Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 93 declined, 10 accepted (103 total, 9.71% accepted)

Submission + - Pinterest doesn't qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor

pcause writes: There has been a lot of press about Pinterest and copyright infringement. Pinterest says that they are protected by the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, but is this true? Many point to Youtube, but there is a crucial difference. With Pinterest (and Facebook too) the company's code/servers go and directly get the images off of pages that have copyright notices. There is actual work to find the images and retrieve them but that same work could easily spot the copyright notices and not provide images from copyrighted pages. Youtube received files from users and wasn't involved in actually extracting the files and hence was more like email. They did noting active to obtain the images.

Am I wrong? Isn't it like me being pointed to a copyrighted magazine by someone and cutting out the pictures and using them to publish my own magazine?
Facebook

Submission + - facebook is tracking you when you're logged out->

pcause writes: According to this article and apparently confirmed by a Facebook engineer, even when you are logged out of facebook they are still tracking you. The quoted engineer explains that this tracking is only for security related purposes. Maybe, but the bigger question is does this need to be disclosed and does it violate an implied contract with web users as to what logging out means?
Link to Original Source
Privacy

Submission + - Third party cookies and web tracking

pcause writes: Most of the consumer web tracking is done by third party cookies. An ad network or ad targetting service puts cookies on your system to watch where you go and uses this ti figure out what to give you for ads and to build a profile. All of the major browsers have the ability to block third party cookies. The question is why they do't make this the default behavior, as doing so would immediately reduce unwanted tracking, especially if Flash respected this setting.
Google

Submission + - "Do no evil" - but only if it doesn't cost us $$-> 1 1

pcause writes: The WSJ reports that Larry Page knew Google was running illegal ads, but went for the money over what was legal and right. From the article — "Larry Page knew what was going on," Peter Neronha, the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney who led the probe, said in an interview. "We know it from the investigation. We simply know it from the documents we reviewed, witnesses that we interviewed, that Larry Page knew what was going on."

Google is as greedy and corrupt as anyone other big company.

Link to Original Source

Submission + - Obama channels George Orwell 1 1

pcause writes: It seems the Obama administration thinks we need a unique ID for the Internet. Do we need this so the advertisers can better track us and invade our privacy? Or does the government want to be able to track everything we do? Of course they say it is secure and more private and not a national ID. They also say they're fixing the economy, reducing the deficit and.....

Submission + - Gee, you mean I don't own my own contacts/friends?

pcause writes: Google recently stopped Facebook from importing contacts from Gmail, as this article from Wired discusses. All very interesting, but isn't the real issue that the list of my friends doesn't and shouldn't belong to Google, Facebook or anyone else. Isn't this mine and shouldn't I have control of who can have access? After all, by this logic Google could claim to own my email messages.

Submission + - Maybe the motto should be "Don't be arrogant"->

pcause writes: Here is yet more proof of the arrogance of the leadership of Google. Eric Schmidt says that if you don't like Street View taking your picture, move! Wow, this guy really doesn't have any clue about civility, privacy and just how to keep his mouth shut when his brain has something dumb to say.
Link to Original Source

Submission + - Why is Google supporting Flash? 1 1

pcause writes: Google seems to have rushed to Adobe's defense and has added Flash to Chrome and is adding it to Android. The question is: why" Flash is a big security issue Web browsers,seems to need more patching that IE6, and is proprietary. Google has usually been a champion of standards and openness and has created a lot of great Web UIs with JavaScript. Given JavaScript and HTML5 there aren't many things we'll need Flash for and from a security point of view, we're better off without it.

Why is Google so eager to champion Flash as opposed to a set of standards they, Apple and Microsoft *all* agree on?
Privacy

Submission + - Google trying to scare us out of optin

pcause writes: This article in Ars Technica discussed a proposal by a Virginia Congressman to give you back control of your privacy and make use of your personal and behavioral information opt-in. This scares the pants off of Google and they are trying to scare us with stories of how horrible the Internet will be if we have privacy. It will be terrible for Google's business, as they make more money the more they abuse your privacy, and they make a LOT of money!

Submission + - "Highly Confidential" Google docs say - Do Evil

pcause writes: The latest documents released by Viacom show that Google knew that Youtube was "completely sustained by pirated content" before Google bought it. Of course, the docs that say this were labeled "highly confidential". I am sure that Google will say this is all old stuff, taken out of context and that they didn't have sex with that woman, Ms, Lewinsky. Sure.

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...