Group items tagged

"Information wants to be free" (IWTBF hereafter) is half of Stewart Brand's famous aphorism, first uttered at the Hackers Conference in Marin County, California (where else?), in 1984: "On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."

Wow. Read it and weep. Tim O'Reilly is promoting this article. I haven't read anything quite so scarily propagandist since Caberet. What do I mean? (and who is this 'state'?) Courtesy of One Economy Corporation "If e-mail lives in the cloud, who owns that information?" says State Department's Alec Ross. Cloud computing is a double-edged sword in the fight for Internet freedom, a top State Department official said on Wednesday." "During a major policy speech in January, Clinton announced that Internet freedom would become a strategic priority for the United States in 2010. In March, State revived the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, a Bush administration initiative that worked to harmonize policies departmentwide on protecting free speech. The renamed NetFreedom Task Force met on March 4, when 19 telecommunications and information technology companies discussed the corporate sector's role in facilitating Internet freedom."

The University of Sydney's IT Alumni Association will next week bring together IT experts in networking, industry, law, child welfare and ethics to discuss the Federal Government's plans to introduce compulsory internet filtering by Internet Service Providers. Forum details When 6.30pm for a 7pm start, Wednesday 28 April 2010 Where Boardroom (Room 124), School of IT Building, 1 Cleveland Street, The University of Sydney How Entry is free and open to the public but online registration by 23 April is essential. For more information http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/alumni/discussion_forum.shtml

There has been some controversy about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's comments in an online chat from 2006 that surfaced recently. He told a friend that Facebook users were dumb for trusting him and submitting private, personal information on his then-fledgling website. An initiative by four young programmers to counteract the negative effects that Facebook has had on privacy and the ability of users to control the data they put online is Diaspora. It is a decentralised, open source social network that wants to compete with centralised social networks that allow "spying for free". It will be interesting to see whether the initiative really takes off as a viable alternative to Facebook.

The Internet is changing every seconds and obviously getting to be worriyng in some aspects. However, free access to information, free expression and participation, and thus free access to the world is now becoming narrowed due to govermental regulations and censorship. And who is going to decide which websites should be banned or not? It seems to be worried that increasingly soficiticated leak could be created by computer geeks to retrieve the freedom of the internet.

Article from PC World dated 19/3/2010 Talks about the the enduring legal battle between Viacom and Google over intellectual property rights which have been (arguably) 'violated' by the Video sharing website, Youtube. This is another prime example of the indefinable nature of the digital medium and the problems inherent in resolving issues of ownership and distribution of information in the context of the internet. The inability to fully implement control in free flowing information forums again raises the question who can really be made responsible for copyright infringements?

Yes, I know you love this - we all do. The regulations have been released! We'll never know if they are a best-seller, as they are free for download by anyone (a little ironic, actually), but the Ofcom, the ACMA of the UK, has released the regulations for the Digital Economies Act. What this does is fills in the details of what the ISPs will be doing exactly, what the processes will be - basically just the fussy details that are too specific for an act. Also, it will have information that may need to be updated regularly (like lists of prohibited sites). Regulations can be made and changed without consulting the government, so Ofcom basically has free rein from hereon in ...

GOOGLE appears increasingly likely to close down its Chinese-language search engine, in a step that would remove one of the last major foreign players from the world's most populous and fastest-growing internet market.

Even with existing knowledge of the limitation that China government has in term of internet, I still find this quite surprising. Funny enough that as a Taiwanese, we've been taught that how strickly and misarable our Chinese friends live there; as years go by, we've been told again that what our old belief of our Chinese friends is no long true and those people are actuallly "set free." Apparently, there are still lots of unbelievable limits for our Chinese friends in internet wise.

Creepy: airport checks might now include checking the files in your laptop. 

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

This article argues that the best alternative to fight against the Iranian Government, is providing the country with free satellite internet access. The flow of information and the use of Internet like a democratic tool will allow the own citizens to defeat the regime

Collecting web data, who is it helping and who is it hurting. Google Analytics is a prominent free to use service that allows everyone from micro bloggers to corporations to record the statistics for visitors to their sites. Analytics can tell you where visitors are from, what they searched for, and what time they visited. They receive this information from your IP address, and ultimately your visit could potentially be traced directly back to your comptuer. Google has created an add-on to help hid your IP address identity, in a likely effort to protect the company from privacy concerns.

Reporters without boarders has set up the new enemes of the Internet 2010. Australia and South Korea where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting selfcensorship. they are democratic countries under surveillance and their upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system is very controversial.