groundbreaking collaboration, regulatory lawyer Christopher Marsden and computer scientist Ian Brown analyze the regulatory shaping of "code" -- the technological environment of the Internet -- to achieve more economically efficient and socially just regulation." 'via Blog this'
P.S. $40 in US or £26 in UK
Internet use has become ubiquitous in the past two decades, but governments, legislators, and their regulatory agencies have struggled to keep up with the rapidly changing Internet technologies and uses. In this groundbreaking collaboration, regulatory lawyer Christopher Marsden and computer scientist Ian Brown analyze the regulatory shaping of "code" -- the technological environment of the Internet -- to achieve more economically efficient and socially just regulation." 'via Blog this'
P.S. $40 in US or £26 in UK
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Anonymous takes down US Sentencing Commission website
Anonymous takes down US Sentencing Commission website | Technology | guardian.co.uk: "Hacktivist group Anonymous said Saturday it had hijacked the website of the US Sentencing Commission in a brazen act of cyber-revenge for the death of internet freedom advocate Aaron Swartz. Swartz killed himself just over two weeks ago as he faced trial for hacking an online collection of academic journals linked to MIT with the intent of releasing millions of research papers on to the internet.
The 26-year-old had a history of depression but family, friends and supporters said it was the threat of a prison sentence for an act he saw as a political statement that pushed him to suicide. Since his death, Swartz has become a powerful symbol for hackers and activists fighting internet controls.
The website of the commission, an independent agency of the judicial branch involved in sentencing, was replaced with a message warning that when Swartz killed himself two weeks ago "a line was crossed." In a message posted on the website and in an accompanying YouTube video, the hackers said they had infiltrated several government computer systems and copied secret information they threatened to make public" This is unlikely to end well 'via Blog this'
The 26-year-old had a history of depression but family, friends and supporters said it was the threat of a prison sentence for an act he saw as a political statement that pushed him to suicide. Since his death, Swartz has become a powerful symbol for hackers and activists fighting internet controls.
The website of the commission, an independent agency of the judicial branch involved in sentencing, was replaced with a message warning that when Swartz killed himself two weeks ago "a line was crossed." In a message posted on the website and in an accompanying YouTube video, the hackers said they had infiltrated several government computer systems and copied secret information they threatened to make public" This is unlikely to end well 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc. - $20m settlement for private education/research of social media users
Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.: Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-11-01726 RS
"Facebook has agreed to: [1] Pay $20 million into a fund that can be used, in part, to pay claims of Class Members (including Minor Subclass Members) who appeared in a Sponsored Story. Each participating Class Member may be eligible to receive up to $10. The amount, if any, paid to each Authorized Claimant depends upon the number of claims made. No one knows in advance how much each Authorized Claimant will receive, or whether any money will be paid directly to Authorized Claimants. If the number of claims made renders it economically infeasible to pay money to persons who make a timely and valid claim, payment will be made to the not-for-profit organizations identified in Section 7 of the Notice. These organizations are involved in educational outreach that teaches adults and children how to use social media technologies safely, or are involved in research of social media, with a focus on critical thinking around advertising and commercialization, and particularly with protecting the interests of children. [2] Revise its terms of service (known as the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”) relating to Sponsored Stories. [3] Give users (and minor users’ parents or legal guardians) additional information about and control over the use of their (and their children’s) names and profile pictures in Sponsored Stories."
It notes that the settlement is frankly highly unlikely to produce 2,000,000 claims! So here's where the money goes:
"The not-for-profit entities that might receive payment under the Settlement are involved in educational outreach that teaches adults and children how to use social media technologies safely, or are involved in research of social media, with a focus on critical thinking around advertising and commercialization, and particularly with protecting the interests of children. They are: Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard Law School), Information Law Institute (NYU Law School), Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (Berkeley Law School), Center for Internet and Society (Stanford Law School), High Tech Law Institute (Santa Clara University School of Law), Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, Consumers Federation of America, Consumer Privacy Rights Fund, ConnectSafely.org, and WiredSafety.org." 'via Blog this'
"Facebook has agreed to: [1] Pay $20 million into a fund that can be used, in part, to pay claims of Class Members (including Minor Subclass Members) who appeared in a Sponsored Story. Each participating Class Member may be eligible to receive up to $10. The amount, if any, paid to each Authorized Claimant depends upon the number of claims made. No one knows in advance how much each Authorized Claimant will receive, or whether any money will be paid directly to Authorized Claimants. If the number of claims made renders it economically infeasible to pay money to persons who make a timely and valid claim, payment will be made to the not-for-profit organizations identified in Section 7 of the Notice. These organizations are involved in educational outreach that teaches adults and children how to use social media technologies safely, or are involved in research of social media, with a focus on critical thinking around advertising and commercialization, and particularly with protecting the interests of children. [2] Revise its terms of service (known as the “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”) relating to Sponsored Stories. [3] Give users (and minor users’ parents or legal guardians) additional information about and control over the use of their (and their children’s) names and profile pictures in Sponsored Stories."
It notes that the settlement is frankly highly unlikely to produce 2,000,000 claims! So here's where the money goes:
"The not-for-profit entities that might receive payment under the Settlement are involved in educational outreach that teaches adults and children how to use social media technologies safely, or are involved in research of social media, with a focus on critical thinking around advertising and commercialization, and particularly with protecting the interests of children. They are: Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Berkman Center for Internet and Society (Harvard Law School), Information Law Institute (NYU Law School), Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (Berkeley Law School), Center for Internet and Society (Stanford Law School), High Tech Law Institute (Santa Clara University School of Law), Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood, Consumers Federation of America, Consumer Privacy Rights Fund, ConnectSafely.org, and WiredSafety.org." 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)