Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items matching "UK" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

iTunes is Illegal Under UK Copyright Law - TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/-under-uk-copyright-law-150805

itunes illegal under UK copyright law I Love It :D

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 06 Aug 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 06 Aug 15
     
    " Ernesto on August 5, 2015 C: 156 News The High Court recently overturned private copying exceptions introduced last year by the UK Government, once again outlawing the habits of millions of citizens. The Intellectual Property Office today explains that ripping a CD in iTunes is no longer permitted, and neither is backing up your computer if it contains copyrighted content. "
Paul Merrell

What the Hack! 56 Suspected Hackers arrested in the UK | nsnbc international - 0 views

nsnbc.me/...ted-hackers-arrested-in-the-uk

UK hackers arrests

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The UK National Crime Agency arrested 56 suspected hackers, including one 23-year-old male who allegedly attempted to hack his way into the U.S.’ Department of Defense in 2014. Not attempting to minimize the potential risks of hacking but how much does cyber-crime actually cost, what are the risks and what about those who hack the data of billions of internet users per day to, allegedly, “keep all of us safe?”
  • Besides the 23-year-old who allegedly attempted to hack his way into the a U.S. Department of Defense site, the other detainees allegedly were members of the hacking collectives Lizard Squad and D33DS which are being accused of fraud, money laundering and Denial of Service and Distributed Denial of Service (DOS & DDOS) attacks.  D33DS stands accused of having stolen data of some 450,000 Yahoo users. The arrests followed the recent announcement about the so-called FREAK security vulnerability that was leaving thousands of SSL sites unprotected. The arrest of the 56 hackers in the UK was reported as the National Crime Agency’s way of “sending a clear message” to the hacker community.
  • The U.S. DoD’s cyber-security functioned, obviously. A recent article by Benjamin Dean entitled “Hard Evidence: How much is cybercrime really costing us” suggests that the money spent on cyber-security per year is disproportional to the harm that is being caused by cyber-crime. Dean, who is a Fellow for Internet Governance and Cyber-security at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University would conclude that: There are numerous competing budgetary priorities at any one time and limited funds to spend on meeting all these needs. How much money does it make sense to invest in bolstering cybersecurity, relative to the losses? …In the hysteria created in the wake of the hacks of 2014, we risk making the wrong choice simply because we don’t know what the current sums of money are being spent on.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Meanwhile, NSA whitleblower Edward Snowden (think about him what you want), would reveal that the NSA and the GCHQ hacked themselves into the possession of the encryption codes of the world’s largest SIM card manufacturer Gemalto. Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program wouldn’t come as a surprise to those who have known about the United States’ and allies mutual spying network Echelon for decades.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Hey UK: Jailing File-Sharers for Years is Shameful | TorrentFreak - 1 views

torrentfreak.com/s-for-years-is-shameful-141116

jail for share lamentable cultural politics lobby lobbying kills law justice companies income statement

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 17 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 17 Nov 14
     
    " Andy on November 16, 2014 C: 51 Breaking Admins and uploaders know the risks, but when otherwise good citizens go to jail for sharing files it's a horrible moment for all involved. This week two young men from the UK were locked up for years, one for his acts as a teenager several years ago. What a complete and utter waste of life." [# What's Next...? # ! #Life #imprisonment for #government critics? # ! #Death #Penalty for blogging on social issues...? # ! #Law must represent #Justice, not #companies' #income # ! #statements]
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 17 Nov 14
     
    " Andy on November 16, 2014 C: 51 Breaking Admins and uploaders know the risks, but when otherwise good citizens go to jail for sharing files it's a horrible moment for all involved. This week two young men from the UK were locked up for years, one for his acts as a teenager several years ago. What a complete and utter waste of life."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

United States Hosts Most Pirate Sites, UK Crime Report Finds | TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/s-uk-crime-report-finds-141017

US host majority pirate sites clean polite your home first before criticize chase persecute others'

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Oct 14
     
    " Ernesto on October 17, 2014 C: 27 Breaking The latest UK IP Crime Report reveals that significant progress is being made in the fight against online piracy but still many challenges remain. One of the main problems traces back to U.S. hosting companies, who according to the report give shelter to most of the investigated pirate sites."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Oct 14
     
    " Ernesto on October 17, 2014 C: 27 Breaking The latest UK IP Crime Report reveals that significant progress is being made in the fight against online piracy but still many challenges remain. One of the main problems traces back to U.S. hosting companies, who according to the report give shelter to most of the investigated pirate sites."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Received a Piracy Letter? UK Solicitor Will Defend You For Free | TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/ill-defend-you-for-free-150320

piracy letter received Michael Coyle solicitor will defend You for free charity support exchange

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Mar 15
     
    " Andy on March 20, 2015 C: 0 Breaking In recent weeks customers of UK ISPs have received letters from copyright trolls demanding settlement for alleged downloading of movies. Today they can fight back. Southampton-based lawyer Michael Coyle informs TorrentFreak that if the accused make a charitable donation in support of his London Marathon run, he will provide his time for free."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Mar 15
     
    " Andy on March 20, 2015 C: 0 Breaking In recent weeks customers of UK ISPs have received letters from copyright trolls demanding settlement for alleged downloading of movies. Today they can fight back. Southampton-based lawyer Michael Coyle informs TorrentFreak that if the accused make a charitable donation in support of his London Marathon run, he will provide his time for free."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

HTTPS Renders UK Pirate Site Blocklist Useless - TorrentFreak [# ! Note] - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/-site-blocklist-useless-160223

https renders UK piratte site blocklist useless

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Feb 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Feb 16
     
    " Ernesto on February 23, 2016 C: 52 News By now most UK Internet users have gotten used to pirate sites being blocked by their ISPs. However, thanks to HTTPS many subscribers have been enjoying a glimpse of an open and unrestricted web, as several popular torrent sites including The Pirate Bay and Kickass Torrents are no longer being blocked by all providers. "
Paul Merrell

European Human Rights Court Deals a Heavy Blow to the Lawfulness of Bulk Surveillance | Just Security - 0 views

www.justsecurity.org/...w-lawfulness-bulk-surveillance

surveillance state bulk-collection ECHR litigation

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • In a seminal decision updating and consolidating its previous jurisprudence on surveillance, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights took a sideways swing at mass surveillance programs last week, reiterating the centrality of “reasonable suspicion” to the authorization process and the need to ensure interception warrants are targeted to an individual or premises. The decision in Zakharov v. Russia — coming on the heels of the European Court of Justice’s strongly-worded condemnation in Schrems of interception systems that provide States with “generalised access” to the content of communications — is another blow to governments across Europe and the United States that continue to argue for the legitimacy and lawfulness of bulk collection programs. It also provoked the ire of the Russian government, prompting an immediate legislative move to give the Russian constitution precedence over Strasbourg judgments. The Grand Chamber’s judgment in Zakharov is especially notable because its subject matter — the Russian SORM system of interception, which includes the installation of equipment on telecommunications networks that subsequently enables the State direct access to the communications transiting through those networks — is similar in many ways to the interception systems currently enjoying public and judicial scrutiny in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Zakharov also provides a timely opportunity to compare the differences between UK and Russian law: Namely, Russian law requires prior independent authorization of interception measures, whereas neither the proposed UK law nor the existing legislative framework do.
  • The decision is lengthy and comprises a useful restatement and harmonization of the Court’s approach to standing (which it calls “victim status”) in surveillance cases, which is markedly different from that taken by the US Supreme Court. (Indeed, Judge Dedov’s separate but concurring opinion notes the contrast with Clapper v. Amnesty International.) It also addresses at length issues of supervision and oversight, as well as the role played by notification in ensuring the effectiveness of remedies. (Marko Milanovic discusses many of these issues here.) For the purpose of the ongoing debate around the legitimacy of bulk surveillance regimes under international human rights law, however, three particular conclusions of the Court are critical.
  • The Court took issue with legislation permitting the interception of communications for broad national, military, or economic security purposes (as well as for “ecological security” in the Russian case), absent any indication of the particular circumstances under which an individual’s communications may be intercepted. It said that such broadly worded statutes confer an “almost unlimited degree of discretion in determining which events or acts constitute such a threat and whether that threat is serious enough to justify secret surveillance” (para. 248). Such discretion cannot be unbounded. It can be limited through the requirement for prior judicial authorization of interception measures (para. 249). Non-judicial authorities may also be competent to authorize interception, provided they are sufficiently independent from the executive (para. 258). What is important, the Court said, is that the entity authorizing interception must be “capable of verifying the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the person concerned, in particular, whether there are factual indications for suspecting that person of planning, committing or having committed criminal acts or other acts that may give rise to secret surveillance measures, such as, for example, acts endangering national security” (para. 260). This finding clearly constitutes a significant threshold which a number of existing and pending European surveillance laws would not meet. For example, the existence of individualized reasonable suspicion runs contrary to the premise of signals intelligence programs where communications are intercepted in bulk; by definition, those programs collect information without any consideration of individualized suspicion. Yet the Court was clearly articulating the principle with national security-driven surveillance in mind, and with the knowledge that interception of communications in Russia is conducted by Russian intelligence on behalf of law enforcement agencies.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • This element of the Grand Chamber’s decision distinguishes it from prior jurisprudence of the Court, namely the decisions of the Third Section in Weber and Saravia v. Germany (2006) and of the Fourth Section in Liberty and Ors v. United Kingdom (2008). In both cases, the Court considered legislative frameworks which enable bulk interception of communications. (In the German case, the Court used the term “strategic monitoring,” while it referred to “more general programmes of surveillance” in Liberty.) In the latter case, the Fourth Section sought to depart from earlier European Commission of Human Rights — the court of first instance until 1998 — decisions which developed the requirements of the law in the context of surveillance measures targeted at specific individuals or addresses. It took note of the Weber decision which “was itself concerned with generalized ‘strategic monitoring’, rather than the monitoring of individuals” and concluded that there was no “ground to apply different principles concerning the accessibility and clarity of the rules governing the interception of individual communications, on the one hand, and more general programmes of surveillance, on the other” (para. 63). The Court in Liberty made no mention of any need for any prior or reasonable suspicion at all.
  • In Weber, reasonable suspicion was addressed only at the post-interception stage; that is, under the German system, bulk intercepted data could be transmitted from the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) to law enforcement authorities without any prior suspicion. The Court found that the transmission of personal data without any specific prior suspicion, “in order to allow the institution of criminal proceedings against those being monitored” constituted a fairly serious interference with individuals’ privacy rights that could only be remedied by safeguards and protections limiting the extent to which such data could be used (para. 125). (In the context of that case, the Court found that Germany’s protections and restrictions were sufficient.) When you compare the language from these three cases, it would appear that the Grand Chamber in Zakharov is reasserting the requirement for individualized reasonable suspicion, including in national security cases, with full knowledge of the nature of surveillance considered by the Court in its two recent bulk interception cases.
  • The requirement of reasonable suspicion is bolstered by the Grand Chamber’s subsequent finding in Zakharov that the interception authorization (e.g., the court order or warrant) “must clearly identify a specific person to be placed under surveillance or a single set of premises as the premises in respect of which the authorisation is ordered. Such identification may be made by names, addresses, telephone numbers or other relevant information” (para. 264). In making this finding, it references paragraphs from Liberty describing the broad nature of the bulk interception warrants under British law. In that case, it was this description that led the Court to find the British legislation possessed insufficient clarity on the scope or manner of exercise of the State’s discretion to intercept communications. In one sense, therefore, the Grand Chamber seems to be retroactively annotating the Fourth Section’s Liberty decision so that it might become consistent with its decision in Zakharov. Without this revision, the Court would otherwise appear to depart to some extent — arguably, purposefully — from both Liberty and Weber.
  • Finally, the Grand Chamber took issue with the direct nature of the access enjoyed by Russian intelligence under the SORM system. The Court noted that this contributed to rendering oversight ineffective, despite the existence of a requirement for prior judicial authorization. Absent an obligation to demonstrate such prior authorization to the communications service provider, the likelihood that the system would be abused through “improper action by a dishonest, negligent or overly zealous official” was quite high (para. 270). Accordingly, “the requirement to show an interception authorisation to the communications service provider before obtaining access to a person’s communications is one of the important safeguards against abuse by the law-enforcement authorities” (para. 269). Again, this requirement arguably creates an unconquerable barrier for a number of modern bulk interception systems, which rely on the use of broad warrants to authorize the installation of, for example, fiber optic cable taps that facilitate the interception of all communications that cross those cables. In the United Kingdom, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation David Anderson revealed in his essential inquiry into British surveillance in 2015, there are only 20 such warrants in existence at any time. Even if these 20 warrants are served on the relevant communications service providers upon the installation of cable taps, the nature of bulk interception deprives this of any genuine meaning, making the safeguard an empty one. Once a tap is installed for the purposes of bulk interception, the provider is cut out of the equation and can no longer play the role the Court found so crucial in Zakharov.
  • The Zakharov case not only levels a serious blow at bulk, untargeted surveillance regimes, it suggests the Grand Chamber’s intention to actively craft European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence in a manner that curtails such regimes. Any suggestion that the Grand Chamber’s decision was issued in ignorance of the technical capabilities or intentions of States and the continued preference for bulk interception systems should be dispelled; the oral argument in the case took place in September 2014, at a time when the Court had already indicated its intention to accord priority to cases arising out of the Snowden revelations. Indeed, the Court referenced such forthcoming cases in the fact sheet it issued after the Zakharov judgment was released. Any remaining doubt is eradicated through an inspection of the multiple references to the Snowden revelations in the judgment itself. In the main judgment, the Court excerpted text from the Director of the European Union Agency for Human Rights discussing Snowden, and in the separate opinion issued by Judge Dedov, he goes so far as to quote Edward Snowden: “With each court victory, with every change in the law, we demonstrate facts are more convincing than fear. As a society, we rediscover that the value of the right is not in what it hides, but in what it protects.”
  • The full implications of the Zakharov decision remain to be seen. However, it is likely we will not have to wait long to know whether the Grand Chamber intends to see the demise of bulk collection schemes; the three UK cases (Big Brother Watch & Ors v. United Kingdom, Bureau of Investigative Journalism & Alice Ross v. United Kingdom, and 10 Human Rights Organisations v. United Kingdom) pending before the Court have been fast-tracked, indicating the Court’s willingness to continue to confront the compliance of bulk collection schemes with human rights law. It is my hope that the approach in Zakharov hints at the Court’s conviction that bulk collection schemes lie beyond the bounds of permissible State surveillance.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

UK Anti-Piracy 'Education' Campaign Launched, Quietly - TorrentFreak [# ! Note] - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/mpaign-launched-quietly-151201

UK anti-piracy education campaign who teaches industry stop abuses

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Dec 15
     
    " Ernesto on December 1, 2015 C: 57 Opinion After a long wait the UK's broad anti-piracy effort operated by ISPs and copyright holders has finally launched. The UK Government-funded program aims to warn and educate illegal file-sharers in the hope of decreasing piracy rates over time, but thus far the response has been rather underwhelming."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Pre-crime arrives in the UK: Better make sure your face stays off the crowdsourced watch list | Ars Technica UK - 0 views

arstechnica.co.uk/...ff-the-crowdsourced-watch-list

reality surpassing fiction pre-crime UK predictive threat modeling constitution lost rights

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Dec 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Dec 15
     
    "You can now be ushered out of a shop, even if you haven't done anything wrong yet. by Sebastian Anthony - Dec 17, 2015 1:15pm CET"
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 19 Dec 15
     
    "You can now be ushered out of a shop, even if you haven't done anything wrong yet. by Sebastian Anthony - Dec 17, 2015 1:15pm CET"
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

UK "Porn Filter" Triggers Widespread Internet Censorship | TorrentFreak - 2 views

torrentfreak.com/ead-internet-censorship-140702

internet filter porn simple censorship protecting some facats businesses aand banning socia response culture spreading manipulation

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Jul 14
     
    " Ernesto on July 2, 2014 C: 38 Breaking A new tool released by the Open Rights Group today reveals that 20% of the 100,000 most-visited websites on the Internet are blocked by the parental filters of UK ISPs. With the newly launched website the group makes it easier to expose false positives and show that the blocking efforts ban many legitimate sites, TorrentFreak included. "
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Jul 14
     
    " Ernesto on July 2, 2014 C: 38 Breaking A new tool released by the Open Rights Group today reveals that 20% of the 100,000 most-visited websites on the Internet are blocked by the parental filters of UK ISPs. With the newly launched website the group makes it easier to expose false positives and show that the blocking efforts ban many legitimate sites, TorrentFreak included. "
Paul Merrell

Theresa May to create new internet that would be controlled and regulated by government | The Independent - 1 views

www.independent.co.uk/...tives-government-a7744176.html

Internet censorship UK May Conservatives

shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online. Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works. "Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet," it states. "We disagree." Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online. The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims. It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read. The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned.
  • The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published, the manifesto suggests. The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests. The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.
  • The laws would also force technology companies to delete anything that a person posted when they were under 18. But perhaps most unusually they would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives. "In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content", the manifesto claims in a section called 'the safest place to be online'. The plans are in keeping with the Tories' commitment that the online world must be regulated as strongly as the offline one, and that the same rules should apply in both. "Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline," the Conservatives' manifesto says, explaining this justification for a new level of regulation. "It should be as unacceptable to bully online as it is in the playground, as difficult to groom a young child on the internet as it is in a community, as hard for children to access violent and degrading pornography online as it is in the high street, and as difficult to commit a crime digitally as it is physically."
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The manifesto also proposes that internet companies will have to pay a levy, like the one currently paid by gambling firms. Just like with gambling, that money will be used to pay for advertising schemes to tell people about the dangers of the internet, in particular being used to "support awareness and preventative activity to counter internet harms", according to the manifesto. The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will "take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy" – and crack down on Facebook and Google to ensure that news companies get enough advertising money. If internet companies refuse to comply with the rulings – a suggestion that some have already made about the powers in the Investigatory Powers Act – then there will be a strict and strong set of ways to punish them. "We will introduce a sanctions regime to ensure compliance, giving regulators the ability to fine or prosecute those companies that fail in their legal duties, and to order the removal of content where it clearly breaches UK law," the manifesto reads. In laying out its plan for increased regulation, the Tories anticipate and reject potential criticism that such rules could put people at risk.
  • "While we cannot create this framework alone, it is for government, not private companies, to protect the security of people and ensure the fairness of the rules by which people and businesses abide," the document reads. "Nor do we agree that the risks of such an approach outweigh the potential benefits."
Paul Merrell

Is This The End Of Facebook And WhatsApp​ Encrypted Messaging? - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...kdoors2-billion-users-impacted

encryption backdoors Facebook

shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Oct 19 - No Cached
  • A week ago, we saw a procession of nervous headlines after the Times and then Bloomberg reported that Facebook, its messaging platform WhatsApp and others would now be forced to disclose encrypted messages to law enforcement agencies under a new treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. As I commented at the time, these reports were misleading, mixing up agreements to share data that already exists with changes in the law to break encryption. But now the U.S. and U.K., as well as Australia, are set to write to Facebook to request that the company pauses its plans for cross-platform messaging encryption until backdoors can be added, citing public safety and serious crime as its reasons.EFF described the letter as an “all-out attack on encryption... a staggering attempt to undermine the security and privacy of communications tools used by billions of people,” and urged Facebook not to comply. The organization warned that the move would endanger activists and journalists, and could be used by “authoritarian regimes... to spy on dissidents in the name of combatting terrorism or civil unrest.”
  • Paul Merrell on 05 Oct 19
     
    A more in-depth look at the issue. Unstated: this is only the latest round of the Deep State fight against digital privacy that has periodically recurred since the World Wide Web first appeared on the scene. The good news: all previous attempts have failed since Pretty Good Privacy broke the U.S. encryption export barrier beginning in 1991. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#History
Paul Merrell

California's Attorney General joins the long list of people who have had it with Facebook * The Register - 0 views

www.theregister.co.uk/...california_sues_facebook

Facebook litigation California privacy

shared by Paul Merrell on 07 Nov 19 - No Cached
Sun Shade liked it
  • California’s attorney general has gone to court to force Facebook to hand over documents as part of an investigation into the company. Xavier Becerra filed a “petition to enforce investigative subpoena” with the Superior Court of California in San Francisco on Wednesday morning, arguing that Facebook’s response to his subpoenas has been “patently inadequate.” Citing a “lack of cooperation” not just with his office but also the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Xavier Becerra points out [PDF] that it took Facebook a year to respond to his initial inquiry to produce documents relating to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where Facebook allowed a third party to access vast amounts of personal information through its systems.
  • Not only that but Facebook flat out refused to “search communications involving senior executives,” meaning that it refused to search for relevant information in the emails and other communications of CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg, among others. “Facebook is not just continuing to drag its feet, it is failing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and interrogatories,” the filing states.
  • The filing comes the same day that 7,000 pages of internal Facebook files were published online. Those documents were obtained and leaked amid a lawsuit between Facebook and a third-party app developer and were labelled as “highly confidential” by the antisocial network. The main upshot of those files is that they show Facebook used the data it gathered on millions of its users as a business weapon: it provided people's profile information to companies that, for instance, agreed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on adverts within Facebook, and it cut off developers that posed a competitive threat to its ever-growing stable of companies and services (or developers that wouldn't pay up, or were just too sketchy for the internet giant.) This confirms earlier reporting. CEO Zuckerberg also continues to avoid visiting London, or anywhere in the UK, out of fear he will be arrested for repeatedly failing to comply with a request by Parliament to answer questions about Facebook’s actions, as revealed in the tranche of documents.
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Data snooping blunders by UK spies, cops led to wrongful arrests-watchdog | Ars Technica UK - 0 views

arstechnica.co.uk/...es-cops-wrongful-arrests-iocco

data snooping privacy respect fault lead worng results bad politics spy citizens spurious interests people democracy trust damage

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 11 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 11 Sep 16
     
    "IP address mistakes particularly troubling; likely to get worse under Snoopers' Charter. Glyn Moody - Sep 9, 2016 1:24 pm UTC "
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

UK Piracy Blocklist Silently Expands With Hundreds of Domains - TorrentFreak [# ! Note] - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/ith-hundreds-of-domains-161120

piracy excuse block hundreds domains censorship plain copyright industry over democracy :(

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Nov 16
     
    " By Ernesto on November 20, 2016 C: 71 News UK Internet providers have added close to 500 URLs to the national pirate site blocklist. The expansion follows a request from copyright holders who frequently add new proxies for sites that have previously been barred. Despite this mass-update, the ongoing blocking whack-a-mole is far from over."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

crocmusic.com | Free Culture Book's Music Promt - 0 views

ww2.crocmusic.com

Lessig Free Culture music promt free culture

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 24 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 24 Jan 14
     
    [blinkbox music free music Millions of songs waiting for you free music on web, mobile & tablet. blinkboxmusic.com/free play music free Get play music free Info From 6 Search Engines at Once. uk.ZapMeta.com/play music free with feeling... New songs every month. Listen for free. stephennow.com General Music Find Professional music Shops & Lessons Near You With Local.com! uk.Local.com]
Gary Edwards

Windows XP: How end of support sparked one organisation's shift from Microsoft | ZDNet - 1 views

www.zdnet.com/hift-from-microsoft-7000028510

Chrome chrome-OS

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 14 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 14
     
    Good story of how a UK Company responded to Microsoft's announcement if XP end of life. After examining many alternatives, they settled on a ChromeBook-ChromeBox - Citrix solution. Most of the existing desktop hardware was repurposed as ChromeTops running Chrome Browser apps and Citrix XenDesktop for legacy data apps. excerpt/intro: "There are the XP diehards, and the Windows 7 and 8 migrators. But in a world facing up to the end of Windows XP support, one UK organisation belongs to another significant group - those breaking with Microsoft as their principal OS provider. Microsoft's end of routine security patching and software updates on 8 April helped push the London borough of Barking and Dagenham to a decision it might otherwise not have taken over the fate of its 3,500 Windows XP desktops and 800 laptops. "They were beginning to creak but they would have gone on for a while. It's fair to say if XP wasn't going out of life, we probably wouldn't be doing this now," Barking and Dagenham general manager IT Sheyne Lucock said. Around one-eighth of corporate Windows XP users are moving away from Microsoft, according to recent Tech Pro Research. Lucock said it had become clear that the local authority was locked into a regular Windows operating system refresh cycle that it could no longer afford. "If we just replaced all the Windows desktops with newer versions running a newer version of Windows, four years later we would have to do the same again and so on," he said. "So there was an inclination to try and do something different - especially as we know that with all the budget challenges that local government is going to be faced with, we're going to have to halve the cost of our ICT service over the next five years." Barking and Dagenham outsourced its IT in December 2010 to Elevate East London, which is a joint-venture between the council and services firm Agilisys. Lucock and systems architect Rupert Hay-Campbell are responsible for strategy, policy
  • Paul Merrell on 18 Apr 14
     
    Meanwhile, some organizations missed the end of life deadline and are now paying Microsoft for extended support. E.g., the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which is still running 58,000 desktops on WinXP. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/irs-another-windows-xp-laggard-will-pay-microsoft-for-patches/
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

'Failed' Piracy Letters Should Escalate to Fines & Jail, MP Says | TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/e-to-fines-jail-mp-says-140626

failed piracy letters jail sentence for sharing UK nonsense comparing P2P killing rae access culture human rights

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 27 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 27 Jun 14
     
    " Andy on June 26, 2014 C: 13 Breaking UK ISPs have agreed to send their customers warning letters when they pirate movies, music and TV shows, but before the scheme starts thoughts are turning to its potential failure. The Prime Minister's IP advisor says 'VCAP' needs to be followed by something more enforceable, including disconnections, fines and jail sentences."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 27 Jun 14
     
    " Andy on June 26, 2014 C: 13 Breaking UK ISPs have agreed to send their customers warning letters when they pirate movies, music and TV shows, but before the scheme starts thoughts are turning to its potential failure. The Prime Minister's IP advisor says 'VCAP' needs to be followed by something more enforceable, including disconnections, fines and jail sentences."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Copyright Trolls Announce UK Anti-Piracy Invasion - TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/uk-anti-piracy-invasion-151002

copyright trolling troll trolls invasion how not outlaw yet as lobbying lobby lobbies

shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Oct 15
     
    " Ernesto on October 2, 2015 C: 0 Breaking Tens of thousands of Internet subscribers are at risk of receiving piracy settlement demands after copyright trolls announced they are preparing to launch one of the largest ever anti-piracy campaigns in the UK. The new wave of enforcement actions is supported"
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 233 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page