clampin - Slashdot User

UK Government Wants To Bypass Data Protection Act 262

Posted by kdawson on Monday March 02, 2009 @09:05PM from the you-have-none dept.

rar42 writes "Clause 152 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently being debated by the UK Parliament, would allow any Minister by order to take from anywhere any information gathered for one purpose, and use it for any other purpose. Personal information arbitrarily used without consent or even knowledge: the very opposite of 'Data Protection.' An 'Information Sharing Order', as defined in Clause 152, would permit personal information to be trafficked and abused, not only all across government and the public sector — it would also reach into the private sector. And it would even allow transfer of information across international borders. NO2ID has launched a Facebook group to challenge this threat to data protection."

Google NativeClient Security Contest 175

Posted by kdawson on Monday March 02, 2009 @08:10PM from the insert-favorite-salt-pun-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes "You may remember Google's NativeClient project, discussed here last December. Don't be fooled into calling this ActiveX 2.0 — rather than a model of trust and authentication, NaCl is designed to make dangerous code impossible by enforcing a set of a rules at load time that guarantee hostile code simply cannot execute (PDF). NaCl is still in heavy development, but the developers want to encourage low-level security experts to take a look at their design and code. To this end Google has opened the NativeClient Security Contest, and will award prizes topping out at $2^13 to top bug submitters. If you're familiar with low level security, memory segmentation, accurate disassembly of hostile code, code alignment, and related topics, do take a look. Mac, Linux, and Windows are all supported."

Comment Once Again, Bad Summary (Score 1) 399

by clampin on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @12:42PM (#24017561) Attached to: Ebay Fined $61M By French Court For Sales of Fake Goods

The summary gleefully mixes the "actual" reason for the luxury companies to sue, and the actual judgement. Of course you have to read the one-page Yahoo summary to know that. Yes it is in English.
eBay has been comdemned for allowing people sell counterfeit goods. They have been a vector for the auctions, they take a share of the benefits... The courts found them guilty. They would do that for a fence too. Even in airports there is advertisement telling me I will pay my whole life for importing counterfeit goods. At least they are consistent there.
What the summary meant in (1) is that LVMH and Co actually sued because people are selling their overpriced goods for cheap on eBay. Counterfeited or not. This is probably true. Still in France I can sell stuff I buy from LVMH, as soon as I buy it it is mine (first sale doctrine ?).
eBay is annoying them, eBay is also "guilty" of allowing improper behaviour for some transactions. If you annoy someone powerful make sure you are clean. Common sense that eBay forgot.
As an aside, summary mentions that another company suing is US-based, so much for the French-bashing crowd. RTFS anyone ?

Slashdot Top Deals