Toyota Sudden Acceleration Is Driver Error
Posted by kdawson on Wednesday July 14, @08:12AM
"The NHTSA has investigated data recorders from Toyota cars whose owners claimed to have crashed due to an accelerator error. They found that the throttles were wide open and the brakes weren't being pressed. The investigation looked at a sample of the cars, selected by the NHTSA."
Jamie found this article with a superior headline at Balloon Juice.
[The Headline: Fingered Foreign Fleet Fine, Fed. Findings Fault Fat Feet
My speech will be free-er! Now I won't need to talk about “Those *&&^% idiots in Washington!” I'll be able to call them what they are: “Politicians!” (Although I'll still blush if I say that in mixed company.)
Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday July 13, @02:42PM
Remember the Communications Decency Act? Enacted 1996, found unconstitutional 1997. Or its successor attempt to reduce discourse on the Internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, the Child Online Protection Act? Invalidated 2003. Seven state laws attempting to restrict Internet content on grounds of decency have been struck down. Despite all this, Massachusetts has now added a couple of paragraphs to its (traditionally bricks-and-mortar) indecency law that applies a "harmful to minors" test to Internet content. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others have brought suit to block the law, which went into effect on July 11. Coincidentally, today a US appeals court tossed out the FCC's indecency policy.
(Related)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20010478-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Court: FCC 'indecency' rule doesn't make tech sense
(Related)
Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday July 13, @06:18PM
"Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: 'No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.' The law also has articles that force ISP to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal."
Canada's take on DNA databases...
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=12079
Ca: Senate Statutory Review of the DNA Identification Act
July 13, 2010 by Dissent
Michel-Adrien Sheppard writes:
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recently published its report entitled Public Protection, Privacy and the Search for Balance: A Statutory Review of the DNA Identification Act.
The Act, which came into effect in 2000, created a national DNA databank containing DNA samples from individuals convicted of certain designated offences.
The Committee recommends allowing the automatic taking of DNA samples from adults convicted of an expanded number of designated crimes. But it recommends against amending the Criminal Code to allow the collection of DNA from individuals at the time they are placed into lawful custody and charged with indictable offences.
Read more on Library Boy.
Canada's take on Privacy v. Discovery?
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=12090
Ca: Defence of Third-Party Injury Claims Are Outside Federal Privacy Law
July 14, 2010 by Dissent
David T. S. Fraser writes:
Since the advent of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, there has been uncertainty among lawyers, private investigators and insurers about what impact this law has on the litigation of private tort claims. There has been some guidance from the Ontario courts in the Ferenczy decision, but the law was still unsettled. The only case to address this, Ferenczy v MCI Medical Clinics, was all about whether information collected (allegedly) in violation of PIPEDA would nevertheless be admissible. The court concluded that PIPEDA does not apply to the collection of surveillance information by a PI to defend a court claim, but arguably that conclusion is obiter.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has taken the position that PIPEDA applies to insurers undertaking the defense of their insureds. This position has led to the conclusion that plaintiffs have a right of access, under PIPEDA, to the insurer’s files and perhaps some of those maintained by defence counsel. While PIPEDA does allow some collection of information, such as surveillance, without the consent of the individual in limited circumstances, the Commissioner has maintained (in a finding and in guidance to the industry) that this is only permissible where all other avenues of investigation have been exhausted.
The rules appear to be settled as a result of a recent decision of the Federal Court in State Farm v Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2010 FC 736…
Read more on Slaw.
“If a clue falls in the Internet, does it make search?” Is this an “Out” for Google? Yes they captured the data, but they didn't inhale.
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=12087
Article: The Fourth Amendment Right To Delete
July 14, 2010 by Dissent
Paul Ohm has an article in the current issue of the Harvard Law Review, “The Fourth Amendment Right to Delete,” in which he responds to an earlier article by Orin Kerr (2005). Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s article:
Fourth Amendment cases are surprisingly difficult to apply to tools used in a surveillance two-step: collect the data now, analyze the data later (sometimes, much later). Prior to data analysis, has a search occurred? In Kyllo v. United States,7 the Court held thermal imaging of a home to be a search.8 But what would have been the result if the police had stored the information without looking at it? Similarly, what if the police lawfully seize a suspect’s GPS device and copy the device’s internal memory without viewing the record of past movements? Have searches yet occurred in these situations?
Professor Kerr’s description of the forensic analysis of computers9 provides a straightforward fact pattern with which to examine these questions. The forensic analysis of a computer almost always begins with the creation of a bit-by-bit, exact copy — called a “mirror image” or an “image” — which preserves all of the data found on the computer’s hard drive. In his article, Professor Kerr argues that unless and until data from the image are exposed, no search has occurred.10 He worries that during the time after the image is made and before it is analyzed, the Fourth Amendment may not apply since the owner of the original drive has not been deprived of a possessory interest under his reading of Arizona v. Hicks.11
Although he decries this “creepy,” “Orwellian” result,12 if anything, Professor Kerr underestimates (or undersells) the threat to privacy of constitutionally unregulated imaging. At the same time, his attempt to distinguish Hicks is a bit unconvincing and arguably unnecessary. In Hicks, the Supreme Court held that the police did not seize the serial number inscribed on the bottom of stereo equipment by copying it down, since the act of copying did not interfere with the owner’s possessory interest in the serial number or equipment.13 Hicks relies on the standard definition of seizure — meaningful interference with a possessory interest — a definition rarely satisfied when the police grab digital evidence.
But there is another sense in which courts have construed seizure, embodying a previously unidentified Fourth Amendment interest: the right to delete. This right can be found in the Constitution once one looks beyond physical-property-based notions of seizure, which fit so poorly in the digital world, in favor of an approach that asks: “Can a digital copy cause the same negative effects as physical dispossession?” The answer is yes; when an owner loses control of a copy of her data, she loses the ability to dispose of or alter that data, which I contend causes a form of seizure. This is analogous to the property right to destroy, which is tied to the rights of dominion and control. The Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizure should protect these rights and provide a constitutional right to delete.
Read the full article here (pdf).
(Related)
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=12085
Ninth Circuit orders anonymous internet speakers be identified
July 14, 2010 by Dissent
Evan Brown provides a summary of and commentary on a Ninth Circuit opinion issued yesterday concerning outing online anonymous speakers.
From the court’s opinion (pdf), the background on the case:
The proceeding before us is but a short chapter in an acrimonious and long-running business dispute between Quixtar, Inc. (“Quixtar”), successor to the well-known Amway Corporation, and Signature Management TEAM, LLC (“TEAM”). Quixtar sued TEAM, claiming that TEAM orchestrated an Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings [If they were anonymous, how did they know who (other than John Doe) to sue? Bob] and videos disparaging Quixtar and its business practices. As part of the discovery process, Quixtar sought testimony from Benjamin Dickie, a TEAM employee, regarding the identity of five anonymous online speakers who allegedly made defamatory comments about Quixtar. Dickie refused to identify the anonymous speakers on First Amendment grounds. The district court ordered Dickie to disclose the identity of three of the five speakers.
The Anonymous Online Speakers seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order regarding the identity of the three speakers. Quixtar cross-petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to order Dickie to testify regarding the identity of the anonymous speakers from the remaining two sources. Because neither party has established that it is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, we deny both petitions.
As Brown points out:
This is a significant case on the topic of anonymity because it is only the third federal circuit opinion to consider the question as to when unknown online speakers should be identified. The others are NLRB v. Midland Daily News (6th Cir. 1998) and Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, (4th Cir. 2009).
Via LawandLit
I admit I haven't spent enough time researching “Twitter, Tweets and the Twits that Text them...” Articles like this, which may as well be written in Sanskrit, make me think I should ask a nine year old to explain it to me.
TweetUp Teams Up With Business.com, Netvibes And TheFreeDictionary.com
Sometimes movies can be used in education. (Some of my students don't own TVs, they watch everything over the Internet!)
http://www.makeuseof.com/dir/divxonly-watch-divx-streaming-movies
DivXOnly: Watch DivX Streaming Movies Online For Free
There's an App for that! Even if you still use one of those old-school browsers...
http://www.makeuseof.com/dir/marklets-bookmarklet-search
Marklets: Bookmarklet Search Engine
Marklets is a bookmarklet search engine where you can find different kinds of browser bookmarklets that make your online work easier. On the homepage of the site, you’ll find various bookmarklets categorized under highest rated, newest, featured and top tags. There’s also a search bar where you could type a specific query and see if there’s a corresponding bookmarklet available.
When you click on a bookmarklet name, it directs you to a page which contains its description and a download link at the bottom. You could just drag the bookmarklet tab to the browser’s bookmarks bar in order to get it working. The site doesn’t require registration either.
For my website class
http://www.makeuseof.com/dir/fontviewer-pc-font-viewer
FontViewer: PC Font Viewer Online
FontViewer … is an online PC font viewer that takes all the fonts installed on your machine and displays them all on a single webpage.
Similar tools: FlippingTypical, FontPicker and TypeTeste
Another tool I should use.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/learn-touch-typing-improve-skills-senselang/
Use Sense-Lang To Learn Touch Typing & Improve Typing Skills
http://www.sense-lang.org/typing/
I've been telling my colleagues that if they teach online or semi-online, they already have most of the data they need to create a full course. Here's a platform for creating free or “for pay” courses!
Nixty Launches With Ambitions to Build Something Huge in eLearning
It’s called Nixty, and it’s launching today.
Nixty is aiming to be a huge platform for eLearning courses worldwide. Right now, the company has 200 courses from schools like MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, IIT and Berkeley, and offers a variety of teaching tools like automated grade books and easy-to-make-and-print certificates. In addition to aggregating Ivy League courses and putting them in a far easier to navigate, socially-driven user interface, Nixty is hoping teachers and experts will use its easy drag and drop course building software to create new courses, bringing in a wiki angle where people can add certain texts, videos or lectures to a course.
The cost of entry for teachers is low: public courses (open to all) are free to create, and Nixty is planning to roll out payment functionality for private/continuing education courses soon. For paid courses, Nixty will charge teachers $4.99/month for three courses, or $9.99/month for nine courses plus an additional 20% of whatever the teacher decides to charge students for each course.
No comments:
Post a Comment