writes "On January 18, 2012, in an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.
Wikipedia administrators confirmed this decision Monday afternoon (PST) in a public statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action#Summary_and_conclusion)."Link to Original Source
writes "The BBC are running a story entitled Google's Street View 'snoops' on Congress members
where they report on accusations from Consumer Watchdog that the "Google Street View project may have collected personal information of members of Congress, including some involved in national security issues".
The accusations are based on a
from Consumer Watchdog that discovered a number of high profile politicians are running unsecured open wifi networks that may have been intercepted by a Google Street View car.
From the BBC's story : "
Google's popular Street View project may have collected personal information of members of Congress, including some involved in national security issues.
From the Consumer Watchdog site : "Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and former member of the Intelligence Committee has at least one wireless network in her Washington, D.C., home that could have been breached by Google, Consumer Watchdog said.".
To me, this seems to be backwards, emphasising the wrong aspect of the report. As far as I know, they don't have any evidence that Google actually did intercept anything important. Rather, they seem to be accusing Google of being complicit by being in at a location where they could, potentially, have heard important information that shouldn't have been broadcast in the first place. Kind of like standing in the garden shouting secret information through a megaphone, and then arresting anyone who passes by because they might have heard you.
I would have thought that the important bit of the story should have been :
"Research by Consumer Watchdog suggests that : Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and former member of the Intelligence Committee, has an open home network that may be broadcasting sensitive information to anyone who passes by her house".
"Link to Original Source
writes "Once anti-terrorism laws are in place, there is a huge temptation to use them for other things.
The BBC news site has an article on the people fighting forest fires in Greece.
About half way down the article is this little snippet
Meanwhile, a top Greek prosecutor has ordered an inquiry into whether arson attacks can be considered terrorism, and prosecuted under Greece's anti-terror laws.
Treating arson as a potential act of terrorism would give authorities broader powers of investigation and arrest.