I agree with the fact that Apple factories are going to face independent inspections. Everyone deserves a good to work at a safe environment, just like Apple's chief executive stated "Workers everywhere have the right to a safe and fair work environment.". I think it is a good idea to do so since suicides have occurred in the past and also because "137 workers in eastern China were injured after they used a poisonous chemical - n-hexane - to clean iPhone screens". This shows that the work environment isn't completely safe therefore I agree that Apple factories should be independently inspected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16832106 This link is explaining that factory conditions for Apple are poor

As Ines pointed out there are some issues with the use of chemicals in Apple factories which make the work environment unsafe to work in however, I believe that if Apple's factories are independently inspected then all other factories should also go through the same process to ensure other factories aren't making employees work in unsafe environments.

"Enter the AMD Komodo 8-core Fusion"

"'But then I didn't do anything with it.''"

Campaigning group Transparency International Switzerland claims WikiLeaks is not reliable.

Vocabulary words for IB ITGS Final Study Guide. Includes studying games and tools such as flashcards.

A solution to the problem associated to IP security cameras. as seen in: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16919664

TripAdvisor has been ordered to rewrite some of its marketing claims by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority.

the social and ethical issue here is reliability. No one can be completely confident that what they see online is true whether it is with traveling companies or something mr brooke showed us in class: http://www.familywatchdog.us/search.asp in this website for example, we can not be sure that the people registered really are sex offenders.

A series of private pictures of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have been posted online by "hackers" to highlight a bug in the social network. In total 14 pictures of Mr Zuckerberg were posted to image site Imgur under the headline: "It's time to fix those security flaws Facebook".

Although some people have no problem whatsoever with flaunting themselves on facebook, effectively giving up on their right to privacy, some people do appreciate their privacy something that lately seems to be inexistent for facebook users. As mentioned in the following article: http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/facebook-having-devoured-your-privacy-wants-more, facebook are slowly implementing a new feature that will suggest events your friends are attending even if you were not invited. This latest facebook bug goes to show how easy it is for someone to lose their privacy on the internet as even facebook founder and creator Mark Zuckerburg is susceptible. Hopefully this "small" incident will increase facebook's concern for protecting their users' privacy and increase its security after complaints that privacy settings are not functioning properly and various users being victims of phising attacks.

this relates to a story which was previously posted by mr brooke. this was then argued by jorge who says that apple has some unethical procedures regarding Chinese labor: http://groups.diigo.com/group/mjb_itgs/content/apple-united-kingdom-the-story-behind-apple-s-environmental-footprint-4017062

As this relates to another story then maybe your post is best placed in that discussion. Remember you are required to post in three places other than your own bookmarks....

"The distribution of copyrighted materials without permission (over the internet) can be a violation of federal law. The law is known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA"). Much of the music, movies, video, or games that are downloaded via file sharing networks like KaZaA, Gnutella, Napster, Blubster, and eDonkey, are distributed without the permission of the copyright owner, and thus these downloads are illegal. The federal government and various organizations (such as the Recording Industry Association of America, RIAA) are very serious about enforcing the provisions of the DMCA legislation, and violations can carry stiff fines and potential jail sentences."

The concern is privacy.Apparently the FBI was able to acquire Kim DotCom's messages with other MegaUpload employers by means of spyware, which could access skype conversations stored on a local host. Even though the FBI had a warrant to search for information, this is still rather disconcerting. This software can easily be misused. The software is called CIPAV and it stands for Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier. This software is able to send "network-level messages" containing the target computer's IP address, Ethernet MAC address, environment variables, the last-visited Web site, and other registry-type information including the name of the registered owner of the computer and the operating system's serial number. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10222294-38.html

I agree with you Morten. The social and ethical issue here is privacy. In the article they specify when saying "Sources told CNET yesterday that Skype, the Internet phone service now owned by Microsoft, was not asked by the feds to turn over information and was not served with legal process" that Skype did not give permission to the FBI to access this information. Even though the Data Protection Act states that "Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes." it is still not appropriate to "hack" into Kim DotCom's messages. Here is a link with the rules for Data Protection Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/schedule/1 Privacy is coming to bits, the only way we can talk to people knowing that knowing is going to get hold o f that information is by face-to-face communication, and even by that way people can be hearing the conversation secretly. Where has privacy gone?

Some interesting links/comments here. One very good one poiting towards the nature of the leaks being analysis and therefore of dubious "truth"

its a paper minecraft sculpture

"FBI Uncovers Worldwide $9M ATM Card Scam"

FUD

Great article on gaming and learning. Well worth the time.

I find, in this scenario, Facebook's behaviour immoral. They have known of this problem for three years, and they have yet to produce any progress. Facebook does not seem to respect one's stance on these things. If you wish the picture deleted, then it should be deleted.

The apparent deletion of photos takes place by the elimination "all of the metadata for the photo as well as any and all tagging and linking information. For all practical purposes, the photo no longer exists. However, technically, the bits that make up the photo persist somewhere. It's possible that someone who previously had access to a photo and saved the direct URL from the CDN (...) could still access the photo." http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/2493/how-long-does-facebook-keep-data-of-a-deleted-account In the article, "Wolens claims that Facebook is on the verge of fixing up its content systems so that "deleted" photos are really, truly deleted from the CDN within 45 days." However, the reliability of this claim is compromised by Facebook's Terms of Service, which every user must comply prior to creating an account. Summing up, it grants Facebook the right to do whatever they like with old content. They can even sublicense it: "You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and DISTRIBUTE (through multiple tiers), any User Content." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html Note the contradictions with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998: "If you collect data about people for one reason, you can not use it for another; You can not give people's data to other people or

...organizations unless they agree;" http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act I get the impression that through blurring the ownership of intellectual property and personal records, social networks have some ulterior motives. The following passage in the article suggests the photos could, in fact, be instantly deleted from the CDN databases: "(Amusingly, after publishing the 2010 followup, Facebook appeared to delete my photos from its CDN that I had linked in the piece. (...) Other "deleted" photos that I had saved links to-ones that weren't from my account and were deleted even earlier than mine-remained online.)" Zuckerberg counterargues: "trust us, we're not doing this to profit from you, it's so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services." http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html In the end, it is in the hands of the user to control what is shared and given up ownership of.

This is not a news article. Please find another. It is an interesting link. Please tag your work.