iSpy: Apple Spy Planes @ WWDC
Attention sunbathers:
Why are these 1960's spys looking to the sky? Perhaps they're eyeing the competition.
Apple made many notable announcements at yesterday's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC). But less attention has gone to the fleet of spy planes bringing Apple's new aerial mapping software down to earth.
Also eyeing the competition is Google, who's mapping software will be replaced by Apple's new offering in iOS devices this Fall. Similarly, Google is said to have launched its own fleet of spy planes. Making the friendly skies a little less so.
With a resolution capible of focusing on objects as small as four inches, sunbathers might want to embrace their tan lines this Summer.
UK reopens probe into Google’s Street View data capture
The ICO re-opened its investigation after a US probe uncovered more detail about the data captured Google is back under investigation after gathering personal data while cameras on its cars took pictures for its UK Street View service.
The Information Commissioner’s Office previously dropped a probe into the affair after being told limited data had been “mistakenly collected”.
However, it said it had since become aware of reports that a Google engineer had deliberately written software to obtain a wider range of material.
The ICO has asked for more information.
Sarkozy: Anyone who “consults Internet sites which promote terror” should go to jail
Sarkozy: Anyone who "consults Internet sites which promote terror" should go to jail | http://t.co/u34fQrH8
Megaupload Seizure Order “Null and Void” Says High Court
In another astonishing development in the Megaupload saga, a judge in New Zealand’s High Court has declared the order used to seize Kim Dotcom’s assets as “null and void”. The blunder, which occurred because the police applied for the wrong type of court order, means that the Megaupload founder could have his property returned.
Just when it seemed that the handling of the Megaupload case couldn’t get any more controversial, a development from New Zealand has taken things to the next level.
Following the raids on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in January, police seized millions of dollars worth of property belonging to the Megaupload founder. But thanks to a police blunder, he could now see all of those assets returned.
On Friday, Justice Judith Potter in the High Court declared the order used to seize Dotcom’s property “null and void” after it was discovered that the police had acted under a court order that should have never been granted.
The error dates back to January when the police applied for the order granting them permission to seize Dotcom’s property. Rather than applying for an interim restraining order, the Police Commissioner applied for a foreign restraining order instead, one which did not give Dotcom a chance to mount a defense.
According to New Zealand Herald, on January 30th prosecution lawyer Anne Toohey wrote to the court explaining that the wrong order had been applied for and detailed five errors with the application.
Justice Potter said that police commissioner Peter Marshall tried to correct the error by applying for the correct order after the raids were completed and retrospectively adding the items already seized.
Although the correct order was eventually granted albeit on a temporary basis, Potter said she will soon rule on whether the “procedural error” will result in Dotcom having his property returned.
The Crown is arguing that since the new order was granted the earlier error no longer matters, but Dotcom’s legal team framed it rather differently by describing the seizure of assets as “unlawful”.
Whether the assets are returned will rest on Dotcom’s legal team showing a lack of “good faith” in connection with the blunder. A hearing to decide if the assets will be returned will take place next week.
Via http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-seizure-order-null-and-void-says-high-court-120318/
How tiny antennae threaten to upset the balance of power
Damn the Lawsuits — It’s Full Speed Ahead for Aereo In New York
NEW YORK — Aereo, the startup which aims to rock the TV world by renting you a remote high definition antenna that allows you to watch and record broadcasts via a web browser, launched Wednesday despite lawsuits which allege that the company is violating the copyrights of broadcasters who own the programming.
Two lawsuits have been filed against Aereo (and it has filed a counterclaim of its own) but there is no court injunction preventing the launch, so here we go. In what is perhaps a little tweak at the broadcasters who are trying to shut Aereo down — or just good business of the “first taste is free” variety — Aereo takes to the airwaves with a 90-day free trial, up from the 30 days initially planned. After that 90 days, it’ll cost New Yorkers $12 a month to get the roughly 20 channels broadcasting in this market in HD.
That is, assuming Aereo is still around in 90 days.
The suits against the start-up, whose backers include broadcast veteran Barry Diller, allege that Aereo is blatantly violating the copyrights of broadcasters who air shows that are otherwise available generally only via cable and satellite middlemen, or if you have your own HD antenna attached to a TV set. Aereo contends it has the legal right to provide this service because its potential customers a) have the right to these broadcasts, made available as they are on publicly-owned airwaves and b) have the right to put an antenna anywhere they want to pull in these signals for our own, personal, non-commercial use.
Aereo essentially says it is merely enabling legal private behavior, and charging for that convenience.
Copyright is a justifiably powerful tool which often trumps all — and I am no lawyer — but I’ve already made clear that I find Aereo’s theory compelling. That said, I’m fantastically interested in how the arguments on both sides will be made. Either way this case will change things: Someone is going to do what Aereo is doing, even if it’s only the broadcasters who didn’t bother to, first.
Scare Tactics: Dam Lies!
What is the world coming to when our leaders use scare tactics to get what they want? (Rhetorical question, of course.) But that's exactly what happened when backers of the so-called "Internet Kill Switch" evoked images of foreign hackers opening flood gates and drowning citizens.
“We are very concerned about an electronic control system that could cause the floodgates to come open at the Hoover Dam and kill thousands of people in the process,” said Brandon Milhorn, staff director of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. ”That’s a significant concern.”
Not only is that not a significant concern, it turns out not even to be an insignificant concern. But the false information was no insignificant matter to the Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the power-generating facility on the Arizona-Nevada border.
“I’d like to point out that this is not a factual example, because Hoover Dam and important facilities like it are not connected to the internet,” Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the bureau, said in an e-mail. “These types of facilities are protected by multiple layers of security, including physical separation from the internet, that are in place because of multiple security mandates and good business practices.”
Yesterday we posted a poll to get your opinion on this issue. Please take a moment to make your voice heard.
Similar Blog & News Articles
POLL: Do You Think An Internet “Kill Switch” Is An Effective Way To Protect National Security?
In the aftermath of Egypt and Tunisia's government-imposed Internet shut-downs, there has been a lot of talk this week about the U.S. Senate's Internet "Kill Switch" bill. No one argues that our networks are vulnerable to attack. Senators say they have committed to this power only to protect against "external cyber attacks". This raises several questions and deserves serious debate:
- In a global network, is there really a distinction between internal and external threats?
- Under what circumstances would the President use this power, and with what oversight?
- Could the financial damage of isolating U.S. commerce from foreign customers outweigh the potential damage from attack?
- Does the risk of an "Egyptian-style" shut-down really exist in Western Democracies, and if it does, is it a fair trade-off for national security?
That leads to today's poll question:
Of course, there are few perfect Yes/No answers in this world. Please feel free to share your comments below, and we encourage you to use the "Like" and "Share" buttons to elicit more opinions from others.
Similar Blog & News Articles
- Internet Kill Switch Seen As Good Idea By US Government? :: The Blog Herald
- Internet 'kill switch'--help or hindrance? (poll) :: CNET News.com
- Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill Hits Congress Again :: SlashGear
- What could go wrong with an Internet kill switch? :: Cave Views
- Senators decry link between Egypt, 'kill switch' bill :: CNET News.com
- Egypt's 'Internet Kill Switch', Democracy via WikiLeaks & Terror 'Made in the U.S.A.' :: The BRAD BLOG
- U.S. Senators Say Cyber-Security Bill Different From Egypt`s Web A'Kill Switch` :: eWeek - RSS Feed
Similar Wikipedia Articles
Senators Deny Similarities Between Egypt’s Internet Blocking & USA’s “Kill Switch” Bill
Some have suggested that our legislation would empower the president to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth.
-Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
In a statement issued this week, Senators' Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Tom Carper (D-Del.) said that their intent was to allow the president "to protect the U.S. from external cyber attacks," not to shut down the Internet.
Aside from the obvious civil liberties concerns, the problem I see is largely a mechanical one, and it demonstrates the Senators' lack of fundamental understanding when it comes to the world in which they legislate: By the time a cyber attack is apparent, it's no longer likely an "external" threat. The most effective attacks known today are distributed amongst a multitude of machines in various locations, making it impossible to protect citizens without shutting down the Internet -- if such a thing could even be accomplished in this country.
The U.S. network infrastructure is much more complex and diverse than that of Egypt. In part, that has to do with the shear differences in scale. But, perhaps surprisingly, it also has to do with the age of our network. Parts of our interconnected network go back five decades. Some interconnected networks predate the Internet itself. And these are interconnected with new infrastructure being added every day without the need for government knowledge or consent.
Most importantly, when the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was conceived, it was specifically designed to survive and reroute against an outage. That means, depending on the final draft, the law would likely be either ineffective, dangerous, or both.
Similar Blog & News Articles
- Senators decry link between Egypt, 'kill switch' bill :: CNET News.com
- U.S. Senators Say Cyber-Security Bill Different From Egypt`s Web A'Kill Switch` :: eWeek - RSS Feed
- Internet 'kill switch' bill will return :: CNET News.com
- What could go wrong with an Internet kill switch? :: Cave Views
- Internet Kill Switch Reintroduced as Egypt Shuts Down the 'Net :: Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian









