Group items tagged

Another case in which intellectual property rights come into question. Apple is suing HTC for infringement of 20 Apple patents. It is interesting to note, that the majority of handsets which been specified in this case are powered by Google's Android operating system which is open source. I feel that corporations using open sources to power their products need to consider the potential repercussions. Although open source communities tend to operate with an ethic of contribution and collaborative innovation; it is inevitable that ideas and the products which stem from it will crossover from one realm to another, which in turn will lead to a figurative 'stepping on one another's toes' and ensuing law suits. In saying this, it is clear that whether or not it is open source product or not, that cases like this have almost become a symptom of the modern tech-business climate.

This article is looking at the release of some details of former President Bush's secret cybersecurity plan. It focuses around the debate as to whether cybersecurity should be extended into infrastructure or scaled back. It will be interesting to see how President Obama will react to this issue especially now that many details have been made public which will spark interest and debate.

Article from today's Sydney Morning Herald about the settlement of a lawsuit related to a program called Beacon. I think its important that Facebook is scrutinised regularly, particularly in relation to its quite invasive policies when it comes to collecting data about its users for marketing purposes.

This article discusses who is held resposible for cyberbullying. Three executives from Google have been convicted of privacy violation, and have been accused of not acting swiftly enough to take down an online video of an autistic boy being beating by teen bullies. There are many issues that arise from this topic, for example, how far does accountability stretch, does it stem from the original poster, to the Internet Service Provider, the company hosting the content.It brings to question who do we hold responsible, and under which jurisdiction and set of laws do we use. Should there be a screening process to prevent such videos from being posted online?

An article about cyber bullying via Facebook groups. Notes that it doesn't just happen between peers, but adults can be the victim too, citing an example of a Facebook group created by students to bully a teacher. The article outlines the procedure that it taken to deal with this kind of bullying and the applicable laws on place to curb it.

Australiam Government may take some actions to prevent online piracy, now with the iinet case is still on going, AFACT urges the government to do something to stop repeat copyright theft in cyber world.

This article discusses the difficulties of ensuring that cyberbullying is prevented, or monitored. It also discusses how the technology appears to supersede the school's governance of the appropriate use of technology with respect to the Internet. The article mentions an analogy to the Lord of the Flies, as children become savages when unsupervised, which contradicts the article "Cyberbullying is focus of conference," which states that children are unaware of their actions. This is a bit ironic, as the book was an actual microcosm of world war 2, and therefore the story is symbolic of war very much induced by adults.

Very interesting article about people being marked in social networks even if they are not a member - can Facebook and the like be made responsible? An Italian court recently sentenced three Google executives because of a video posted by a user. Swiss and German privacy watchdogs further discuss the matter, many other EU nations are also involved. Google asks where to draw the line between censorship (controlling users' content being an invasion of their privacy) and free speech. There could be a conflict between US Web Giants and EU authorities. Only mentioned in passing that American media companies only react very slowly to European concerns "given the close relationship between Silicon Valley and the administration of President Obama".

GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registration company is taking similar action to Google by deciding to not conduct further business in China. This decision is a reaction to China now demanding that applicants of domain names are to provide additional personal information, including a full colour head shot photograph. While China maintains forcing applicants to register extensive personal information will curb the creation of unsavoury sites (namely pornography) everyone else outside of the Chinese government believes such detailed personal information will equip the government to target any individual (to what extent - who knows) displaying any content that the government does not support. Is this an invasion of privacy? Should people be able to exercise multiple personas on the internet, or should you be who you are? If a government is to collect such information who will ensure the information it collects isn't abused? Do we answer these questions differently when thinking of China i.e. what would the answers be if Australia was to introduce such a law? At the very least, it's a relief to see companies realising that China is compromising the values of the internet and are reacting suitably by taking their services out of the country. More need to participate in the retalliation.

For many Koreans, long proud of its status as one of the world's most wired countries, it is such an unpleasant turn of events that their country is suddenly being compared with less democratic countries such as China as one of the worst countries in terms of the Internet censorship.

Korean Netizens seek "Online asylum"

China is looking to strengthen already tough laws on telco and internet companies, forcing them to inform the Government about customers who discuss state secrets. A pertinent article for those who believe that mandatory internet filtering in Australia will only ever be just that. This shows how the reins can so easily get tighter and tighter...

Washington state government supports a library in its decision to fully filter the internet content available within the library. Concern has been raised as the article reports that 75 million people in the US rely on their internet access from libraries, and if this stringent filtering becomes standard amongst libraries, this is a very large number of people being censored.

This article discusses how cyberbullying is not limited to strictly school children, or students rather teachers are also victims of cyberbullying. As students create social network hate groups, secretly film or photograph their teachers, and post embarassing moments online. identities of the victims are stolen, and then are used for either harassment, or illegal activity online. Though Facebook has mentioned that they will remove any content regarding teachers if reported, it brings to light a new issue. If laws need to address how we conduct ourselves online, should we compromise our freedom of speech (any jurisdiction that has constituted it) because the content is online?

The Australian Government under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has released a draft Form of a new copyright protection/regulation which affects the internet providers to be under a more strict copyright laws.

Rudd's internet filtering proposal is legally flawed. William's outlines simply how our existing classification system has its own problems and is unsuitable to classify internet content .

It's great to see that there is a legal argument against the filter, but it isn't something that Government is likely to take into consideration as they can easily get around it by defining the legalities surrounding the internet to be different to what we have currently. It proves their hypocrisy, but I doubt that concerns them...

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.

What do technologies which main function provides a platform for the illegal sharing resort to once the crack down starts? Even though these companies did not directly share the copyrighted sources, they did provide the technology for their users to do so. In the case of Lime Wire, they seem to be choosing plain ignorance of the law to continue their open networks. They have countless years of promises to music executives to create filters, and screening for pirated downloads, but have constantly chose to not follow through. Once again they seem to be choosing the, "we will do it now," stance, but it seems it may just be empty promises once again and the ultimate end to the most popular site for illegal music sharing.