For those who think everything on my Blog is the truth, I give you, the April Fool – me. ...but, it seemed so right! ...so real! ...so French!

Newspapers, Delivered by Drone

Should be interesting...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/04/01/56246.htm

ID Theft Case Uncovers New Snooping Gizmo

… Rigmaiden was arrested in August 2008 and a "plethora of evidence" was found in his apartment and on his computer, the government says.

Rigmaiden's attorneys filed a motion to suppress evidence the government found by using the stingray to pinpoint his location. The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief supporting his position.

"The government cannot obtain judicial approval for a search using sophisticated, uniquely invasive technology that it never explained to the magistrate," the amicus brief states.

The application for a search warrant filed with the judge failed to "apprise the magistrate that it intended to use a stingray, what the device is, and how it works, [and] it prevented the judge from exercising his constitutional function of ensuring that warrants are not overly intrusive and all aspects of the search are supported by probable cause," according to the amicus brief.

It adds: "The Application and Affidavit indicated only that the government sought to obtain information from Verizon, not that the government sought to engage in its own search of Mr. Rigmaiden's home.

… In its response to the motion to suppress, Uncle Sam wrote that there was no "intentional misconduct" by agents who "were using a relatively new technology, and they faced a lack of legal precedent regarding the proper form of a warrant to obtain the location information they sought."

(Related)

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/033039.html

April 01, 2013

Court Rules for EPIC, Denies FBI Request for Delay in StingRay Case

"A federal judge in Washington, DC today issued an Opinion denying the FBI's motion to delay the release of records sought under the Freedom of Information Act. The decision follows from a lawsuit filed by EPIC against the FBI for records about the agency's use of cell-site simulator technology, commonly referred to as "StingRay." These devices track cell phones and collect a vast amount of data from telephone customers. The Court found that the FBI was not facing the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to justify its proposed two-year delay. The Court ordered the agency to produce all records, except those subject to classification review, by August 1, 2013. For more information, see EPIC v. FBI - StingRay."

I know the Privacy Foundation is always looking for interesting speakers. I'll put in a good word for ya.

Google’s Privacy Director Is Stepping Down

Kashmir Hill reports:

When Alma Whitten was tapped to be Google‘s first director of privacy in 2010, CNet declared hers the “hardest job at Google.” A long time engineer at the company with expertise in computer security, she was put in charge of a program overseeing products in development at Google to try to prevent the release of those that got privacy wrong.

Now she’s giving that job up.

Read more on Forbes.

[From the article:

Whitten, who has been overseeing privacy at Google from the company’s London office, will be replaced by Lawrence You, an engineer who has been with the company for eight years, and importantly, at least from my perspective, is based in Mountain View, where much of the privacy-violating magic happens

I suppose we will need one eventually.

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/033042.html

April 01, 2013

Toward an International Law of the Internet

Toward an International Law of the Internet, Molly Land, New York Law School, November 19, 2012, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2013 (Forthcoming) via SSRN.

• "This Article presents the first and only analysis of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as it applies to new technologies and uses this analysis to develop the foundation for an “international law of the Internet.” Although Article 19 does not guarantee a right to the “Internet” per se, it explicitly protects the technologies of connection and access to information, and it limits states’ ability to burden content originating abroad. The principles derived from Article 19 provide an important normative reorientation on individual rights for both domestic and international Internet governance debates. Article 19’s guarantee of a right to the technologies of connection also fills a critical gap in human rights law. [Not sure I like this part Bob] Protecting technology allows advocates to intervene in discussions about technological design that affect, but do not themselves violate, international human rights law. Failure to attend to these choices — to weigh in, ahead of time, on the human rights implications of software code, architecture design, and technological standards — can have significant consequences for human rights that may not be easily undone after the fact."

One nice thing about the “legal bidness,” even when an argument is dead (Supreme Court stake through the heart) you can always restart the argument. Think of it as Zombie Law!

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/reselling-digital-goods/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29

Reselling Digital Goods Is Copyright Infringement, Judge Rules

A federal judge is declaring as unlawful a one-of-a-kind website enabling the online sale of pre-owned digital music files.

ReDigi, which opened in late 2011, provides a platform to buy and sell used MP3s that were once purchased lawfully through iTunes.

The case weighed the so-called first-sale doctrine, the legal theory that people in lawful possession of copyright material have the right to resell it. U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan, ruling in a suit brought by Vivendi’s Capitol Records, said the doctrine did not apply to digital goods.

Saturday’s decision (.pdf) comes as online retailers such as Amazon and even Apple have patented platforms for the reselling of used digital goods such as books, music, videos and apps. Judge Sullivan’s ruling, if it withstands appellate scrutiny, likely means used digital sales venues must first acquire the permission of rights holders. ['cause selling it to you doesn't mean the rights holder actually sold it... (Huh?) Bob]

“The novel question presented in this action is whether a digital music file, lawfully made and purchased, may be resold by its owner through ReDigi under the first sale doctrine. The court determines that it cannot,” the judge ruled.

The reason, the judge ruled, is because copying, or an illegal “reproduction” of a music file, takes place, despite ReDigi’s claims to the contrary. [All “copying” is illegal. I read that in the RIAA's brief... Bob]

For my Website students...

HTML5 Boilerplate: Build Websites Using an HTML5 Front End Template

If you are planning on building a new website today, it would be wise to start learning the best HTML5 practices to future-proof your website. HTML5 Boilerplate is a collection of front end template that you can use to create and set up websites. The great thing about HTML5 Boilerplate is that you can just select the bits and pieces that you only want to integrate in your project.

To use the HTML5 Boilerplate, simply download the zip file which contains all the basic files you need when making and designing websites (HTML, CSS and JavaScript templates). Just extract the contents of the file and start using them as the template for your website project. Some of the modern features that are already incorporated into the HTML5 Boilerplate include cross-browser compatibility, mobile browser optimizations, jQuery and Modernizr libraries, Normalize.css, and many more.

http://html5boilerplate.com

Similar tools: Eenox and Swiffy.

For my students who haven't done it yet...

Present Yourself To The World With Répresent, A Super-Simple Resume Builder

You may have noticed that I have a thing for online résumé creators. In the past, I’ve looked at SlashCV – a simple tool for creating PDF résumés – and Enthuse.me, which is more like an online portfolio of your past work and your online presence.

… Presenting: Répresent. In the spirit of minimalism and doing one thing well, Répresent is a super-simple Web app that is going to help you build a slick online résumé. No, it’s not going write it for you, it’s not that sophisticated, but its nice interface makes a tough job suddenly seem a whole lot easier

… There are 6 parts to create your Répresent résumé: About, Experience, Education, Skills, Contact, and Design. You don’t necessarily have to complete them in this order – you can jump back and forth until you’ve included all the important details.

… If you’re looking for an easy way to create a classic and solid online résumé builder, Répresent is an excellent option. There are no bells and whistles here, but it sure beats creating your own PDF document, and is also easier to share.

If you’re using LinkedIn, however, Répresent might not be the best option for you. In this case, you should check out these 2 tools to turn your LinkedIn profile into a neat-looking résumé.

For my students who write, so they can write right.

http://www.edutecher.net/links.php?id=1562

Grammar Base

Grammar Base is a simple to use web based grammar and plagiarism checker. This site is no-frills, but has a seemingly smart grammar check that goes deeper than some of the built in word processing programs we have come to know and love. Students can access this site from anywhere in order to check their writing for appropriate structure, syntax, and citation.

For my entrepreneurial students, maybe. I have friends in most large TV markets. Perhaps a “Content Collectors Club” that swaps content for free, paying only an “infrastructure maintanence fee” to my not-for-profit? Start the whole thing on KickStarter?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/cord-cutters-rejoice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29

Cord-Cutters Rejoice: Streaming Broadcast TV Wins Big in Court

A divided federal appeals court, ruling 2-1 Monday, declined to block a unique, antenna-based subscription service that enables the streaming of broadcast television to any internet-enabled device.

NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Fox and others sued Aereo, a subscription service that went live in New York last year and is expanding to other markets. The suit claimed that the upstart, backed by media mogul Barry Diller, had failed to acquire licenses from the networks who deliver their broadcasts over the air.

Broadcasters claimed the redistribution of the material, without a license, infringed their copyrights because it amounted to Aereo briefly buffering or copying the broadcast and “facilitating” a public performance without permission.

“We conclude that Aereo’s transmissions of unique copies of broadcast television programs created at its users’ requests and transmitted while the programs are still airing on broadcast television are not ‘public performances’ of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works,” wrote Judge Christopher Droney of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He was joined by Judge John Gleeson.

The case is being closely watched as many suspect it could shape the manner and method by which people watch television in the future.