UK fails to gag press over ID of ex-spy at centre of Trump dossier claims

UK fails to gag press over ID of ex-spy at centre of Trump dossier claims | Ars Technica UK: "The D-notice first came into play in 1912, two years before World War I broke out, when Whitehall mandarins decided that an organisation should be created that addressed matters of national interest. Members of the press were included on the advisory panel, and they remain so to do this day.

However, the makeup has changed a little: the likes of Google representatives have sat on the committee, for example. Though, the US ad giant withdrew its voluntary support in light of Edward Snowden's damning disclosures about the NSA.

Historically, publishers and editors have largely responded in kind to the frightfully polite requests from the MoD. Members of the committee have long argued that it doesn't amount to censorship from the British government, instead insisting that they are simply exercising restraint with stories that may, on reflection, damage national security. But Vallance and his predecessors can only gently nudge the press to consider the sensitive material they have in their possession before publishing it." 'via Blog this'

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial - New York Times

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial - The New York Times: "Only Facebook has the data that can exactly reveal how fake news, hoaxes and misinformation spread, how much there is of it, who creates and who reads it, and how much influence it may have. Unfortunately, Facebook exercises complete control over access to this data by independent researchers.

It’s as if tobacco companies controlled access to all medical and hospital records.

 These are not easy problems to solve, but there is a lot Facebook could do. When the company decided it wanted to reduce spam, it established a policy that limited its spread. If Facebook had the same kind of zeal about fake news, it could minimize its spread, too.

If anything, Facebook has been moving in the wrong direction.

It recently fired its (already too few) editors responsible for weeding out fake news from its trending topics section. Unsurprisingly, the section was then flooded with even more spurious articles." 'via Blog this'

Net neutrality in Europe: Net Neutrality and Control of the Internet: MIT Pr...

Net neutrality in Europe: Net Neutrality and Control of the Internet: MIT Pr...: Net Neutrality and Control of the Internet | The MIT Press : "Net neutrality is the private censorship of our communications by our IAP...

Evaluating the privacy properties of telephone metadata

Evaluating the privacy properties of telephone metadata: "Evaluating the privacy properties of telephone metadata
Jonathan Mayera,b,1, Patrick Mutchlera, and John C. Mitchella
Author Affiliations

Edited by Cynthia Dwork, Microsoft Research Silicon Valley, Mountain View, CA, and approved March 1, 2016 (received for review April 27, 2015): Transactional information is remarkably revelatory

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016 113 (20) 5467-5469" 'via Blog this'

After Snowden, there is clear evidence of a paradigmatic shift in journalist-source relations

After Snowden, there is clear evidence of a paradigmatic shift in journalist-source relations | Comments from media industry experts: "No oversight agency revealed the MI5-MI6 rift over rendition. The Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) is the main intelligence oversight body, yet in its report from February 2013, immediately before Snowden, there was no mention of GCHQ exponential move to collect data in bulk.

 It was Snowden’s leaks that revealed GCHQ has the potential for mass surveillance. Oversight bodies are reactive and, as the leading US intelligence academic Loch K Johnson observed, over time, they tend to go native with their charges." 'via Blog this'

Case C-582/14, Breyer – seeing the logs from the trees in privacy law: EU Law Radar

Case C-582/14, Breyer – seeing the logs from the trees in privacy law | EU Law Radar: "The Advocate General’s Opinion is not yet available in English but my unofficial translation of his conclusion reads:

1. Pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Directive, a dynamic IP address with which a user has gained access to a website from a supplier of electronic media services constitutes personal data when an internet service provider has the supplementary details which, together with the dynamic IP address, make it possible to identify the user.

2. Article 7(f) of the Directive must therefore be interpreted to mean that the aim of guaranteeing the proper working of the electronic media service can in principle be considered to be a legitimate interest that justifies the processing of the aforementioned personal data providing that that interest prevails over the interest or the fundamental rights of the person concerned. A national provision which does not allow that legitimate interest to be taken into account is incompatible with that Article." 'via Blog this'

How the U.S. Could Regulate Facebook - Zittrain

How the U.S. Could Regulate Facebook - The Atlantic: "Congress could also insist that certain standards had to be upheld during curation. In the early 1990s, Congress began requiring cable companies to offer a broadcast station (like the local ABC or NBC affiliate) if the signal from that station’s antenna reached a cable subscriber’s home. The courts eventually upheld this “must carry” provision because it was “content neutral”—it regulated speech without abridging the meaning or political view.

 But Zittrain said there may be an even more promising way to keep Facebook from acting against its users’ interest. In an unpublished paper that he is writing with Jack Balkin, a Constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, Zittrain recommends that certain massive repositories of user data—like Apple, Facebook, and Google—be offered a chance to declare themselves “information fiduciaries.” An information fiduciary would owe certain protections to its users, closing the “disconnect between the level of trust we place in [online services] and the level of trust in fact owed to us,” according to the paper.

The key to this idea? Facebook might opt into this regulation itself." 'via Blog this'