To display the most relevant entries to you in priority,
vote for the stories you are interested in
()
and reject those that you are not interested in
()
Germany’s Office for Information Security, also known as the BSI, has apparently looked at
Google’s Chrome browser and
felt a pinch of uneasy déjà vu (a la Microsoft), only this time sensing
that the company behind the software wants to know too much about you, too often. As a result,
the BSI is advising anyone who’ll listen to steer clear of the crayon
invader’s brand new beta. At least for anything other than experimental tasks.
Though this isn’t a warning stretched to the whole EU, the fact is that the BSI’s red
flag has been shown by a number of German media stalwarts, including Berliner Zeitung and Tagesschau, the second of which is a news program widely viewed by the
public. Which makes for fairly substantial news. And just so we’re thorough, the way
we’ve learned of this official relay is the through the German blog Spreeblick, sourced by Philipp Lensen of Google Blogoscoped.
Lensen summarized the matter thusly:
The Federal Office for Information Security warned Internet users of the new browser Chrome. The
application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the Internet, as a spokesperson
for the office told the Berliner Zeitung. It was said to be problematic that Chrome was
distributed as an unfinished advance version. Furthermore it was said to be risky that user data
is hoarded with a single vendor. With its search engine, email program and the new browser,
Google now covers all important areas on the Internet.
To be honest, a part of me wishes to draw a bit of humor from this news chain. After all,
it’s not as if Google hasn’t walked this line before. It manages vast amounts of user
data, regularly distributes “unfinished advance version(s)” of software and services,
and generally gives privacy hawks the willies. On the other hand, we knew this moment would come.
All this conversation about Google this and Google that, Google so easy and Google
so smart. The Chrome project
aggregates pretty much every concern into one quick install. Naturally the whistle gets blown.
This time from Germany’s own BSI. The issue of security can really only be compounded by
the fears of a one-stop shop for both corporation and criminal. The premise of those fears:
Google Chrome equals Google
Concentrate. “Getting to know you, getting to know all about you,” goes the song.
There’s more of this on its way, to be sure. Regardless of intent or execution, words of
caution ring more loudly than calm, and with holes in Chrome to fill, it’s easy to see why
various folks would prefer people dabble rather than dive. No doubt, this discussion will be an
open one for long time hence, and Google as it is known today will never escape the cloud of
suspicion that hovers ever more darkly. All the company can do now is…deal.
Just to lay the cards fully out onto the table, I used Google Translate to put articles from both
Berliner Zeitung and Spreeblick into poor, algorithmically-arranged English.
---
Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will hold its 2009 presidential election on June 12, when conservative
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is widely expected to stand for a second four-year term despite criticism over
his economic policies.
Tellini has announced Tablatures
1.9. Tablatures is the first and only Mac OS X editor for PowerTab tablatures. PowerTab is a
well-known and widely adopted tablature editor for Windows systems and thousands of
transcriptions in this format are available on the net. Tablatures is thus an essential tool for
guitar...
Are critics and analysts waiting breathless on the edge of their seats? No, says the FT's Richard
Waters. Why? Because they've already panned it.
When the first of Google's
long-anticipated Android mobile phones hit the stores in a matter of weeks, they will land with a
fizzle rather than a bang.
That is the overwhelming verdict of internet developers and mobile industry executives who have
closely followed Google's progress and, in some cases, worked with early versions...
For Google, comparisons with Apple are turning out to be both inevitable and damning. If the
iPhone has been a text-book case of how to develop and market a new consumer electronics product,
Android is the opposite, according to industry experts. 'It ain't no iPhone,' said John Jackson,
an analyst at Yankee Group, echoing a widely held view.
Disparagement of Android has touched on everything from an alleged lack of sophistication and
stability in the software, to the fact that successful devices such as the iPhone and the
BlackBerry are based on
a different technology model. 'The best experiences out there today are vertical' experiences,
where the hardware and software come from the same company,' said Tom Conrad, chief technology
officer of Pandora, whose internet music service is one of the most popular applications on the
iPhone.
More important, according to some critics, has been Google's lack of clear consumer focus, in
marked contrast to Apple, whose iPhone was designed and marketed to meet very specific needs.
worromot writes "A group of geneticists published a method to determine if a given individual's DNA
is present in a mixture (e.g., in a pool of blood on a carpet). An individual's DNA can comprise
less than 1% of the mixture. (The article is in open access on PLoS Genetics website.) While this
is a potential boon for forensics, there are more immediate worries about the privacy of the
participants of the genetics studies that had been under way for many years. As Science magazine
writes, 'The discovery that a type of genetic data that is widely shared and often posted online
can be traced back to individuals has prompted the US National Institutes of Health and the
Wellcome Trust to strip some genetic data from their publicly accessible Web sites and NIH to
recommend that other institutions do the same.' The gravest worry was that an individual who had
someone's genetic code could determine, based on the pooled data, whether the person participated
in a disease study and whether they were in the disease group, or thereby glean private health
information. NIH plans to ask institutions that have posted pooled data on their own Web sites to
take these down, too." Read
more of this story at Slashdot. </img>
Jason Whitlock brings his edgy and thought-provoking style to FOXSports.com. Columnist for the
Kansas City Star, he has won the National Journalism Award for Commentary for "his ability to
seamlessly integrate sports and social commentary and to challenge widely held assumptions along
the racial divide."
Leading genetic testing companies are providing clients with widely divergent and inaccurate
predictions of their chances of developing serious diseases. That is the finding from tests
conducted by different firms on the same person.
Michael Moore’s latest documentary film, Slacker Uprising, is set to be available
for free on the Internet. Does this signal a change in the movie industry or just Moore’s
desire to see Obama in the White House?
When Radiohead released their latest album, In Rainbows, for free over the Internet last
year, it was seen as a forward-thinking step which could revolutionise the way music is
distributed.
Changing The Status Quo?
The album did well, but most people still ended up downloading it via less legal means. And the
experiment didn’t really do anything to end the monopoly that the big record companies
enjoy.
Could film-maker Michael Moore do any better in persuading the movie industry that there is an
alternative to releasing movies in to cinemas?
Available For Free Online
Michael Moore, known for his hard-hitting documentaries attacking the status quo, is releasing
Slacker Uprising for free on the Internet
before it gets released on DVD.
The 97-minute-long film will be available to watch on BlipTV
for three weeks starting from September 23rd. It will then be released on DVD on October 7th
through Amazon and Netflix.
Slacker Uprising Trailer
Get Bush Out!
Slacker Uprising is a film following Michael Moore’s 62-city tour around the US
swing states in the build-up to the 2004 US Presidential Election. Moore wanted Bush out and
democrat John Kerry in.
While Moore’s hope wasn’t fulfilled, the documentary is now being released for free
over the Internet in order to reach as many people as possible before this year’s US
Presidential Election between
Barack Obama and John McCain.
Moore Speaks
Moore released a statement explaining the move:
“This is being done entirely as a gift to my fans. The only return any of us are hoping
for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November. I think Slacker Uprising
will inspire (millions) to get off the couch and give voting a chance.”
The film cost an estimated $2 million to make, and Moore thinks that this method of release will
end up costing him $1 million. But neither Moore or the distributor, Brave New Films, plan to
profit from the release.
Conclusions
This is an intriguing development, especially as Moore could have guaranteed a pay day by
releasing this film in cinemas. He has instead decided to give his fans a present in the hope of
inspiring more people to vote.
This comes just a week after No End In Sight was announced as being the first
widely-released feature film to be
screened in its entirety on YouTube.
Will this revolutionise the movie industry? Not a chance. But it does at least show the Web is
becoming a more accepted form of distribution for long-form content.
worromot writes "A group of geneticists published a method to determine if a given individual's DNA
is present in a mixture (e.g., in a pool of blood on a carpet). An individual's DNA can comprise
less than 1% of the mixture. (The article is in open access on PLoS Genetics website.) While this
is a potential boon for forensics, there are more immediate worries about the privacy of the
participants of the genetics studies that had been under way for many years. As Science magazine
writes, 'The discovery that a type of genetic data that is widely shared and often posted online
can be traced back to individuals has prompted the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the
Wellcome Trust to strip some genetic data from their publicly accessible Web sites and NIH to
recommend that other institutions do the same.' The gravest worry was that an individual who had
someone's genetic code could determine, based on the pooled data, whether the person participated
in a disease study and whether they were in the disease group, or thereby glean private health
information. NIH plans to ask institutions that have posted pooled data on their own Web sites to
take these down, too." Read
more of this story at Slashdot. </img>
worromot writes "A group of geneticists published a method to determine if a given individual's DNA
is present in a mixture (e.g., in a pool of blood on a carpet). An individual's DNA can comprise
less than 1% of the mixture. (The article is in open access on PLoS Genetics website.) While this
is a potential boon for forensics, there are more immediate worries about the privacy of the
participants of the genetics studies that had been under way for many years. As Science magazine
writes, 'The discovery that a type of genetic data that is widely shared and often posted online
can be traced back to individuals has prompted the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the
Wellcome Trust to strip some genetic data from their publicly accessible Web sites and NIH to
recommend that other institutions do the same.' The gravest worry was that an individual who had
someone's genetic code could determine, based on the pooled data, whether the person participated
in a disease study and whether they were in the disease group, or thereby glean private health
information. NIH plans to ask institutions that have posted pooled data on their own Web sites to
take these down, too."
It took two months, but the bond market called Henry Paulson's bluff: The Treasury Secretary was
widely expected this weekend to announce a plan to take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under government
control.
NCC works broadly across disciplines in creative direction, graphic, installation, film and
motion. Since its establishment in the 90's, it continues to develop by hand a raw, layered,
collaged, and primal approach while expanding in scope and vision.
The mission is always to remain experimental and diverse working closely with clients, curators,
galleries and institutions on a broad range of specific print executions, billboards and other
one-off projects.
Other work includes editioned screenprints, zines and working with universitites / publishing
houses on a broad range of exhibitions, public programme's, installations, talks and workshops.
NCC has exhibited widely including solo exhibitions across Europe and in Group Shows that include
the Spank The Monkey exhibition at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art where NCC together with
Banksy and David Shrigley were the three invited British artists. As well as regular commissions,
NCC has attracted Arts Council of England and British Council support for its projects.
NCC has released three monographs/books: Neasden Control Centre (Die Gestalten Verlag, 2003);
Smithfield Building (ROJO, 2006); and Lost Control (Die Gestalten Verlag, 2007). Both the 2003
and 2006 books have sold out. Just now ROJO got some remaining copies of Smithfield Building so
buy fast!
Order one of the last available copies of Smithfield Building book here
Neasden Control Centre brand new website
It took two months, but the bond market called Henry Paulson's bluff: The Treasury Secretary was
widely expected this weekend to announce a plan to take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under government
control.
If you plan to improve your physique it is essential to find the perfect diet program for you.
Hydroxy Cut and hydroxy cut each are widely used and recognised varieties for your best interests
when in the initial stages of your dieting program. The tr...
This was the week Google surprised the world with Chrome, its own open source web browser. Just
imagine the deadly effect that had on a dozen or more browser-specific start-ups in Silicon
Valley. Lots of readers are wondering what I think of Chrome, like my opinion really matters.
Chrome is okay -- faster, but not faster enough to make me change for that reason alone. It's
better than IE and almost better than Firefox except there are no plug-ins to speak of. What I
really wonder, though, is why Google bothered to do a browser at all? Now I know.
It's not like there aren't enough web browsers in the world. There are plenty. And though
Internet Explorer still dominates the Windows market, Firefox (not to mention Opera, Safari,
etc.) is there to keep Microsoft honest,. So why did Google even bother? There are two general
opinions on this and they are not mutually exclusive. Naturally one opinion is widely held and
the other is held mainly by me.
The first reason why Google had to do its own browser comes courtesy of my friend Dave:
"People are looking at Google Chrome and actually think Google is competing in the so-called
Browser Wars," said Dave. "This is not the case at all. Google doesn't care what happens to
Chrome. And, in fact would be absolutely thrilled if Firefox and Opera enhanced their browsers to
the point where they trounce Chrome into extinction. Google doesn't make a dime off of Chrome.
Its money comes from people using the web browser -- any browser.
"What Google does not want is Microsoft creating a browser that sucks. Actually, Google doesn't
mind if Microsoft's browser sucks. What they really don't want is Microsoft to make a browser
that sucks and everyone ends up using it. And, if the IE8 beta shows us anything, making a really
sucky web browser is Microsoft's true ambition.
"Google's main concern is quite simple: Browsers should render pages accurately, and the
JavaScript engine in the browser should be fast, efficient, and bug free. On both counts, IE8 is
an abomination. JScript just doesn't behave very well and is buggy. And, IE's page-rendering
engine simply does not follow the standard. Because of this, Google has to keep development on
their Google Applications quite generic and simply cannot implement the features they want.
You'll also notice that Microsoft recently has been putting on some very compelling web content
that is only available if you use Windows and IE."
Now back to Bob. Everything Dave says makes sense and I agree with it, but it doesn't answer my
real question, which is not "Why did Google have to do a browser?" but rather, "What made it
impossible for Google NOT to do a browser?"
The answer to this latter question begins with Dave noticing Microsoft's recent IE- and
Windows-specific web content, which cracks open the door on Google's greatest fear -- that
Microsoft will turn off ads in IE.
Microsoft can't do that, can they?
Microsoft can do pretty much whatever it wants in this area. There is plenty of browser
competition. They can hobble their own product if they like, though it would drive users away
from IE -- from a product that brings Microsoft no direct revenue anyway -- so what's the risk?
Microsoft turns off the ads in IE and what happens? Google takes a huge revenue hit, is knocked
down three pegs in the eyes of Wall Street, while pretty much nothing happens to Microsoft, which
would have just shown the world who is still the sheriff.
I am not saying this is going to happen, but I AM saying that it COULD happen -- and that very
remote possibility is, by itself, enough to make Google have to produce its own browser.
Let me be clear that there doesn't have to be any subterfuge here on Microsoft's part. They can
simply turn off the ads in IE, declaring it a non-commercial product. If you don't like it, get
another browser -- there are plenty to choose from. Microsoft's revenue would go almost unchanged
while Google's would plummet, if only for a few weeks or months -- just long enough for Microsoft
to come through with a second punch, that is if they have thought that far ahead.
If you are wondering whether people really sit around Google asking if Microsoft would actually
do something like this, well they do.
So to avoid that eventuality (and to do all the other things that Dave said, above) here we have
Chrome, Google's attempt to direct the future of browser development and take some momentum away
from IE.
Chrome promotes WebKit rendering, which is also done in Safari. It would not surprise me if
WebKit didn't make some inroads shortly with Firefox and Opera, helping somewhat to turn the tide
away from IE. Yet WebKit will change, too, by adopting Google's V8 JavaScript engine, replacing
JavaScriptCore in both WebKit and Safari. Thus all the open source browsers (and Safari) become
better and more alike, which helps them against IE.
A rising tide floats all (open source) ships. Google needs open source browsers to become even
more competitive with IE, hence Chrome is a reference design that Google knows will work
brilliantly with all Google Apps.
So much for Chrome: Now for something REALLY scary. I've been hearing that peer-to-peer file
sharing has declined a bit. Actually, it's the rate of growth that has declined, but in a market
where volume is always rising and prices always falling, even a decline in growth can be
significant. This is happening for lots of reasons (market saturation, summer vacation, etc.) but
the effect appears to be real, much to the relief of the RIAA and MPAA, which hate people sharing
music, TV shows, and movies that they see as violating the intellectual property rights of their
members.
But I think something else is actually happening. People are just finding new ways to share files
-- ways that are harder to detect and even more chilling for society to prohibit.
Look at where P2P came from in the first place. The idea behind BitTorrent and similar programs
was that many people wanted the same content and few users could afford the bandwidth to run
their own dedicated servers, so sharing files by caching and re-serving small pieces of files was
very efficient, especially with flat-rate bandwidth. Depending on your point of view, P2P has
been a huge success or a huge pain in the ass.
But all the while, the cost of Internet bandwidth has come down A LOT. Remember P2P was born in
the 1990s when most users still had dial-up connections. With the cost of Internet backbone
bandwidth dropping 50 percent per year for the last decade or more, the economics have changed
dramatically and it has become reasonable to effectively have your own server. No, I'm not
talking about YouTube, I'm talking about dedicated servers used in large part to distribute
movies and music. I'm talking about any of a number of Internet backup services.
The poster child for this new kind of service is RapidShare, a German file-sharing service that
will let you distribute files up to 200 megs each for free and up to two gigs for not much money
-- 55 Euros per year -- with no limit on the total number of files, total storage, total
downloads or even total simultaneous downloads. Rip your copy of The Dark Knight, store it on
RapidShare, then send the download URL to anyone you like or simply post it somewhere on the web.
It's not as efficient as P2P, but it sure is easier AND harder to detect since nothing but http
is used.
Can you see where I am going with this? How are the MPAA and the RIAA likely to respond if this
technique becomes really popular? They are going to want to spy on us more, even to the point of
auditing (or attempting to audit) our network backups. More lawsuits, more grandmothers and
little kids being sued, less privacy.
I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA will fail in the long run. Once custom protocols and ports are dropped
and you can't tell the difference between a spreadsheet and I Am Curious (Yellow) the game is up.
But we're still years -- and a lot of pain -- away from that.
The fallout from
the closed trial given to Yang Jia
after he murdered six Shanghai policemen in July continues to bear down on the blogosphere as one
of the most discussed topics.
Discussion has been intense and reactions to the verdict have varied; at least one YouTuber took
it upon themselves to interview Shanghai residents on their thoughts on the trial and verdict:
“The law isn't even for the people anymore, and Yang Jia's sentence is simply insulting
to the people of China!!!!”
For establishment artist and Olympic venue designer Ai Weiwei on his Sina blog, posting videos which have since been
deleted of the crowd assembled outside of the Shanghai #2 Intermediate People's Court on the day
of Yang's trial just prior and
after the trial was held,
after having having applied to
attend it himself and then denied, were all decisions made after having written a post [zh] calling on his readers to
take action in support not just of Yang, but for rule of law in China itself:
Too much gratuitous rage and violent language, followed by too much distrust, giving up, and
death.
But to give up, to lose hope, and say it's all just futile, to sit and wait until they pull the
trigger, is part of what people are cursing as a rotten sin.
September 1st, Shanghai, Yang Jia was so hastily sentenced to death. The local government and
judicial system, in ignoring the divine rights granted citizens by the constitution, trampling on
the sanctity of the law, disrupting the legal process, revealed just how seriously flawed
Shanghai's public court system is.
Things are not that simple, though; the Yang Jia case is no longer about some guy that can just be
ignored. Through his readiness to die, a single citizen has not only put China's judicial fairness
to the test, but its confidence in and stance on social justice as well, awakening China's
awareness of civil liberties. The thing that Shanghai just doesn't get is that China is nothing
like life along The Bund, in
fact it's far more complicated than you could ever imagine.
The Yang Jia case is by no means over; the sentence against him, only illustrates these fraudsters'
desire to defile the sanctity of the law. Stained are the souls that decided upon this obscene
fate, people who in the end are unable to break free from their logic which forsakes our people,
the abuse of power and spite for the law. We ought to show them, that this time, they will have to
pay a price for their stupidity.
For Yang Jia, for every person with dignity dead or alive, for those as young as Yang Jia, for
mothers just like Yang Jia's mother.
I call upon the state to retry the Yang Jia case, through an open and transparent judicial process,
with a public and legal trial, one that upholds the constitution, as a test of the resolve and
strength of China's judicial reforms.
You and I are the same, in that as Chinese people, we believe that the state has made unremitting
efforts toward implementing social justice and judicial reforms, believing that through legal
means, the highest and most honored legal authority in the country, the Supreme People's Court, can
and will resume its duties.
Please use your precious time, and write down your thoughts on the Yang Jia case, and through
action, call for fairness and justice.
Demand that the Supreme People's Court dismiss the first trial verdict in the Yang Jia case,
appoint a court in another jurisdiction, rehold the trial and make it public, uphold the state
constitution, and uphold his rights as a citizen.
Call upon the national leaders to bring the Central Disciplinary Committee, the Central Politics
& Law Committee, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Supreme People's Court, the Public
Security Bureau and the Ministry of Justice together to form a joint investigative team, to get to
the bottom of the origins of the Yang Jia case, and to investigate the illegal conduct of a
closed-door sentencing; rectify the Shanghai PSB, Procuratorate and Courts; clean up those local
forces working against the state and disregarding national laws; uphold the unification of the
national legal system and the authority of the constitution.
)
and reject those that you are not interested in
(
)
Germany’s Office for Information Security, also known as the 
All this conversation about Google this and Google that, Google so easy and Google
so smart. 
