Being "against corporations" is not an ideal. I personally do not like the market power and many of the privacy violating practices of google. That does not imply that every action against google is something to support.
Going after google is fine as long as it is for something they should not be doing. The problem with the actions in Europe is they do not have evidence other than "google is big." If they think that google is taking advantage of their market power then gather evidence and then go after them.
This is an argument that patent applications should be written in a form that is actually readable. Patent writing seems to be an arcane art with little regard to reading. It is nigh impossible to reproduce an implementation after reading the patent, and sometimes it is not even easy to figure out what the patent does. Some of the technologies in question can be lost simply because the records for their implementation are so hard to figure out and are a second form of trade secret.
When people ask why diversity is important the quotes from the speech given above are a strong example of how diversity matters. People who come from groups outside of the "mainstream" have a different perspective and a greater understanding of the potential impacts of what they are doing. It is much easier for someone like Cook to understand the potential for violating privacy then someone whose actions have little or no repercussion with respect to the majority view.
As soon as the folks at google ads find out that they may be paying for ads to people who are on a site by "accident" they will likely focus their considerable talents to fix this. By fix, they will probably just not pay for those ad impressions.
I have to admit to thinking that the idea that one is buying ads may be a bit off. For example, this morning I went to youtube to check out a sneak peek of some of the Superbowl ads, and the youtube video ads had ads. There were ads on the ads that I was watching, and now people in Canada are complaining that the ads they paid for are not available.
I am beginning to understand how google is able to rake in money hand over fist on nothing but ads.
I had no idea that the "boiler plate" stuff in a contract did not actually matter. Next time I sign a contract I *really* need to make sure we specify which part is the boiler plate stuff and which part is the actual contract. This contract stuff is far more confusing that I originally thought.
This is a great idea. Since the majority of North Korea's Internet goes through China and is supplied by China then they should be quite happy when the US uses equipment in the PRC to get at one of their allies. It is time to go "full cowboy" and start shooting. Surely everything would go wonderfully, and the North Korean cyber people will welcome us with open arms.
Part of me wants this case to succeed. Copyright is hopelessly contorted to favour a few people who make content available to the detriment of the actual producers of content. This case would shift the balance of power, and it would do it to the point to make the current copyright regime completely untenable.
Unfortunately, I do not expect the current (or next) government to actually fix the problem and turn it into something more closely resembling sanity. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It is good that they acknowledge that the document is available, but they do not explicitly say whether or not the leaked document is a valid copy of an official government document. If you make a FOI request they should explicitly state whether or not the leaked document is an accurate reflection of the document that was requested. This gives the impression that it is accurate but provides enough wriggle room to make it unclear.
I am no longer surprised by the human propensity for power and control. I am still a little concerned that monkeys taking selfies is not copyrightable. If this is really the case then tumblr will soon be out of business and half the pictures on my dashboard are free for everyone!
I am kind of curious why Microsoft is not soiling their pants over this development. If this were allowed to stand their claims that they should not be subject to monopoly laws would be suddenly left behind for dead. Their basic argument is that anybody can swoop in and take their market share because tech is so volatile. If their APIs are suddenly subject to copyright that argument is gone.
Ironically it is in their best interest to over turn this ruling. For the same reasons I am not sure why anybody would want to use anything related to Oracle if it is allowed to stand. It could result in a new era of free licensing activities.
When you are reading Maestro Dejan Lazic's message it helps if you imagine him wearing a tuxedo, a top hat, and white gloves. Then imagine his voice getting more and more shrill as you read to the end.
I totally did not imagine him getting to the last line, "I don't think so." and then running out of the room in tears.
Wow, now we cannot post a picture of our derrieres without worrying that some celebrity with a big ass bank account will come by and use the full weight of their significant assets to wipe us off the face of the interwebz. It is truly a great time to be alive. This stinks....
So what you are saying is that the US should elect Ph.D. mathematicians with expertise in cryptography to federal political positions. Good luck with that. Between American anti-intellectualism and technologists' arrogance that is not likely to happen on a large enough scale to make a difference.