Changes in mobile technology have been huge but it is possible to stay secure and open in the mobile economy
Let’s be smarter than our devices!
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

ellievsbear
wallacepolsom

@theartofmadeline

★
styofa doing anything
Today's Document

No title available
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Keni
Claire Keane
Misplaced Lens Cap

PR's Tumblrdome
No title available
ojovivo

Andulka
tumblr dot com
h
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
AnasAbdin
seen from United States
seen from France

seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Mexico
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@legaltricks-blog
Changes in mobile technology have been huge but it is possible to stay secure and open in the mobile economy
Let’s be smarter than our devices!
Privacy is dying and needs our help...today!
https://goo.gl/images/PQZiN4
The history of western States proves that Leviathan is fond of the surveillance of its citizens. Not only the authoritarian regimes but also the democratic states were violating and violate the privacy of their citizens. Governments usually target those who are considered as internal enemies but also cases of mass surveillance ,without specific criteria, have been revealed the last decades. In this way authorities straighten their powers and control the citizens more effectively. Especially after the 9/11 we can see that there is a legal tolerance in the violation of privacy for the sake of security. But from the moment that our data became the “new oil”, our privacy stopped being just an affair of States and became also an affair of market. A new market era emerged the last decades succeeding the access in a plethora of individual’s data and handling them as commodities.
Theoretically this is a democratic procedure based usually in user’s consent. The problem lies in the way that we give our consent. The rapid development of cyberspace had as a consequence that we cannot always fully understand the impacts of our acts in the Internet. Almost all realms of offline life have been transferred online, such as entertainment, friends and transactions. What we find hard to conceive is that all these services we enjoy are not for free. We pay them with the disclosure of our data instead of our money. If we could understand the cost of this payment , possibly we would change our mind. The way that online businesses ask for our permission prevent us from an in depth understanding of the range of access that we provide every time that we accept the terms of cyber services. We just got used to giving our consent without knowing what exactly they ask. We act as billionaires who never look the prices of a food menu when they order in the most expensive restaurants. But of course the price is written in the form of small print at the bottom of the menu.
The consequences of this data gathering are vast and diverse in both individual and social level. The crucial question is who can restrict it? Law is the one solution. The GPDR and the annulment of “Safe Harbor” are some steps in the right direction but I don’t believe that the necessary political determination for the creation of effective barriers exist. Citizens’ data that are located behind the closed doors are vital for the governments worldwide and online business are one of the most effective ways for the acquirement of them. Can we, as users, reduce the exploitation of our data? Theoretically we can but we should immediately change our attitude regarding the way that we conceive the Internet. We should stop consider it as a cornucopia of pleasures without thinking the consequences of our acts, because the avarice always lead on Nemesis and if is true that the “data” is the new oil , then we should bear in mind that the history of oil is a bloody history.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-3194_en.htm
(https://www.atena-h2020.eu/side-effect-cyber-attack/cyber-war-1024x843/)
European Commission announced a new legal framework on cyber-attacks. The most important changes lie in the proposals for the reform of ENISA into a stronger EU Cybersecurity Agency, in the provisions regarding the "non-cash payment fraud" and finally in the new strategic concerning the EU's international cyber security policy.The last probably will be a crucial political issue after the new "Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox" that emerged.
With the public debut of its new deep learning-powered toxic speech filter, Alphabet Jigsaw (formerly Google Ideas) offers the perfect model: a focus on language over ideas, an open API available to others, transparency in how the model was built and what it looks for and an open feedback loop
Advanced technology can be a useful tool for the limitation of the illegal content in cyber-space. Especially in the light of liability ,online intermediaries could use this technology in order to remove easier some specific forms of illegal content like hate speech or to recognize sites that provide illegal content. However, governments and internet intermediaries should take into consideration the rights of users when implement these methods. Mainly the right to information and the freedom of speech can be violated by measures that incorporate techniques of automated decisions.
PIRATE ALL THE THINGS!
Why do people illegally download? Because sometimes the life of a pirate is an easy and effortless way to live.Besides,rightholders might target the pirate ships,but usually are not interested about the crew.Moreover some ships are like the “Black Pearl”,they seem to be elusive.
How authorities can reduce online piracy ? Only a combination of measures targeting both intermediaries and users could have tangible results .
More restrictions,Less creators
https://goo.gl/images/cywym5
I am not sure that Millennials are characterized by a nihilist approach of death,as implies the above photograph, but I am sure that one of the most important impacts of Internet on contemporary civilisation is the fact that people develop constantly new and various ways to express themselves and to communicate with each other. Millennials is the first generation in the core of a cyber culture development .This culture includes ,among other elements, new forms of humor,criticism and creativity, which can be seen as the new tools of interaction between users into the global community.
Lately ,a new trend emerged mostly in social networks,the Internet memes.Internet memes share a lot of commons with the original memes,but the main purpose of them is mockery.Users create memes satirizing situation of all realms of life, such as current political facts,showbiz happenings,movies ,even athletic events. The more widely comprehensive a meme is , the more widespread in the global community will be.Their usage is so ubiquitous that we could say that some memes reflect social trends and dominant social ideas about specific issues.
Most memes are based on someone’s else original work, probably protected by copyrights.The legal question raised is ,whether memes should fall under any exception of the copyright protection and if they should, which should be the legal approach to this.
Internet memes constitute a social creation that serve multiple purposes.Users are able to express their ideas by summarizing them in a simple joke as well as present some news in more pleasant ways.It is a new vehicle of expression [i] and therefore constitutes a fundamental right of the users.On the other hand,a meme usually cannot serve its functional purpose without relying on a pre-existing original work ,resulting in a potential violation of copyright holder’s rights.The freedom of expression in combination with the nature of memes tilts the balance in favor of memes creators,but the commercial and economic aspects of them that are starting to emerge will might trigger a further discussion about this.
In US the fair use exceptions lie in a flexible ground.In the United States Code lawmakers preferred the phrase “for purposes such as” than an exhaustive list of exceptions in order to boost the law with flexibility.On the contrary,in EU an unharmonised legal environment in the “fair use” field can be observed because the a.5 of Infosoc Directive provides a list of specific and mainly not obligatory category of exceptions.In the US a meme will probably pass the fair-use test, whereas In EU a meme could fit in the parody exception(5 p3k InfoSoc Directive) .The advantage of this category is that “parody” is regarded as autonomous concept of EU law after the Deckym case and therefore parody must be conceived ,as CJ noticed ,in the EU as a work with two main characteristics:it evokes existing work,while being noticeably different from it and it constitutes an expression of humour or mockery.At the majority of cases, the above-mentioned description can be justified in memes category and therefore, law should protect memes’ creators and not stifle their creativity.
[i] Ronak Patel,First World Problems :A Fair use Analysis of Internet Memes,p 25
Russell learns some valuable lessons about copyright.
This is a cruel (cyber) world Russell! Can someone be creative in such a restricted cyber environment? Can present copyright law ensure the balance between owner rights and individuals creativity freedom ?
Most people don't understand that 'buying' a digital item doesn't give them ownership
Ownership in the Time of Internet
Old Laws in a New World : The German Indymedia case
https://goo.gl/images/SW2W7u
The emergence of the cyber space and the rapid development of its usage have an essential impact οn the legal world.A major question raised by this new environment is whether the equivalence between off line and online laws is achievable.Of course the difficulty of the equivalence is not the same in all the cases but it varies according to the nature of each action.The following case reflects this complicated situation and raises some further questions about the control of the cyber space.
On 25th of August German government banned a web site ,namely linksunten.indymedia.org.This site, which constituted part of the global indymedia network,was functioning as an open cyber political platform,where -mainly- leftists and anarchists were participating. Everyone was able to upload texts,news ,photos and videos anonymously. This ban was imposed after the the violent riots against the G-20 summit that took place in Hamburg .German government claimed that Indymedia abetted all those riots through hate speech.
As the legal form of Indymedia was officialy described as association ,the legal basis for this ban was the a.9 of the German Basic Law ,according to which “Associations whose aims or activities contravene the criminal laws, or that are directed against the constitutional order or the concept of international understanding, shall be prohibited.”.The problem here lies in the technical characteristics of an open cyber platform that can not correspond with the spirit or the letter of the law on associations(Vereinsgesets).Any attempt for functional equivalence in this case is doomed to fail because an activity such as anonymous speech is completely new and cannot be equated with any off line activity.It derives from the existing architecture of the cyber space.On the other hand,associations demand a minimum physical interaction between their members and as a result, the civil law provides a constitution and a board.
The equivalent problem in this case is not the action,but the one who acts.Can an open cyber platform abets riots?Comparing this platform with an off line association, an obvious conclusion is that the latter can be deemed as an abettor and more specifically its members or just the official representatives can be charged with a potential crime, and the association can be consequently banned,pursuant to a.9. In an open platform anonymity provides the opportunity for anyone to post calls in violence without the fear of the criminal law.Even a provocateur or a police man could disseminate hate speech via this platform. Even if that kind of an open platform has the power to trigger riots and should be banned, the existing laws regulating off line avtivities cannot apply,
Maybe a new extended law for open cyber platforms and their possible connections to hate speech could be the answer in this difficult case but I believe that this question inevitably drives us to the field of the cyber space control and reveals the challenges and the underlying dangers of the Internet regulation .The response to this ban by administrations of Indymedia was the posting of the “ Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” and that fact should not be regarded as coincidental.
This week’s milestones in the history of technology include the birth of emoticons, ICANN, the hearing aid, the punched card tabulating machine, computer-based consumer information services, and the first set of specifications for digital computers.
Τhe week of change!