Group items tagged

.ng-hide:not(.ng-hide-animate){display:none !important}.shr-debug{font-weight:bolder;cursor:pointer;color:#008000}.shareaholic-canvas{clear:both}.shareaholic-ui button,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button{border:0;box-shadow:none;text-shadow:none;font-size:12px;padding:6px 10px !important;border-radius:3px;background:transparent;display:inline-block;margin:2px;border:1px solid transparent;line-height:16px;color:#555;cursor:pointer;height:initial;text-transform:initial;}.shareaholic-ui button:hover,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button:hover{color:#000;font-weight:inherit}.shareaholic-ui button.button-primary,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.button-primary{background-color:#52a8e8;background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(top,#52a8e8,#377ad0);border:1px solid #3f81ae;border-color:#3f81ae #2e68a1 #1f5496;box-shadow:inset 0 1px 0 0 #72baeb,0 1px 2px 0 #c3c3c3;color:#fff;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 -1px 1px #3275bb;-webkit-appearance:none}.shareaholic-ui button.ui-disabled,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.ui-disabled{background-color:#ccc;background-image:none;border-color:#bbb;box-shadow:none;color:#999;cursor:default;opacity:.5;text-shadow:none}.shareaholic-ui button.icon-only,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.icon-only{padding:0;}.shareaholic-ui button.icon-only.icon-16,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.icon-only.icon-16{padding:4px;}.shareaholic-ui button.icon-only.icon-16 i,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.icon-only.icon-16 i{height:16px;width:16px}.shareaholic-ui button.icon-only.icon-24,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.icon-only.icon-24{padding:0;}.shareaholic-ui button.icon-only.icon-24 i,.shareaholic-ui .shareaholic-ui-button.icon-only.icon-24 i{height:24px;width:24px}.s

According to the report published in the journal Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, saving the reef will take a huge amount of work and money. Poor water quality was seen as the major threat as well as global warming which is causing significant coral bleaching. Chief researcher of the report, John Brodie, told the Guardian, “The current spending is totally inadequate ... You either do it properly or you give up on the reef. It’s that bad.”

Popular messaging services like Snapchat and WhatsApp are in the cross hairs in Britain. That was the message delivered on Monday by Prime Minister David Cameron, who said he would pursue banning encrypted messaging services if Britain’s intelligence services were not given access to the communications. The statement comes as many European politicians are demanding that Internet companies like Google and Facebook provide greater information about people’s online activities after several recent terrorist threats, including the attacks in Paris.

Mr. Cameron, who has started to campaign ahead of a national election in Britain in May, said his government, if elected, would ban encrypted online communication tools that could potentially be used by terrorists if the country’s intelligence agencies were not given increased access. The reforms are part of new legislation that would force telecom operators and Internet services providers to store more data on people’s online activities, including social network messages. “Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” Mr. Cameron said at an event on Monday, in reference to services like WhatsApp, Snapchat and other encrypted online applications. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’ ” Mr. Cameron said his first duty was to protect the country against terrorist attacks.

“The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe,” he added. Any restriction on these online services, however, would not take effect until 2016, at the earliest, and it remained unclear how the British government could stop people from using these apps, which are used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

UK's High Court found the rushed Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) to be illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, both of which require respect for private and family life, as well as protection of personal data in the case of the latter. DRIPA was challenged by two members of Parliament (MPs), Labor's Tom Watson and the Conservative David Davis, who argued that the surveillance of communications wasn't limited to serious crimes, that individual notices for data collection were kept secret, and that no provision existed to protect those who need professional confidentiality, such as lawyers and journalists. DRIPA was pushed through in three days last year after the European Court of Justice ruled that the EU data retention powers were disproportionate, which invalidated the previous data retention law in the UK. The UK High Court also ruled that sections 1 and 2 of DRIPA were unlawful based on the fact that they fail to provide precise policies to ensure that data is only accessed for the purpose of investigating serious crimes. Another major point against DRIPA was that it didn't require judicial approval, which could limit access to only the data that is strictly necessary for investigations.

DRIPA passed in only three days, but the Court allowed it to continue for another nine months, to give the UK government enough time to draft new legislation. Although this almost doubles the time in which this law will exist, it might be better in the long term, as it gives the members of Parliament enough time to debate its successor, without having to rush yet another law fearing that the government's surveillance powers will expire. This court ruling arrived at the right time, as the UK government is currently preparing the draft for the Investigative Powers Bill (also called Snooper's Charter by many), which further expands the government's surveillance powers and may even request encryption backdoors. It also joins other recent reviews of the government's surveillance laws that called for much stricter oversight done by judges rather than the government's own members. "Campaigners, MPs across the political spectrum, the Government's own reviewer of terrorism legislation are all calling for judicial oversight and clearer safeguards," said James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, a human rights organization.

The UK government is secretly planning to force technology companies to build backdoors into their products, to enable intelligence agencies to read people’s private messages. A draft document leaked by the Open Rights Group details extreme new surveillance proposals, which would enable government agencies to spy on one in 10,000 citizens – around 6,500 people – at any one time.  The document, which follows the controversial Investigatory Powers Act, reveals government plans to force mobile operators and internet service providers to provide real-time communications of customers to the government “in an intelligible form”, and within one working day.

This would effectively ban encryption, an important security measure used by a wide range of companies, including WhatsApp and major banks, to keep people’s private data private and to protect them from hackers and cyber criminals.