<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;warnings&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 11:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lots Of People Don't Turn Off Their Devices When They Fly</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've always been careful about putting my phone into "airplane mode" when flight attendants ask.  However, a few years back, for reasons that I've yet to see any explanation for, flight attendants changed the script and started insisting that "flight mode" wasn't enough any more and you had to turn the phone all the way off.  I've asked many times why this switch was made, and no one can say.  At the point when that happened, I happened to have a smartphone that <i>had no ability to turn off</i>.  I looked.  There was no power button.  There was nothing in the software that was a "turn off" function.  The only way to turn it off was to pull out the battery.  I did that on a few flights and then figured it was stupid.  So I stopped.  And nothing happened.  With my current phone, I've tried to "turn it off" but even when it says it's turning off it's not really turning off (because when I switch the battery, it takes about 3 minutes to boot up -- but if I "turn it off" and then turn it back on, it's ready to go within a second).  Today, I still always put it into flight mode, but that's it.  I turn off the screen and put the phone away, but I don't "turn it off" because it's pretty clear the phone doesn't actually turn off.  And the requirement is silly.  Similarly, my tablet stays on in my bag and my laptop is generally in "sleep" mode, but not off.
<br /><br />
And I'm not alone.  It seems that <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/30-percent-of-passengers-accidentally-leave-a-device-on-during-flight/?smid=tw-share" target="_blank">lots of people leave their devices on</a> when they fly.
<blockquote><i>
<p>
In <a href="http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2013-Press-Releases/Most-U-S-Flyers-Brought-Portable-Electronic-Device.aspx">a study</a>&nbsp;released on Thursday&nbsp;by two industry groups, the&nbsp;<a href="http://apex.aero/">Airline Passenger Experience Association</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ce.org/">Consumer Electronics Association</a>, as many as 30 percent of all&nbsp;passengers&nbsp;said they had accidentally left a device on during takeoff or landing. About 67 percent said they had never done this, always ensuring that their&nbsp;electronics were turned off. Four percent were unsure.
</p>
<p>
In another segment of the study, passengers were asked if they turn their devices to &#8220;off&#8221; when instructed to do so by the pilot. Although 59 percent of passengers said they do fully turn their electronics off, 21 percent said they often simply switch to &#8220;airplane mode,&#8221; which disables the main radios of a gadget. Five percent sometimes adhere to the rule. And others were either unsure or do not carry electronic devices on a plane.
</p>
</i></blockquote>
People give all sorts of reasons for why the devices should be turned off, but none of them make much sense.  There is the interference question, but given how many of these devices stay on, there would be at least some real evidence of interference by now if that were really a big concern.  There is the "gotta pay attention to the flight attendants" argument, but then they wouldn't let you sleep or read a book during takeoff.  There's the "flying device is dangerous if something goes wrong" argument, but that applies equally to books.  So, what is the reasoning?  There's either some reason that no one's explaining... or just a ridiculous overabundance of caution where it's clearly not necessary.
<br /><br />
Of course, as I was finishing up this post, someone passed along a Bloomberg video that claims <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaufI9-L5R0&#038;feature=youtube_gdata" target="_blank">that phones do interfere with flight GPS</a>.  If you look at <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-05-15/turning-off-iphone-critical-to-pilots?utm_content=buffere0cc1&#038;utm_source=buffer&#038;utm_medium=linkedin&#038;utm_campaign=Buffer" target="_blank">at the text that goes with the video</a>, they cite a story of a flight that went off course until flight attendants convinced someone to turn off an iPhone.  However, nowhere in the video do they even mention that story or give any data or support for that claim.  The video claims are also suspect.  They name a <i>single</i> study from nearly a decade ago talking about a single phone, which is no longer on the market, that caused some interference.  The other "studies" they look at include a very small number of claims from pilots who claim problems and that they "suspect" interference from phones, but those are never confirmed.  They found 75 such claims over six years, but without any evidence to back them up.
<br /><br />
Again, given how often people leave their devices on, you would expect a lot more verifiable evidence beyond a few pilots "suspecting" that phones were the problem, when a variety of other variables might have been a part of it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/13023123037/lots-people-dont-turn-off-their-devices-when-they-fly.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-no-damage-yet</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130510/13023123037</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:59:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Yet Another Attempt To Place Warning Labels On Video Games Based On Zero Evidence</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/08503918183/yet-another-attempt-to-place-warning-labels-video-games-based-zero-evidence.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/08503918183/yet-another-attempt-to-place-warning-labels-video-games-based-zero-evidence.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Last year, we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/03422412830/bill-introduced-to-require-bogus-warnings-video-games.shtml">reported</a> on the bill presented by Representatives Joe Baca and Frank Wolf that would require video games in the U.S. to carry a vague (and untrue) warning about their link to violence. At the time, the proposed message was:</p>

<blockquote><em>WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior</em></blockquote>

<p>That bill (which had actually failed once before, in 2009) died in committee. Well, it looks like <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/03/us-congressmen-expand-call-for-violence-warning-label-on-nearly-all-video-games.ars" target="_blank">Baca and Wolf are at it again</a>&mdash;and not only are they continuing the crusade, they're upping the ante. Whereas the previous bill would have applied to games rated T (Teen) or higher, the newly proposed <a href="http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2012/hr4204.pdf" target="_blank">Violence In Video Games Labeling Act</a> (pdf and embedded below) would apply to games rated E (Everyone) and up, meaning <em>all video games</em> except those rated EC for early childhood. Even more galling, they've modified the mandatory warning, which now reads:</p>

<blockquote><em>WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.</em></blockquote>

<p>Note the removal of both the "excessive" qualifier <em>and</em> the mention of "other violent media", making this new warning even more ridiculous than the previous one. As <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100301/1357558345.shtml">multiple studies</a> have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100609/1109309754.shtml">pointed out</a>, the link between video games and violence is flimsy at best. The Supreme Court also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110627/11000414873/supreme-court-says-anti-violent-video-game-law-violates-first-amendment.shtml">rejected</a> the key study claiming a link exists when they ruled California's anti-violent video game law to be unconstitutional. With all that, you'd think Baca and Wolf would know better than to fight for these warning labels yet again&mdash;let alone to ask for a warning that's even broader and less accurate, and which would be placed on countless video games that don't even contain any violence. Hopefully congress will recognize this, and prevent Baca and Wolf's petty, baseless moralizing from placing a needless restriction on free speech.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/08503918183/yet-another-attempt-to-place-warning-labels-video-games-based-zero-evidence.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/08503918183/yet-another-attempt-to-place-warning-labels-video-games-based-zero-evidence.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120321/08503918183/yet-another-attempt-to-place-warning-labels-video-games-based-zero-evidence.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>third-time,-still-charmless</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120321/08503918183</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:38:11 PST</pubDate>
<title>Do Not Discuss The Movie You Just Saw</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04095717637/do-not-discuss-movie-you-just-saw.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04095717637/do-not-discuss-movie-you-just-saw.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of folks have been sending over Jacob Sager Weinstein's rather amusing -- but all too close to true -- <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2012/02/06/120206sh_shouts_weinstein" target="_blank">satirical pre-movie warnings</a>.  Here's just a snippet, but you should read the whole thing:
<blockquote><i>
Any remaining memories are yours to keep and enjoy, provided you do not discuss them with others or make them available via mankind&#8217;s collective unconscious. In addition, your experience of this film may not be remixed in any form; dreams involving any of its characters must adhere strictly to the film&#8217;s actual plotline and running time, and must also comply with copyright laws in your state or territory. Any sexual fantasies based on it may not exceed the film&#8217;s M.P.A.A. rating.
</i></blockquote>
I won't spoil it for you, but make sure not to miss the explanation of the checkboxes at the end that need to be checked (or not) to agree (or not) to certain terms.
<br /><br />
While it's satire, as with any good satire, what makes it funny is how close to reality it is -- and just how much the folks at the MPAA would love to have the ability to do something like this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04095717637/do-not-discuss-movie-you-just-saw.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04095717637/do-not-discuss-movie-you-just-saw.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120202/04095717637/do-not-discuss-movie-you-just-saw.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-want-to-infringe</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120202/04095717637</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:37:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=zquack">quack</a> points us to a story in which police in London Ontario came to break up a fight among some teens.  Rather than say anything, asking the participants to stop, or even holding any of the participants, a cameraphone video from someone across the street shows the cop just walk into the area and immediately <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKC_0qCGjY&#038;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">shoot his taser into one kid's face</a>.
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bAKC_0qCGjY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
A report on the incident has the police saying that the <a href="http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1544055" target="_blank">officer acted appropriately</a>.  The mother of the kid who was tased argues otherwise.  She says her son was the victim, was attacked by two other boys and was trying to defend himself when he got tased.  Furthermore, the taser got stuck in his face and had to be removed by medical professionals.
<br /><br />
Of course, if the whole thing weren't on videotape, most people would probably have taken the police officers' word on the story.  But the video shows that he made no other effort to stop the fight, when it seems clear that he easily could have used less dangerous methods.  Hell, by the time he gets to the area and shoots the kid with the taser, the two boys have already separated.  He easily could have stopped the fight by stepping into the space between the two of them.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/12354816075/police-caught-tasing-teen-without-warning.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-that-really-the-best-use?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/12354816075</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:57:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dutch Communications Agency Cracks Down On Pirate Stations; Can Go From 'Warning' To 'Fine' In 30 Minutes</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/02130615675/dutch-communications-agency-cracks-down-pirate-stations-can-go-warning-to-fine-30-minutes.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/02130615675/dutch-communications-agency-cracks-down-pirate-stations-can-go-warning-to-fine-30-minutes.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Radio Communications Agency of the Netherlands <a href="http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/dutch-authorities-get-tough-radio-pirates" target="_blank">has ramped up its efforts against pirate radio stations</a>, which it claims are disrupting non-pirate radio stations along with airline communication. This isn't so surprising, as it has been <a href="http://www.southgatearc.org/news/june2010/dutch_pirate_action.htm" target="_blank">increasing fines and enforcement over the past few months</a>.
<br /><br />
In response, pirates have been setting up stations using collapsible antennas (some reaching as high as 40 meters) in order to shift venues, as it were, should The Man suddenly appear. In response to the pirates' response, the Radio Communications Agency has expedited its processes to the point that it can now make this amazing/perhaps unbelievable claim:
<blockquote><i>
The illegal broadcasters could be fined 2,500 euros <b>just half an hour</b> after receiving a warning letter.
</i></blockquote>
Without any further details forthcoming, it's hard to imagine how this works. Here in the U.S., it can take months for the FCC to hand down a judgment and fine offending pirate radio stations. Officials in the Netherlands have been able to push their turnaround time down from several weeks over the past several months, and they've got a smaller area to police, but a half hour?
<br /><br />
If it can trim it to a half hour between the arrival of the warning letter and the fine, wouldn't it just be easier to include the paperwork for the fine in the same envelope? Or is someone trailing the mail carrier with his or her fingers poised on the speed dial for the local enforcement team? The mind boggles. (And by "boggles," I mean "tends not to believe.") Or maybe it's some sort of EULA ("By reading this letter, you agree to be fined directly for illegal broadcasting...) wrapped in a Mission Impossible-esque self-destruction device, only instead of self-destruction, your warning letter morphs into a bill for $2,500 Euros.
<br /><br />
No matter the delivery method, it's a bold claim, one equaled only by Domino's Pizza's long-remembered (but oft-violated) slogan of "30 minutes or it's free." Unfortunately for the pirates, there's nothing free about this offer.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/02130615675/dutch-communications-agency-cracks-down-pirate-stations-can-go-warning-to-fine-30-minutes.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/02130615675/dutch-communications-agency-cracks-down-pirate-stations-can-go-warning-to-fine-30-minutes.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/02130615675/dutch-communications-agency-cracks-down-pirate-stations-can-go-warning-to-fine-30-minutes.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sorry,-lenscrafters,-time-to-step-up-your-game</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110825/02130615675</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:27:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Haven't Any Movie Studios Become The 'Fan Friendly' Studio?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/01075211376/why-haven-t-any-movie-studios-become-the-fan-friendly-studio.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/01075211376/why-haven-t-any-movie-studios-become-the-fan-friendly-studio.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/copycense/statuses/27109665992" target="_blank">Copycense</a> points us to a recent, if short, David Pogue blog post, in response to a reader question, <a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/are-f-b-i-warnings-on-dvds-really-necessary/" target="_blank">complaining about the ubiquitous unskippable FBI warnings</a> at the beginnings of DVDs.  The questioner asks why the industry bothers with them, when all they serve to do is annoy legitimate customers (infringing copies cut that stuff out).  Pogue makes an interesting point in response, questioning why some studios don't stand up to become the "friendly" studio, in the same way that newer discount airlines, like JetBlue have tried to become a more customer-friendly airline:
<blockquote><i>
I don't understand why some movie studio doesn't decide to become the Good Guys of the industry. Get rid of all those annoyances, all the lawyer-driven absurdities, and market the heck out of it. Be like the breath-of-fresh air new airline (as JetBlue was in its day) or cellphone company (like T-Mobile, the only company that drops your monthly rate after you've repaid the subsidy on your phone). Dare to be different -- and win a lot of customer loyalty as a result.
</i></blockquote>
There are some smallish indie studios that are sorta trying, but that's not quite the same thing.  Part of the problem, I imagine, is the overall ecosystem.  Studios can't become "fan friendly" without pissing off the theaters (even if the theaters are probably overreacting).  Still, it does seem like this is the direction that movie studios should be moving in.  While there will always be some who will automatically distrust the big studios, I would imagine that if a big studio actually stopped treating people like criminals and embraced a much more fan-friendly attitude, it would pretty quickly find that fans were more than willing to reciprocate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/01075211376/why-haven-t-any-movie-studios-become-the-fan-friendly-studio.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/01075211376/why-haven-t-any-movie-studios-become-the-fan-friendly-studio.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101012/01075211376/why-haven-t-any-movie-studios-become-the-fan-friendly-studio.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>makes-you-wonder</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101012/01075211376</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:49:55 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Journalism Warning Labels: This Article Is Just A Press Release Copied &#038; Pasted</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://twitter.com/romenesko/statuses/21082771998" target="_blank">Romenesko</a> points us to an amusing offering from a guy, Tom Scott, who noted that newspapers put warning labels on content that involves "sex, violence or strong language," but have no such warning labels for "sloppy journalism and other questionable content."  So he made them.  He's put together a <a href="http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/" target="_blank">printable document of journalism warning labels</a> (and someone else has created a <a href="http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/avery5160.pdf" target="_blank">US formatted version</a> (pdf)).  Some of them are pretty damn funny.  Here are just a few, though you should check out the whole list:
<center>
Warning: Statistics, survey results and/or equations in this article were sponsored by a PR company:<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4888871628_b3b935168a.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
Warning: This article is basically just a press release, copied and pasted:<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4888871674_a466bbb216.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
Warning: This article is based on an unverified anonymous tipoff.<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4888275173_0d4de3ea2d.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
Warning: To meet a deadline, this article was plagiarised from another news source.<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4888871822_72fe9bc911.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
Warning: Journalist does not understand the subject they are writing about.<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4888871880_05eafd44e5.jpg"/>
<br /><br />
Warning: To ensure future interview with subject, important questions were not asked.<br />
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4888871936_2a2d6f1505.jpg"/>
</center>
Of course, this assumes anyone actually still reads paper newspapers...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-reads-newspapers-any-more?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100813/11285210619</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 06:02:07 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Mobile phone service and things like texting are pretty popular in Iran, and we've seen how Iranian officials have struggled to deal with that in the past.  For example, one politician <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050621/1733238.shtml">threatened revenge</a> against anyone who sent negative text messages about him, and the government has also announced that it will <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070430/022604.shtml">filter out</a> text messages it deems inappropriate or immoral.  But rather than just trying to block or condemn the technology, it looks like officials are now looking to use it to warn against dissent as well.  <a href="http://twitter.com/on_the_media/statuses/16163943892" target="_blank">On The Media</a> points us to the news that the government has been sending text messages to mobile phone subscribers it believes are planning to take part in protests, marking the one year anniversary of last June's election protests, <a href="http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&#038;view=article&#038;id=20714:iran-sends-sms-warning-to-protestors&#038;catid=4:iran-general&#038;Itemid=26" target="_blank">warning them not to take part</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The message, which has the Ministry's emergency phone number, 113, reads, "Dear citizen, according to received information, you have been influenced by the destabilising propaganda which the media affiliated with foreign countries have been disseminating. In case of any illegal action and contact with the foreign media, you will be charged as a criminal consistent with the Islamic Punishment Act and dealt with by the Judiciary".
</i></blockquote>
You may remember, last year, many people credited text messaging and services like Twitter for helping to get the news out about what was actually happening during the protests.  This bit of news is a reminder that two can play at that game, and governments can often use the same technology to try to stifle dissent.  This isn't a condemnation of the technology, of course, but just a reminder that the technology can be used for a variety of different purposes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100614/1905389816.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>big-brother-is-txting-you</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100614/1905389816</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Verizon Starts Passing On RIAA Infringement Letters To Users</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1244356923.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1244356923.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/allisonk">Allison K</a> alerts us to the news that Verizon is the latest US broadband provider to agree to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10396787-93.html" target="_blank">pass along the RIAA letters</a> accusing Verizon customers of unauthorized file sharing.  AT&T, Comcast, Cox and some other ISPs already do this.  The letters don't include specific threats of action (so, no "three strikes" type policies), but the RIAA is clearly hoping that by passing on the letters it will discourage unauthorized file sharing.  It's a bit of a waste for Verizon to need to spend resources on this, and it really is just the RIAA's first step in the door to eventually push for kicking people off of the internet, but on the whole it's not that terrible to pass along notices.  In the end, my guess is that it will actually serve to do a lot more to promote encryption services than anything else.  Maybe some encryption service can approach Verizon about "sponsoring" those customer notifications.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1244356923.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1244356923.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091113/1244356923.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-next,-though?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091113/1244356923</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>