rtfa-troll writes: The Guardian reports that News Corporation may face FCPA investigations after an "official of the British ministry of defence" was charged "for allegedly receiving £100,000 from Murdoch's tabloid newspapers". News corporation, headed by Rupert Murdock, is loved by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal. The article states that the charges "would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore and would warrant investigation under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which could lead to risks for "27 TV licences within the Fox network" .
rtfa-troll writes: 'GPL enforcement by Software Freedom Conservancy puts electronics makers on notice, leaves business users untouched', says Infoworld, going on to explain 'You are several orders of magnitude more likely to be raided by your proprietary suppliers, in the form of the Business Software Alliance, than to ever hear from SFC, let alone face any action. License compliance is a major and costly issue for proprietary software, but the case concerns an end-user license agreement (EULA), not a source license.' the expertly written article gives a good summary of why having GPL licenses enforced helps everybody except for 'hardware manufacturers — typically those creating low-cost consumer and business electronics' who need to verify that they pass on the same rights to others as they received with the original code.
rtfa-troll writes: Bruce Schneier has a good article explaining how the Guardian released the encryption key for the Wikileaks cables and destroyed the main protection against release of informer's personal information. The comments in Schneier's blog fill in details of how exactly Wikileaks secondary file security protections were also bypassed. Now the Guardian has an article that Assange risks arrest by Australia over the latest leaks which include information about an Australian intelligence officer. they even say "We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," and go on to state that "The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone.", something which seems clearly debunked in the analysis on Schneier's blog.