Privacy vs Piracy Laws Around the world

Privacy and Piracy Laws around the world are becoming entangled and the public is becoming confused.

On Piracy:
exert from https://www.onlineparty.ca/issue.php?ISSUEID=571&s=2

"In Canada, we are no strangers to what some call overly-broad copyright legislation. As discussed by OPC here, Bill C-11, formerly Bill C-32 or the Copyright Modernization Act, is a controversial proposition that some say give copyright holders far too much power in the name of ending piracy.

Piracy rates in Canada are among the lowest in the world, according to Geist. He contends that tough laws are not ultimately what will convince people to respect copyright - fair services that meet consumer demand, like Apple’s highly successful iTunes Store, are.

 

Supporters of SOPA and PIPA, and Canada’s Copyright Modernization Act, argue that content creators need to have their work protected, and that without tough legislation it is far too easy for movies, music, and photos to be shared illegally online, costing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in lost revenue. Pirating software is illegal, and discourages the creation of new works. Further, Canada is reportedly under pressure from the U.S. to adopt a more coordinated stance on piracy for the good of the recording, entertainment, and publishing industries on both sides of the border.

Those who create should be protected from having their works pirated and distributed illegally; most of us can agree with that. Is the creation of tougher laws the way to do it, even when those same laws invite unintended consequences?"

end of exert

On Privacy and Your Personal Data

When Google decided it was going to scan my email so it could flood me with ads to my liking. I removed myself from G mail. That's was my personal and private space. Or so I thought. I didn't mind that they were going to really start tracking me for Ads, cause they have been doing that for years inside Google, but to monitor me outside of Google for Ads too. I had to laugh. I have Ad- Blocker installed in Firefox. I DO NOT SEE ADS, ever. LOL

When Apple, Google, Facebook, Insta Gram, Path and several other app makers were found guilty of illegally taking users contact lists and other info without their knowledge, I felt deeply saddened that these tools and our free internet had succumbed to the places they have. And we all have the hackers, pirates, as well as those mentioned above, to thank for it.

Our Governments are not seeking to invade our privacy. The truth is they already know who you are and can find you at any time they choose

The Government does want to protect your privacy from hackers, pirates, as well as those mentioned above. 

Copied from this article https://www.onlineparty.ca/issue.php?ISSUEID=123

January 28 is recognized as Data Privacy Day, a creation of The Privacy Projects -a non-profit research organization dedicated to issues around consumer privacy and data protection. Marking the occasion, Business Review Canada noted some of the largest private data breaches of the past year, including Netflix's disclosing the private information of nearly half-a-million customers, Google sharing data between G mail users and their contact lists without consent, and Facebook app developers selling the personal information that they had at their fingertips. The Internet is increasingly social, and Web surfers are becoming accustomed to having their personal information and browsing habits collected and shared with cavalier disregard. Personal data are extremely valuable to marketers and those with uses that are more nefarious.The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, enacted by the federal government in part to protect citizens' personal information online, came fully into effect in 2004. This law requires organizations covered by the act to fully disclose what information they collect, why they collect it, what they plan to do with it, and how it will be protected; this is usually detailed in a privacy policy. Violations of this Act must be reported to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, which investigates claims and produces reports on its findings. A complainant who wishes to pursue the matter must take the report to federal Court to force the violator to take action; the Privacy Commissioner does not have the power to issue a binding judgment or order compliance.In 2008, Canada's privacy commissioners and privacy oversight officials resolved to take steps to further protect children's privacy online, and to educate young people about issues around sharing personal information online.One major lightning rod for online privacy issues is social networking site Facebook, and with good reason: Facebook boasts more than 500 million active users worldwide, more than half of whom log on in any given day, with more than 200 million doing so via their mobile device. In excess of 30 billion pieces of content (including photos) are shared each month. Users install 20 million applications on their Facebook accounts every day.The numbers are staggering, as is the amount of personal information users are willing to trust with this six-year-old company, despite its CEO's well-documented belief that privacy is overrated. The length of Facebook's privacy policy grew from about 1000words upon its inception to nearly 6000 words in its present form; many fear that the limits of authorization from users for Facebook to sell and otherwise leverage personal information is obfuscated in this complex document. The federal privacy commissioner made worldwide news mid-2009 when ours became the first country in the world to challenge social networking site Facebook for inadequate protection of users' personal data. In consultation in international regulators, Facebook eventually made some changes to its practices to satisfy Canada's demands; the next year, the commissioner targeted companies creating apps for Facebook.While the government may seem to be on citizens' side with regard to online privacy, Bill C-52, currently under consideration by the House of Commons, would make all of the information held by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) accessible to police agencies without a warrant. Upon request, ISPs would be forced to hand over names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, equipment serial numbers, and more -there is no limitation on the information to be provided, nor is there much detail as to what circumstances would warrant such actions be taken. This could be seen as similar to a law allowing warrant-free interception of telephone communications at the discretion of police forces, "to enable national security." For obvious reasons, privacy advocates see this Bill as problematic.Some ISPs arguably already violate their customers' privacy by employing deep packet inspection (DPI) of the data being accessed - essentially monitoring web browsing habits. DPI may be employed for law enforcement, to provide targeted advertising,to collect statistical information, and to restrict the amount of bandwidth available to those downloading high amounts of data, usually from file-sharing sites. While most consumers don't think about it, every file they download and website they visit may be logged, and that information shared with third parties.Google uses an algorithm that scans the content of emails sent via its G mail service in order to provide targeted advertising (yes, Google is reading your emails), and has proposed a free cloud-based storage service that would peruse all of the files uploaded for the same purpose. Software is in use on some websites to track mouse movement,the better to tell what the most valuable real estate on a page is, while programs are in development that would use the built-in webcam on your computer to monitor where you are looking. Phishing emails are getting increasingly sophisticated: a recent email claimed to be from the Canada Revenue Agency, and clicking on a link sent victims to an authentic-looking government website requesting a Social Insurance Number and information from the past-year's tax return, with the potential to supposedly find additional tax rebates.Does the average user really care, though? The steps most Canadians take to protect their privacy online are weak at best: even savvy Web surfers may use the same, simple password across multiple services, fail to read privacy policies, and volunteer personal information with little thought of the consequences. Sometimes the service is too compelling or too much fun to pass up, even for Canadians educated in best practices for safeguarding their online privacy.At issue, then, is to what degree should Canadians' personal data be kept confidential,whose responsibility is it to ensure that happens, and under what circumstances should it legally be disclosed? How far should the government go to protect our information, and at what point does it become the responsibility of Internet users to safeguard their own data? Is maintaining privacy even possible for those active online?

Conclusion

I hope that gives people an better understanding of the two issues.

Huggins

Pat

My Favorite Toy QP Freebie

Good Morning Peeps.

I have a free quick page for you. Get it here.
I tried to insert the image but Blogger has weird issues.

Huggins
Pat M

How ‘don’t be evil’ became ‘let’s all be evil’

By Kevin Kelleher

February 6, 2012

 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2012/02/06/how-dont-be-evil-became-lets-all-be-evil/

 It’s been nearly a decade since the tagline “don’t be evil” was attached to Google in a Wired magazine profile. Google, a little more than four years old, adopted the phrase as a code of conduct as it navigated through a growing list of hard questions, and as it increasingly shaped the Web itself. Since then, the term has been hurled back at its founders again and again — every time a saucy blogger or disgruntled user had a bone to pick with the company. Google’s executives have long since stopped saying “don’t be evil” in public, and the company has been more willing to make bold moves that court controversy (as long as they lead to changes that will promote further growth). Case in point: Last month, Google altered its search results to favor pages from its Google+ social service over other social sites.
Facebook responded by designing a browser extension called “don’t be evil” that played up results from non-Google+ social sites, like Facebook and Twitter. It was an amusing potshot at Google — but for the wrong reasons. Facebook’s track record at focusing on its users’ needs and preferences is even worse than Google’s. Beyond the privacy snafus that flare up regularly, Facebook has designed its site not to make it easier for us to share content with our friends, but to weave corporate brands and ad campaigns into those friendships.
But Facebook’s exercise in highhanded hypocrisy was revealing for another reason. At some point, tech companies bled “don’t be evil” dry of any true meaning. It’s a dead motto, and its sole remaining function is as a ruler to slap the Google brand. In 2012, evil must be a part of your stock and trade. How else will you make billions in profits in the Web industry? Google and Facebook can snipe at each other all they want. But they both follow the same credo now: Let’s all be evil.
But what exactly do we mean by evil? The word can be traced back to the Bronze Age as a disparagement, but evil as we talk about it today can mean anything from an annoyance to extreme moral wickedness. And most of the evil things tech companies do don’t quite rise to the level of evil — it’s just bad. Tweaking your search results to promote your social networks is bad. So is confusing your members when they try to protect their privacy. You take a step toward moral wickedness when you let countries decide how they want to censor tweets. And you’re pretty much on your way there when you poison your workers with neurotoxins in the name of manufacturing efficiency.
In the still-nascent world of social networks, though, things could be worse. The problem is we’re already on our way down. The most powerful companies are designing their sites not to improve the user experience, but to try and get the better of each other.
Facebook and Twitter have declined to let Google incorporate their data feeds into its search engine (those companies say the data is available on the Web; Google says their terms of service don’t allow this). So Google responds by favoring Google+ in its search engine, and downplaying Facebook and Twitter. Very well, point made. But how does this help the rest of us?
In tossing aside its stated mission as a neutral search engine, Google is bowing to some strong outside pressures. Advertisers are shifting more ad dollars to Facebook, which is doing all it can to keep its members inside its walled gardens. So Google changes its search engine to lure more people into its own social site. But it risks lowering its standards to Facebook’s level, becoming a site more devoted to ad dollars than people. And slowly, what was once the Web’s public commons is turning into a collection of gated communities.
The better approach is simple, and one that has worked before. All posts and updates created by the users of all sites — provided that they willingly choose them to be public — should be available to be aggregated by any other site. From there, let the best aggregator win. That was how the Web once worked, when companies designed their sites to improve the experience for the people who use them.
It’s not that way anymore – Web companies are more interested in beating each other, even if it means a race to the bottom. Instead of enticing us with useful, intuitive design, Web sites are focused on corralling us inside through manipulation. It’s not clear whether Facebook or Google will win this game. What’s more clear is that the rest of us are losing.

EPIC Sues FTC Over Google's Planned Privacy Changes

By Grant Gross, IDG News

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249552/epic_sues_ftc_over_googles_planned_privacy_changes.html

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, asking a court to force the agency to take action against Google over planned changes in the company's collection of personal data.

EPIC, in briefs filed Wednesday, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to require the FTC to enforce a 2011 privacy agreement between the agency and Google over the company's fumbled rollout of its Buzz social networking service.

Google's January announcement that it would consolidate user data over 60 of its services is a "clear violation" of that privacy agreement, EPIC said in court papers. Google has announced it will roll out the changes to its terms of service on March 1.

The FTC has not acted to block Google from making the changes, "placing the privacy interests of literally hundreds of millions of Internet users at grave risk," EPIC's lawyers wrote in court papers. "The FTC is required to enforce the consent order. But the commission has failed to do so."

The agreement between the FTC and Google required the company to implement a comprehensive privacy program and requires independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. The settlement also required Google to review the privacy implications of its current and future products.

"At a minimum, a comprehensive privacy program required by the consent order, which arose from the company's attempt to combine user data from two discrete services, cannot permit the company to now engage in the same prohibited practice," EPIC's lawyers wrote.

EPIC is seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requiring the FTC to enforce the 2011 privacy order.

The changes to Google's privacy practices will give advertisers new insights into Google users, EPIC said in a court brief.

The changes "will make it possible for advertisers to gain access to personal information which was previously unavailable to them," EPIC said in a court brief. "Google ads are targeted to individual users based on information Google gathers about individual users."

The FTC said it closely monitors its consent agreements with companies. "The FTC takes compliance with our consent orders very seriously and always looks carefully at any evidence that they are being violated," the agency said in a statement.

Google takes privacy "very seriously," a spokesman for the company said. "We're happy to engage in constructive conversations about our updated privacy policy but EPIC is wrong on the facts and the law," the company said in a statement.

Google has undertaken "the most extensive notification effort" in the company's history to notify users about the upcoming changes, the statement said. "We're keeping your private information private -- we're not changing how any personal information is shared outside of Google."

February's Reign QP Freebies

Hello Scrappers;

Happy February :)

I've a couple of freebies for you. A quick page and a decorative frame.
If you are interested, then head on over HERE for all the info and link.
Here's a Preview of the layout I made.

Huggins
Pat

Saying Goodbye to Google

Hello World LOL

I have decided, in light of the policy changes at Google, to remove myself from the Google community. I am in the process of unsubscribing to newsletters, setting up a new blog, removing people from Google +, etc. When everything is ready I will re post and give you a link.

Thank you for your many years of service Google. I wish you all the luck on your new journey of exploiting your users privacy.

Huggins
PatM

SOPA & PIPA Dead - World Economies Next Hurdle

Hello Every One;

The First Internet strike, Wednesdays Blackout, sent a clear message to the US Government and they have set aside SOPA & PIPA, for now. As I mentioned before, they are looking for better solutions to resolving the major issue of Piracy.

On another note, my friend sent me an email last week, and another one again this week, that I found quite interesting and thought you all may want to read these articles. Honestly, you should read them as they are very important to the worlds future.

The first one is based off an article written by Major General Luo Yuan, of the Chinese Liberation Party.
The article claims that the USA is trying to stop China's growth. Truly I had a laugh at that statement.
See, China's rise is due to other countries, like the USA, bringing them business. It's no secret that economies around the world are collapsing. And unfortunately it's their own fault. See they outsourced the jobs to China and other Asian countries and left no jobs for their own people. Why? Money? Of course, but there's more to it.
Which brings me to the second article I received, which summons it all up nicely.

So what is the solution to resolving the economic issues that many countries face?
According to the second article we should all be like the Asian workers.
While an employees here may make $12 an hour, people in Asia make $17 a week.
How on earth can any country compete with that?
Well it's called War. Whether it be local or global. That's how these issues have always been resolved.
Are we smarter today then we were 70 years ago? We may think so but, not really. Which is why the first article was written. It may be a few years in coming but we should all prepare, not for war, but to be more like the Asian countries.
That's the message I got from these two articles.

Huggins
Pat