"The rationale is that LDCs need maximum flexibility to develop a viable technological base and address their constraints, and that the standard of TRIPS IP protection may be an obstacle in achieving those objectives."
Doesn't this itself shoot a big hole in the claim that IP protection is essential to economic growth? If patents and copyright are necessary for growth, it seems like the LDCs would be clamoring to immediately implement the most restrictive laws possible.
Most financial institutions already block personal e-mail
Having worked at a couple, they've long (ten years or more) blocked access to personal e-mail accounts like Yahoo or Gmail. This is perhaps new-ish in the law firm field, but not in banks or brokerages.
I believe this was originally driven by regulatory requirements to preserve all written communications for possible audit and legal discovery purposes, and perhaps also to show that the firm had made all reasonable efforts to prevent inside information from leaking out to be traded on.
"In speech after speech, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced large funds to be made available for online dissidents, resulting in projects such as the Digital Defenders Partnership."
Meanwhile, in California, the governor vetoes a bill that would prohibit government agencies from suspending cell phone service without a court order:
And the reason I have no plans to buy a Kindle any time soon, is that you cannot sell or give the book to someone else when you are done with it. It's pretty rare that I read a book twice; I normally give it to a friend when I'm done, and encourage them to do the same (not give it back to me).
While I admire Barry Eisler's embrace of e-book technology, Amazon's current "ownership model" (for lack of a better word) is a one-time license with no transferability, not a sale. This is why they were able to reach out and delete a book when they decided it was a mistake.
He has some excellent viewpoints on copyright, but Amazon is not the solution either.