EPIC Asks UN to Question US About Privacy Violations by Private Firms As part of a routine review, EPIC asked the United Nations Human Rights Committee to question the US about the failure to protect individuals against privacy violations by private industry.
FRENCH DISPUTE Google, which estimates that it has removed 2.9 million links under the right to be forgotten, had appealed a 100,000 euro ($115,000) fine from CNIL in March 2016 for failing to delist information across national borders, sending the case to the European Court of Justice.
"It's all true: Everything is fake," tweeted Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao regarding a Wednesday New York Magazine article which reveals that internet traffic metrics from some of the largest tech companies are overstated or fabricated.
Share this: Read why Ellen Tannam says that social media exposure can increase the cost of a data breach by many times on Silicon Republic : 2018 has been a year dominated by data breaches.
His request not only gave him access to his own Amazon search data, but also to around 1,700 Alexa voice files recorded in a stranger’s living room, bedroom, and shower. This data privacy disaster occurred because amazon.de saves Alexa voice recordings indefinitely and because the processes it uses to leverage them have serious security issues.
As shown in the recently published White Paper (link), the current wording of Article 13 of the Copyright Directive Proposal will most likely disrupt the development of software and create important barriers for the completion of the European Single Market and the expansion of digital innovation.
By sending in their saliva samples, customers agree that their genetic data can be resold to research institutes or pharmaceutical companies, for example, leading to 23andme gaining such a large market value.
Julia Reda, an MEP who leads the opposition to the directive within the European Parliament says it's unlikely we'll see such an extreme version of the link tax as in Spain, where Google was required to pay publishers even if they didn't ask to be paid.
However, both “clarifications” published on their website fail to explain why the authority interpreted the situation not to fall under the derogations of Article 7 of the Romanian law 190/2018 (that implemented Article 85 of GDPR which requires reconciliation of the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes).
It goes beyond pointing out that people make poor choices when it comes to protecting their personal data, and attempts to understand the key reasons for that failure. John points out that the online world does not work like the real world, and that leads us to make bad decisions:
What the European Parliament will finally vote on is a technophobic text, tailor-made for the interests of the copyright monopolies which, moreover, doesn’t guarantee the right of authors to have a reasonable standard of living as a result of their work.
In a landmark case, NLA v Meltwater, heard in the UK’s Supreme Court and which resulted in questions referred on to the Court of Justice of the European Union, it was determined that on-screen and cached copies of websites generated by users while browsing may be created without authorisation from copyright holders.
Wenyao Xu receives funding from the National Science Foundation. Zhanpeng Jin receives funding from the National Science Foundation. Feng Lin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
“Article 13 as written threatens to shut down the ability of millions of people – from creators like you to everyday users – to upload content to platforms like YouTube.
In the event that rightsholders repeatedly make false copyright claims, online service providers should be permitted to strike them off of their list of trusted claimants, such that these rightsholders must fall back to seeking court orders – with their higher evidentiary standard – to effect removal of materials.
Wojcicki focuses on Article 13 of the EU's new Directive on Copyright, which passed in early September and makes tech platforms liable for copyright-protected content. Essentially, this means that giant platforms that rely on user-generated content, including Google's YouTube, , and , would be responsible for making sure that users don't share copyrighted material.
Back in May 25, when member countries met to settle on their original “negotiating text”, the national governments barely agreed between themselves on whether the directive should go forward.
In this article we will look closely at the tension between the growing awareness towards cases in which privacy is abused; to our legitimate desire to share content, purchase and sell goods, play, research and enjoy all the marvelous opportunities of the world wide web.
Under pressure from cross-dressers, Facebook said it would relax the 'real name' policy and allow people to use aliases, but only if they are generally known by those aliases or if they were victims of certain types of abuse or stalking.
Articles 11 and 13 – a so-called “link tax” for news content, and a rule making internet platforms liable for copyright infringements by their users – were never meant to be carefully considered fixes to issues in copyright law.
We're asking our representatives and institutions to investigate and consider suspending Axel Voss, the rapporteur for the Copyright Directive, for potential conflict of interest and subversion of democracy within the European Union.
What likely happened here is a bunch of people who do not understand how the Internet fundamentally works have looked at statistics on how many times Google, Yahoo, Reddit, Twitter, etc have linked their content and multiplied that by some arbitrary number for their “link-tax” and decided that they can now cash in because of their new legislation.
(CD) — Journalists and free press advocates are responding with alarm to newly released documents revealing the U.S. government’s secret rules for using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court orders to spy on reporters, calling the revelations “important” and “terrifying.”
Today, in a vote that split almost every major EU party, Members of the European Parliament adopted every terrible proposal in the new Copyright Directive and rejected every good one, setting the stage for mass, automated surveillance and arbitrary censorship of the internet: text messages like tweets and Facebook updates; photos; videos; audio; software code -- any and all media that can be copyrighted.
In a session this morning, MEPs approved amended versions of the directive’s most controversial provisions: Articles 11 and 13, dubbed by critics as the “link tax” and “upload filter.”
Next Wednesday at Noon CET, all 751 MEPS will be voting on 203 brand new amendments to the “Copyright in the Digital Single Market” directive, including genuine reforms as well as innocuous-looking language that would double-down on the copyright filters and link taxes from the previous, rejected, draft.