|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
"MADRID (Reuters) - A Spanish association representing
open-source software users has filed a complaint against Microsoft Corp to the
European Commission .. In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux
said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction mechanism" called UEFI Secure
Boot that controls the start-up of the computer and means users must
seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating system"
..
"This is absolutely anti-competitive"
"It's
really bad for the user and for the European software industry"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Microsoft controls your hardware... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 11:52 PM EDT
- Open Source developers file against Microsoft in Europe .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:34 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:32 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:47 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 08:00 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- BBC - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 05:13 AM EDT
- Hispalinux anti-trust complaint -- Wasn't there an (ancient) Microsoft memo on this? - Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
Prior to hearing oral argument in the Proposition 8 case this
morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision
in Florida v. Jardines, the other dog sniff case (Florida v. Harris was decided last month). In an
opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court affirmed the Florida Supreme
Court. The Court held a dog sniff at the front door of a house where the
police suspected drugs were being grown constitutes a search for purposes of the
Fourth Amendment. Justice Kagan filed a concurrence joined by Justices
Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissent joined by the Chief
Justice, and Justices Kennedy and Breyer.
Justice Scalia’s
opinion for the Court resolved the Fourth Amendment question solely on property
rights grounds, holding that bringing a dog to conduct a forensic search on
someone’s porch constitutes a trespass at common law and, under the reasoning of
last term’s GPS case, United States v. Jones,
constituted a search subject to the limitations of the Fourth
Amendment.
Kevin Russell, SCOTUSblog
This could be influential when border
search of phones/computers makes it in front of the supremes [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
Earlier this month, a Georgia Superior Court
issued a breathtaking
restraining order against Matthew
Chan, the operator of a copyright troll
criticism message
board, holding him responsible for the posts of his users.
As part of the Court’s reasoning, Judge Frank Jordan wrote:
As the
owner and operator of the site,
Respondent has the ability to remove posts in
his capacity
as the moderator. However, Respondent chose not to remove
posts
that were personally directed at [Petitioner Linda]
Ellis and would cause a
reasonable person to fear for her
safety.
The Court used this as
a basis to order Chan “to remove all
posts relating to Ms. Ellis.” All posts,
not just posts that
might threaten Ellis, or even just those written by Chan.
This woefully overboard restraint on speech not only
threatens freedom of
expression, it also ignores Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act, the
legal cornerstone
upon which all user-generated content websites are
built.
Kurt
Opsahl, EFF[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
A state lawmaker introduces a bill that
would forbid drivers from wearing and using head-mounted displays such as Google
Glass on West Virginia roads. --- The following program contains
immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court is
expected to clarify Wednesday whether police need a search warrant or wiretap
authority to snoop on cellphone text messages as part of criminal
investigations --- The following program contains immature subject
matter.
Viewer discretion is advised. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
In a 5-2 decision, the court has sided with wireless giant Telus and
quashed a general warrant that had forced the company to turn over all texts to
police.
[...]
The warrant forced the company to email police a copy of
the customers' texts every day for two weeks, unbeknownst to the owners of the
phones.
Telus appealed to the Supreme Court after losing its initial bid to
quash the warrant.
The Tyee
---
Decision:
R. v. TELUS Communications Co.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
linky
Sylvain Grande, who led
the development teams behind the Here mapping and location-based services
platform, will start in a new role at SoundCloud next week. He won’t have a
direct replacement. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
A landmark document created at the request of NATO has proposed a
set of rules for how international cyberwarfare should be conducted. Written by
20 experts in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and
the US Cyber Command, the Talli
nn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare analyzes
the rules of conventional war and applies them to state-sponsored
cyberattacks.
Unsurprisingly, the manual advises that attacks must avoid
targets such as hospitals, dams, and nuclear power stations in order to minimize
civilian casualties, but also makes some bold statements regarding retaliatory
conduct. According to the manual's authors, it's acceptable to retaliate against
cyberattacks with traditional weapons when a state can prove the attack lead to
death or severe property damage. It also says that hackers who perpetrate
attacks are legitimate targets for a counterstrike.
Aaron Souppouris, The Verge
no
word yet if the definition of 'hackers' includes 'spammers' too [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
Slashdot is hosting a question and answer session with the infamous patent troll Nathan Myrhvold from
Intellectual Ventures. --- Here's where you can get the computer
RMS uses:
http://freedomincluded.com/ [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 01 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Patent shark‘s copyright claim could bite all Unix !
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/01/unix_copyright_claim/
When we think about SCO that is the headline i try to avoid :)
Have fun with that one.
Ric[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|