<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>TechTag: law &#124; Tech &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techland.time.com/tag/law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techland.time.com</link>
	<description>News and reviews from the world of gadgets, gear, apps and the web</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 04:23:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='techland.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://techland.time.com/osd.xml" title="Tech" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://techland.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Google: U.S. Gov&#8217;t, Police Make More Requests for Private Data in 2011</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/26/google-u-s-govt-police-make-more-requests-for-private-data-in-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/26/google-u-s-govt-police-make-more-requests-for-private-data-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Graeme McMillan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=100944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently, not only is Big Brother watching you, he also really would rather that you weren&#8217;t watching him online, thank you very much. According to Google&#8217;s most recent transparency report, the first half of 2011 saw a 70% rise in requests from U.S. government and law enforcement to remove videos from YouTube, as well as a 29% rise in the number of U.S. government requests for private data about Google users. The new report makes it easier to find this information, with the creation of a special section that deals specifically with requests from government bodies around the world. &#8220;We&#8217;ve created Government Requests to show the number of government inquiries for information about users and requests to remove content from our services,&#8221; explains the opening of the report, adding &#8220;We hope this step toward greater transparency will help in ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of government requests.&#8221; (MORE: Google+ Will Soon Offer Pseudonyms, Anonymity) Google characterized the U.S. government and law enforcement requests as including &#8220;a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove and [separate] requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials.&#8221; None of the requests were complied with, according to the company. Overall, the U.S. came third internationally in terms of all requests for Google to remove content, with 92 requests leading to 757 items removed, behind Brazil (224 requests, for 689 items) and Germany (125 requests, for 2405 removals). MORE: Which Government Asks Google to Remove the Most Info from the Internet? Graeme McMillan is a reporter at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @Graemem or on Facebook at Facebook/Graeme.McMillan. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=100944&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/26/google-u-s-govt-police-make-more-requests-for-private-data-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Google</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/google/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/47c202d233be9157b489be81efedb320?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gramcm</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Verisign Seeks Authority to Shut Down Websites Without Court Orders</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/12/verisign-seeks-authority-to-shut-down-websites-without-court-orders/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/12/verisign-seeks-authority-to-shut-down-websites-without-court-orders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Brito</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=99632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Verisign, the company that manages all .com and .net domain registrations, is seeking the authority to cancel the registrations of “non-legitimate abusive sites” when asked by governments—with or without a court order. Law enforcement in the U.S. have recently begun using domain name seizures to shut down sites that allegedly host piracy or child pornography. Such seizures have been controversial. Although they require a court order, the targeted website owners are not notified before the seizure and don’t have an opportunity to present their side of the story to the judge. Additionally, thousands of sites have been mistakenly seized. In a filing with ICANN, the nonprofit that oversees the Internet’s domain name system, Verisign said this week that it wants to set up a system that would &#8220;allow the denial, cancellation or transfer&#8221; of domain name registrations to comply not just with court orders, but also &#8220;laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process.&#8221; (MORE: Veteran Hacker Hired to Keep an Eye On Every Internet Address) A literal reading of that language suggests that a simple request from law enforcement will suffice to take down a website. In the filing, Veirisign notes that domain owners &#8220;may be concerned about an improper takedown of a legitimate website&#8221; and says it will offer &#8220;a protest procedure to support restoring a domain name.&#8221; The focus of Verisign’s filing are sites that maliciously host malware or that have been infected without their knowledge. However, there is no indication that the proposed domain takedown policy would be limited to such sites. The filing notes only that “The suspension service is offered to address non-legitimate sites that are abusing domain name services.” Verisign did not respond to a request for comment. “This proposal is either confused or deliberately misleading,” says Syracuse University School of Information Studies professor and ICANN expert Milton Mueller. A voluntary malware detection program may be a good idea, Mueller said. “On the other hand, the so-called anti-abuse policy embedded in the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=99632&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/10/12/verisign-seeks-authority-to-shut-down-websites-without-court-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Business</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/news/business/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/c68f61b5ae274caf4a725b71a76d9154?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jerrybrito</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patents, Anyone? Gadget Makers Continue to Square Off in Court</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/09/08/patents-anyone-gadget-makers-continue-to-square-off-in-court/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/09/08/patents-anyone-gadget-makers-continue-to-square-off-in-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Aamoth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=96388</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Whatever your stance on the current state of patent law—it&#8217;s essential to protecting intellectual property, it&#8217;s detrimental to innovation, or something in between—the fact is that there&#8217;s a whole lot of patent-related activity happening in the tech sector right now, much of it to do with mobile devices. Google&#8217;s recently-announced acquisition of Motorola Mobility, for instance, seems like a good fit from a product development perspective—Google gets a mobile handset maker for Android and a set-top box maker for Google TV—but the move appears to have just as much, if not more, to do with stockpiling some 17,000+ Motorola patents as well. (MORE: Google to Acquire Motorola Mobility (for a Few Obvious Reasons)) And it turns out that Google&#8217;s using some of its patents to protect more than just its own skin: The company recently sold nine of its patents to HTC (which makes Android handsets) &#8220;to pursue new infringement claims against Apple,&#8221; reports Bloomberg. Apple has filed a couple patent infringement cases of its own against HTC, one of which it&#8217;s already won. HTC&#8217;s two lawsuits against Apple—one ongoing, one new—contend infringement of the nine patents HTC recently purchased from Google, and extend beyond mobile devices to include features found in Apple&#8217;s computers and iTunes software as well. The Foss Patents blog has a detailed rundown of the actual patents, which range from &#8220;a method and apparatus for zoomed display of characters entered from a telephone keypad&#8221; to &#8220;a technique allowing a status bar user response on a portable device graphic user interface&#8221; to &#8220;a method and apparatus for over-the-air upgrading of radio modem application software,&#8221; and several others detailing even more obscure features. Meanwhile, it appears Apple may have taken its battle against Samsung into Japan as well. After being granted an injunction to block Samsung tablet sales in Europe based on patent infringement claims, Apple is reportedly &#8220;seeking the suspension of sales of Galaxy S and its sequel S II smartphones and the Galaxy Tab 7 in Japan,&#8221; according to Reuters, which quotes &#8220;sources close to the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=96388&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/09/08/patents-anyone-gadget-makers-continue-to-square-off-in-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Microsoft</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/microsoft/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9c8df542e0f7376bd2d58f707dbdff00?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">daamoth</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.K. Government Won&#8217;t Ban Social Media in Emergencies</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/26/u-k-government-wont-ban-social-media-in-emergencies/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/26/u-k-government-wont-ban-social-media-in-emergencies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Graeme McMillan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apps & Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blackberry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RIM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[riots]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[u.k.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=95073</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following the riots that engulfed England earlier this month, social media such as Twitter, Facebook and even BlackBerry messaging found itself being blamed for helping the unrest. Even U.K. Prime Minister, David Cameron, asked &#8220;whether it would be right&#8221; to ban criminals from having access. Thankfully, cooler heads seem to have prevailed &#8211; for now. At a meeting between U.K. authorities and representatives of Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry manufacturer Research in Motion yesterday, U.K. Home Secretary Teresa May announced that the government has &#8220;no intention of restricting internet services&#8221; at this point, but were instead focused on how social media could be used more constructively during emergencies. (MORE: Facebook and Twitter Will Say No to Social Media Blocking in Wake of Riots) An official Home Office statement given following the meeting described the discussions as looking &#8220;at how law enforcement and the networks can build on the existing relationships and co-operation to prevent the networks being used for criminal behaviour,&#8221; before going on to clarify that &#8220;[t]he government did not seek any additional powers to close down social media networks.&#8221; Representatives from the social media companies that attended also seemed to be positive about the meeting, with Facebook calling it &#8220;constructive.&#8221; Not everyone agrees, however; the New York Times talked to free speech activists concerned that the discussions will end with social media powers being curbed in some way, and quotes Jo Glanville as saying that Britain doesn&#8217;t &#8220;want to be on a list with the countries that have cracked down on social media during the Arab Spring.&#8221; Glanville added that authorities were just &#8220;out of touch&#8221; with social media usage. It&#8217;s an idea that the authorities themselves agree with; according to The Guardian&#8217;s report of the meeting, police &#8220;acknowledged that they &#8216;needed to do more&#8217; with regard to learning how to use social media&#8221; to the representatives present. Is it possible that these meetings will result in sensible public policy and a more contemporary British police force, now that reactionary demands are out the way? MORE: Don&#8217;t Blame Social<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=95073&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/26/u-k-government-wont-ban-social-media-in-emergencies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Twitter</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/twitter/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/47c202d233be9157b489be81efedb320?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gramcm</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge: No Warrant? No Cell Phone Location Data</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/24/no-warrant-no-cell-phone-location-data/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/24/no-warrant-no-cell-phone-location-data/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jared Newman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Location Tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=94685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Federal court judge has done his part to fend off an Orwellian future, ruling that the government can&#8217;t collect citizens&#8217; cell phone location data without a warrant. The government had ordered Verizon Wireless to hand over 113 days worth of cell site location data for a criminal suspect without probable cause. In its argument, the government cited the Stored Communications Act, which only requires law enforcement to show that the data is &#8220;relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.&#8221; The Fourth Amendment provides privacy protections against this law in some cases, but law enforcement argued that when people use cell phones, they are essentially volunteering to have their locations tracked. (MORE: Your Bill of Rights) Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the Eastern District of New York disagreed, as noted by DSL Reports. From the full ruling: &#8220;The fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by &#8216;choosing&#8217; to carry a cell phone must be rejected. In light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user&#8217;s reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records.&#8221; With the government seeking an easy way to keep an eye on its citizens without a warrant, the parallel to George Orwell&#8217;s 1984 wasn&#8217;t lost on Garaufis, either: &#8220;While the government&#8217;s monitoring of our thoughts may be the archetypical Orwellian intrusion, the government&#8217;s surveillance of our movements of a considerable time period through new technologies, such as the collection of cell-site-location records, without the protections of the Fourth Amendment, puts our country far closer to Oceania than our Constitution permits. It is time that the courts begin to address whether revolutionary changes in technology require change to existing Fourth Amendment doctrine.&#8221; Huzzah. Wireless carriers make data collection incredibly easy for law enforcement, either with automated systems or staff departments dedicated to handling requests. In theory, that&#8217;s a good thing, because a fast response could help police track down a kidnapping victim or a fleeing<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=94685&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/08/24/no-warrant-no-cell-phone-location-data/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Smartphones</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/gadgets/smartphones/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/34fc7597b770639d5945b0edb9b542a5?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Jared Newman</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court: &#8216;Video Games Qualify for First Amendment Protection&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Evan Narcisse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gaming & Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mortal Kombat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video games]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video Games]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=88207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a 7-2 decision with an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court effectively declared on Monday (PDF file) that video games can be afforded the same constitutional protections as visual art, film, music and other forms of expression. The case that went before the court, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association), strikes down California Civil Code 1746-1746.5, which tried to make the sale or rental of mature-rated video games to underage consumers an illegal offense punishable by fine. Five years ago, former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill prohibiting the sale or rental of games that portray “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being&#8221; to people younger than 18 years old. However, a lower court&#8217;s 2007 decision found the law — written by state senator Leland Yee, an assemblyman when he drafted it — to be unconstitutional. That turn of events led California to petition the Supreme Court, which heard arguments last November. When Brown v. EMA went to the highest court in the land, commentators speculated about whether a more conservative decision could lead to a chilling effect on creativity in the video-game medium. Burt Neuborne, the Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU Law School, says,  &#8220;Of course, this kind of content wouldn&#8217;t have just gone away. Reversing the decision and reinstating the law would probably have just created a black-market distribution system, so the court decided that we&#8217;re better off supporting the First Amendment.&#8221; (MORE: Violent-Video-Game Law to Get Tested in Supreme Court) Throughout the text of the decision, the court found that the California law was too broad as written and couldn&#8217;t satisfy the &#8220;strict scrutiny&#8221; legal principle. It also held that video games, though different in form, still communicate ideas as other media do: Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through  many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=88207&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-video-games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Gaming &amp; Culture</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/apps-web/gaming-%c2%a0culture/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/894d76de9eb9575a5d23d8946a06caad?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">evnarc</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Committee Votes to Make Illegal Video Streaming a Felony</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/17/senate-committee-votes-to-make-illegal-video-streaming-a-felony/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/17/senate-committee-votes-to-make-illegal-video-streaming-a-felony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erica Ho</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online Piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[streaming video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video On Demand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=87013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Score one for the MPAA. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make illegal video streaming a felony. The proposed law still has to go through to the full Senate for voting before you start having to be more careful about where you’re clicking. (MORE: Study: 32% of Netflix Customers Plan to Cut Their Cable Costs) The move, not surprisingly, is largely backed by the guys who run Hollywood: It’s mainly supported by the Screen Actors Guild, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Independent Film &#38; Television Alliance and many other people in the entertainment business. National Association of Theatre Owners President John Fithian points out: “To the technicians, designers, construction workers, and artists who support their families through their work in entertainment, there’s no difference between illegal downloading and illegal streaming – it’s all theft that hurts their work, their wages and their benefits.” The upgrade of the offense to a felony is fairly serious, considering the fact that illegally streaming 10 videos over a six-month period is now enough to land you in jail for five years. Yowza. (MORE: Warner Announces China&#8217;s First Video on Demand Service, but Is It Legal?) It won’t become law until it passes through the Senate and Obama, but how about just saving yourself the hassle and getting a Netflix account like the rest of America already?<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=87013&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/17/senate-committee-votes-to-make-illegal-video-streaming-a-felony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Uncategorized</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/uncategorized/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/49f0b212a03a1f391ed9870ddf0b959b?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">ericaho</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the European Cookies Are Crumbling (on the Web)</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/how-the-european-cookies-are-crumbling-on-the-web/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/how-the-european-cookies-are-crumbling-on-the-web/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Giles Turnbull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cookies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=86652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Cookies,&#8221; say the bureaucrats at the European Union. &#8220;We hates them.&#8221; And therein lies a problem. Cookies, you see, are everywhere on the net. And your computer, too. A cookie is a teeny-tiny little text file that gets left on your computer by pretty much every single website you visit. They&#8217;re actually quite useful. Cookies are how Facebook remembers you&#8217;re logged in. How Google knows which adverts you&#8217;re most likely to click on. How online stores are able to greet you by name. Cookies. Are. Everywhere. But in the interests of consumer privacy, the European Union told all its member states to create laws that would force websites to ask users for permission to save cookies. That&#8217;s except for &#8220;essential&#8221; cookies, which you don&#8217;t have to ask permission for. Including the one your site will set once it&#8217;s asked people if they agree to having cookies, and they&#8217;ve said no. What? If you&#8217;re not quite confused enough about this, watch the amusing video above, by U.K.-based net consultants Silktide. It explains everything one step at a time. The body responsible for overseeing this law in the UK is the Information Commissioner&#8217;s Office, which is trying to set a good example by overlaying its web pages with a banner asking visitors to agree to cookies. There isn&#8217;t a &#8220;No&#8221; option. The ICO has told developers in the U.K. that it won&#8217;t prosecute anyone for breaking this law for another year, but that hasn&#8217;t made them any happier about what, to them, is a troubling change in the law. They think it&#8217;s too draconian, too all-encompassing. Too much like banging a nail into the wall with an intercontinental ballistic missile. Or, as the Silktide team puts it, it&#8217;s like banning all music to stop Justin Bieber making another album. Wait, actually: that&#8217;s a great idea. More on TIME.com: Why I Can Guess Your iPad Password Technician Arrested for Installing Webcam Peeping Software on Women&#8217;s PCs How to Make Facebook Stop Recognizing Your Face in Photos<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=86652&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/how-the-european-cookies-are-crumbling-on-the-web/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>News</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/news/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6ebe76a7e8d5f13594e342bc735fc636?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gilest</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Juror Faces Jail for Contacting Defendant via Facebook</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/14/juror-faces-jail-for-court-case-facebook-contact/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/14/juror-faces-jail-for-court-case-facebook-contact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:30:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Giles Turnbull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[u.k.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=86377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A juror who used Facebook to contact the defendant in a drugs case now faces a possible jail term. The story begins last year, when Jamie Sewart was in court to answer drugs charges in the U.K. city of Manchester. Jury member Joanne Fraill found Sewart on Facebook and started sending her messages, including behind-the-scenes details of what had been discussed in the jury room—stuff that a defendant is not supposed to hear. When the judge found out, the entire jury was dismissed and the case ground to a halt. A year later, and today Fraill was in the dock, admitting Contempt. The court heard how she and Sewart friended each other and then proceeded to talk about Sewart&#8217;s case. The trouble with modern juries is that they&#8217;re no longer cut off from the rest of the world when they retire to the jury room to consider a verdict. Armed with smartphones and 3G gizmos, they&#8217;re as connected as they ever were. Not only do they have to put aside their own feelings and prejudices and make a decision based on the evidence they&#8217;ve heard; these days they also have to resist the temptation to answer lingering questions in the way they&#8217;re used to answering them: with a quick web search. Senior judges in the U.K. have already made it plain that simply searching the web for stuff relating to a case for which you&#8217;re on the jury is enough to get you a Contempt charge. Don&#8217;t even think about following the defendant&#8217;s Twitter feed, or trying to &#8220;Friend&#8221; them somewhere. (Via BBC News)<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=86377&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/06/14/juror-faces-jail-for-court-case-facebook-contact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Facebook</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/facebook/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6ebe76a7e8d5f13594e342bc735fc636?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gilest</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Twitter Prepared to Hand Over Private Data to Authorities, but Should It?</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/26/twitter-prepared-to-hand-over-private-data-to-authorities-but-should-it/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/26/twitter-prepared-to-hand-over-private-data-to-authorities-but-should-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 16:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Gayomali</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[u.k.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=84307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month Ryan Giggs, a professional soccer player who plays for the U.K.’s Manchester United, obtained a court-ordered injunction to keep secret the details of an extra-marital affair with British television personality Imogen Thomas. The short story is that he didn’t want the U.K. press writing about his misconducts. The move appeared to backfire, however, when news of the injunction spread like wildfire through over 70,000 Twitter accounts, causing Mr. Giggs to take up legal action against “persons unknown” as well as the social network itself. Legal experts assumed that gag orders breached on Twitter were protected because the website is outside of the British legal system’s jurisdiction. (Read More: Twitter&#8217;s Super-Duper U.K. Censorship Trouble) However, in a surprising move, a senior executive from Twitter admitted to the Telegraph that it would turn user information over to the authorities if it were &#8220;legally required&#8221; to. British Attorney General Dominic Grieve had previously warned that people who broke injunctions online were in for a “&#8221;rude shock,&#8221; and the admission calls into question legal jurisdictions on the internet (which we&#8217;ve already discussed extensively). Depending on how this shakes out, the admission could also open the floodgates for similarly aggrieved celebrities to follow suit. Yesterday, we wrote about how courts (albeit American ones) have previously ordered information accessible only through private Facebook accounts be made available in public litigation, which suggests a trend of willingness among the social networks to comply with the law. Of course, the implications could prove critical to a user’s right to free speech on the internet, but again, it raises a question we&#8217;ll continue to see: How far should these protections extend? (Read More: Viewpoint: Facebook Is Not Your Friend) Users will always find ways to circumnavigate legalities and protect their online identities (fake email accounts, ISP-addresses, etc.), but the line become hazy when social networks are faced with the dilemma of protecting their users (usually in their best interest) while complying with the law. Legally, U.K. laws are enforceable in the United States, but from a practical standpoint<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=84307&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/26/twitter-prepared-to-hand-over-private-data-to-authorities-but-should-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Twitter</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/twitter/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/70d44478fc779a6a3225fc826db160e9?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">chrisgayomali2</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Silly Legal Action Won&#8217;t Stop Twitter in the U.K.</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/23/silly-legal-action-wont-stop-twitter-in-the-u-k/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/23/silly-legal-action-wont-stop-twitter-in-the-u-k/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 12:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Giles Turnbull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=83560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Twitter is coming to London, despite the super-injunction row it got pulled into last week. The company&#8217;s deal-maker Tony Wang has already moved across the Atlantic with his family, and is starting work on building a new London-based team to look after Twitter&#8217;s business in the U.K. and Europe. The injunction row, centered on a famous footballer whose name is all over Twitter but who cannot be named by the media as a result of the court ruling, has become a national joke in the U.K. Everyone &#8211; and I mean everyone, even the Prime Minister &#8211; knows who the footballer is, and the details of the relationship he is alleged to have had. His name is everywhere on the internet, not just Twitter. If he wants to take on the whole internet, that&#8217;s up to him, but it seems unlikely that the court order is enforceable anymore. The whole thing has become a farce. The injunction only caught Twitter in its wake as it flew past. The misguided lawyers involved in the case didn&#8217;t have any particular bone to pick with Twitter &#8211; presumably, they did what their even more misguided client asked them to. Tony Wang&#8217;s move to the U.K. will have been planned long in advance, along with the adverts for U.K.-based jobs on Twitter&#8217;s website. Twitter is already a huge business (if not, yet, a huge money-maker), and isn&#8217;t going to let something like a ridiculous British legal wrangle get in its way. (Via FT)<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=83560&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/23/silly-legal-action-wont-stop-twitter-in-the-u-k/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Twitter</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/twitter/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6ebe76a7e8d5f13594e342bc735fc636?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gilest</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook Loosens Up Promotion Guidelines, Allows for Booze and Guns</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/18/facebook-loosens-up-promotion-guidelines-allows-for-booze-and-guns/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/18/facebook-loosens-up-promotion-guidelines-allows-for-booze-and-guns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 16:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Gayomali</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=82922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In efforts to streamline its promotional guidelines, Facebook is relaxing on a few of its longstanding policies that have prohibited a number of goods from being communicated in contests and sweepstakes, including alarm-y things like &#8220;alcohol, dairy, gambling, &#38; gasoline.&#8221; The reason for the change? There are two, actually. First, Facebook is looking to make its policies across different legal categories more consistent with its overarching rules. The announcement states that Facebook is looking to streamline its guidelines to &#8220;make them easier to understand and consistent with the format of other Facebook Terms &#38; Policies,&#8221; leaving it up to the companies running the sweepstakes to adhere to local laws and regulations. But it&#8217;s important to note that Facebook&#8217;s new hands-off approach is by no means an endorsement of all the above-posted iffy-ness; rather, the newly simplified guidelines shift the burden of legal enforcement away from &#8220;Facebook, the platform,&#8221; and over to marketers themselves. Basically, Facebook&#8217;s not trying to be the police anymore. As Inside Facebook reports: Rather than add an additional layer of legal complexity, Facebook is now leaving it up to marketers to run their promotions in ways that don’t violate local laws, such as restricting entry to residents of states without restrictions. You can read the rest of the newly simplified guidelines here. (via Inside Facebook) More on TIME.com: Could the Internet Spell the End for Snow Days? The Winklevosses Take Their Case to the Supreme Court Bing Adds Facebook Social Features<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=82922&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/05/18/facebook-loosens-up-promotion-guidelines-allows-for-booze-and-guns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Facebook</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/facebook/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/70d44478fc779a6a3225fc826db160e9?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">chrisgayomali2</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kerry-McCain Online Privacy Bill: Too Weak or Too Strong?</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/04/13/kerry-mccain-online-privacy-bill-too-weak-or-too-strong/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/04/13/kerry-mccain-online-privacy-bill-too-weak-or-too-strong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Aamoth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=76546</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Senators John McCain and John Kerry have introduced an online privacy bill that would require companies to inform consumers when their personal data is being collected for marketing purposes and how it&#8217;s being shared. According to Reuters: &#8220;The bill, if it becomes law, would require companies to tell consumers why data was being collected, whom it would be shared with and how it would be safeguarded. Companies collecting data must also allow consumers to opt out of some data collection and they must agree, or opt in, to the collection of sensitive data like medical conditions. The bill would also press businesses to collect only the information needed for any particular transaction.&#8221; The bill is supported by several technology companies such as HP, Microsoft and Intel, but some online marketing groups say the bill is too strong, while certain consumer advocate groups say the bill is too weak. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) said that it &#8220;is wary of any legislation that upsets the information economy without a showing of actual harm to consumers.&#8221; Conversely, the director of the Center for Digital Democracy, Jeff Chester, said, &#8220;I don&#8217;t think this is going to affect online marketing at all.&#8221; A spokesman for a privacy group called Consumer Watchdog added, &#8220;We cannot support it today,&#8221; according to Reuters. Whether the proposed bill is indeed too weak or too strong, it&#8217;s hard to argue that it&#8217;s not at least a step in the right direction. As the Washington Post reports: &#8220;If the bill becomes law, companies would be unable to collect identifying information — including names, e-mail addresses and credit-card numbers — without an individual’s consent. Sensitive data about religion, sexual identity and health would also be out of bounds unless the person consents. Web companies would have to offer users the ability to opt out of data collection entirely, and businesses would have to make it clear how the data are being used.&#8221; The ability to opt out of having your data collected entirely, though, could spell trouble for otherwise &#8220;free&#8221; websites<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=76546&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/04/13/kerry-mccain-online-privacy-bill-too-weak-or-too-strong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>News</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/news/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9c8df542e0f7376bd2d58f707dbdff00?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">daamoth</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>TechFast: Microsoft Sues Everybody, Nintendo 3DS Reviews</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/22/techfast-microsoft-sues-everybody-straighter-youtube-vids-nintendo-3ds-reviews/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/22/techfast-microsoft-sues-everybody-straighter-youtube-vids-nintendo-3ds-reviews/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Giles Turnbull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barnes & noble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Galaxy Tab]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nintendo 3ds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=72100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good morning. Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s been breaking in tech news while you&#8217;ve been sleeping and enjoying your breakfast. Microsoft sues just about everybody The lawyers will be opening another crate of champagne today, as Microsoft announces lawsuits against Barnes &#38; Noble, Foxconn and Inventec for patent infringement. What patents, exactly? Microsoft says: &#8220;The patents at issue cover a range of functionality embodied in Android devices that are essential to the user experience, including: natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need; surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books.&#8221; &#8230; which hardly narrows it down much. Intellectual property expert Florian Mueller has a more detailed breakdown on his blog. Link: Macworld Free image stabilization in YouTube Notwithstanding its purchase just a few days ago of Irish video technology company Green Parrot, YouTube has just launched a free video smoothing feature inside its YouTube Editor toolkit for editing and adjusting video uploaded footage. The New York Times says this is the result of seven Google engineers spending their 20 per cent time on the project. Link: New York Times China: Oh no we didn&#8217;t On Monday, Google accused China of messing with people&#8217;s Gmail accounts. Today, China called that &#8220;an unacceptable accusation&#8221; during a regular news conference. Your turn, Google. Link: Reuters Galaxy specs revealed Pocket Now has the scoop on specs for the latest in Samsung&#8217;s range of Android tablets, the Galaxy 8.9. It&#8217;s just 8.6mm thin, weighs 470 grams, and the screen resolution is a decent 1280&#215;800. Link: Pocket Now The Nintendo 3DS reviews are in Nintendo&#8217;s 3DS. Is it any good? Does the 3D bit actually work? Can it withstand Apple&#8217;s assault of iThings? Engadget likes what it sees and thinks the Augmented Reality games are cool, but thinks the three hour battery life is disappointing. PC Mag says that although the 3D element in some games is somewhat hit-and-miss, overall the device is &#8220;a top-notch upgrade&#8221; and &#8220;well worth&#8221; $250. Link: PC Mag<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=72100&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/22/techfast-microsoft-sues-everybody-straighter-youtube-vids-nintendo-3ds-reviews/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Samsung</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/companies-2/samsung/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6ebe76a7e8d5f13594e342bc735fc636?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gilest</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Owns Your Web Stuff After You Die? Good Question</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/15/who-owns-your-web-stuff-after-you-die-good-question/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/15/who-owns-your-web-stuff-after-you-die-good-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Giles Turnbull</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=70532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever stopped to wonder what might happen to your digital stuff after you die? The folk at Digital Beyond have, and they&#8217;ve been talking about it at the SXSW festival this week. These days it&#8217;s easy to put stuff online thanks to dozens of free services offered by third party companies. Blogs, microblogs, social networks, photo sharing: it&#8217;s so simple and quick, hardly anyone stops to think about the long-term consequences. Once you&#8217;re dead, what happens to your updates, your posts, your photos? Who owns them? Who&#8217;s going to look after them? It turns out that some big name websites have thought about this, and created policies to follow in the event of a user&#8217;s death. Facebook famously has a &#8220;memorialized&#8221; account option, which turns someone&#8217;s account there into a read-only archive (although the Wall can be left open for people to post condolences). Not every site is so well-prepared, though. And not every web user stops to think about this stuff beforehand. It&#8217;s all very well looking after someone&#8217;s digital legacy if you know about all their different accounts and identities, but what about the accounts they never revealed to you? Who will manage those? There are a lot of questions and not many answers. Perhaps in future the act of writing a will might include additional instructions, account IDs, and passwords for online accounts, alongside the traditional financial bequeaths.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=70532&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/15/who-owns-your-web-stuff-after-you-die-good-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>News</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/news/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6ebe76a7e8d5f13594e342bc735fc636?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">gilest</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Once Again, Facebook Will Share Personal Data with Third Parties</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/01/once-again-facebook-will-share-personal-data-with-third-parties/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/01/once-again-facebook-will-share-personal-data-with-third-parties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Guest Author</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=68364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article has been cross-posted from our partner site, Technologizer. Social networking site Facebook created quite a stir last month when it announced that it would share much more personal details of its users — such as addresses and phone numbers — with third party developers. The move was so controversial that the company quickly reversed its plans and delayed the offering while it weighed its options. It also attracted the ire of Congress. In a response to Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), the company now says it plans to go ahead with offering the functionality. “We expect that, once the feature is re-enabled, Facebook will again permit users to authorize applications to obtain their contact information,” the company wrote, adding it was looking into ways to “further enhance user control.” Facebook may be acting within its rights to continue with its plans. After all, we’ve been authorizing the company to share information with these developers for quite awhile. It certainly appears as if the social networking site is requiring that those that want this to specifically request it on that permissions screen. In the end, it seems more of a question of why an application would need such information, and it’s up to us to be more vigilant on what we’re sharing on Facebook. Are Markey and Barton happy? Cautiously so, it seems. “I’m pleased that Facebook’s response indicated that it’s looking to enhance its process for highlighting for users when they are being asked for permission to share their contact information,” Markey said. “Facebook has indicated that the feature is still a work in progress, and I will continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that sensitive personal user data, especially those belonging to children and teenagers, are protected.” Click here to view and comment on the original article.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=68364&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2011/03/01/once-again-facebook-will-share-personal-data-with-third-parties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Social Networking</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/apps-web/social-networking-apps-web/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/60b2a213a21f8a1e5d2e50bd8bb8c2e2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">techlandtipster</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook Won’t Block WikiLeaks Just Yet</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2010/12/07/facebook-won%e2%80%99t-block-wikileaks-just-yet/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2010/12/07/facebook-won%e2%80%99t-block-wikileaks-just-yet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allie Townsend</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wikileaks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techland.time.com/?p=58037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following Amazon and PayPal’s decision to block the WikiLeaks site, Facebook has issued a statement saying the social network has no plans to ban the WikiLeaks page. (More on TIME: WikiLeaks&#8217; Assange Arrested In London, Denied Bail) Following a chaotic month due to the site’s latest “leak,” a site outage led by hackers in China and founder Julian Assange’s arrest today in London, WikiLeaks is still making noise. The site’s Facebook page has nearly 1 million followers, and though political officials are calling for WikiLeaks to be added to the terrorist list, Facebook won’t take any action against the site. “The WikiLeaks Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we encountered any material posted on the page that violates our policies,&#8221; Andrew Noyes, Facebook’s Manager of Public Policy Communications said in an e-mail to Read Write Web. Accounts or pages that do violate the site’s terms are usually canceled, though timeliness can depend on how high profile a group or account has become. (Amazon and PayPal have both shuttered Wikileaks from their servers.) Still, WikiLeaks’ page has done nothing to violate Facebook’s rules. At least not yet. Noyes’ statement makes it clear that the reason the WikiLeaks page has not been terminated is because it has yet to break a policy, though here are the two that could be the most applicable: 1. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence. 2. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else&#8217;s rights or otherwise violates the law. Depending on the charges brought against Assange following today’s arrest, the page could be in danger of violation simply for its affiliation with an unlawful organization, though the page&#8217;s content is mild and posts focus on the media hailstorm surrounding the site. More on Techland: Facebook: Cartoon Pics Not Related To Pedophiles Gowalla 3.0: All-In-One Check Ins Are Here Facebook Alum Starts &#8220;Jumo&#8221; Social Network for Charities<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=58037&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2010/12/07/facebook-won%e2%80%99t-block-wikileaks-just-yet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Social Networking</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/apps-web/social-networking-apps-web/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eb5d6f9d914aa1e7dfafb2a3120a97b5?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Allie Townsend</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC Wants Cell Carriers to Warn People Before Overages Occur</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2010/10/13/fcc-wants-cell-carriers-to-warn-people-before-overages-occur/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2010/10/13/fcc-wants-cell-carriers-to-warn-people-before-overages-occur/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Aamoth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=50461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The FCC is expected to propose rules that would require cellular companies to send text or voicemail messages to customers before they go over their minutes, according to Bloomberg. The rules would also provide for warnings to be sent to customers roaming on international networks outside the US, which can often result in expensive per-minute fees. A spokesman for the CTIA wireless industry trade group said that such rules would be &#34;prescriptive and costly&#34; and insists, &#34;The industry continues to develop tools to keep customers informed about their level of usage.&#34; The FCC is proposing the rules in light of over 750 complaints from wireless customers received within the first half of the year, with 20% of those complaints stemming from bills with overage charges in excess of $1,000. Despite the industry&#8217;s insistence that warning people who are about to go over their minutes would be &#34;prescriptive and costly,&#34; the fact of the matter is that there are very few fixed monthly expenditures that can balloon so wildly out of control without warning. The FCC cites the largest complaint from the first half of the year as being for a $68,505 overage charge. Overage charges are a massive source of income for these wireless companies. Take AT&#38;T for instance. The least expensive individual monthly voice plan runs $40 per month and includes 450 minutes—roughly nine cents per minute. Once you hit that 450-minute limit, though, the per-minute cost skyrockets fivefold up to 45 cents per minute. Just going over by 100 minutes would cost more than your regular monthly rate, so you can see why these wireless companies aren&#8217;t big on warning people who are about to go over. As for the &#34;tools to keep customers informed about their level of usage,&#34; the FCC&#8217;s plan &#34;would require clear disclosure of the tools to track minutes of use,&#34; according to Bloomberg. The summary of the FCC&#8217;s proposed rules apparently says that &#34;too many customers don&#8217;t know about them.&#34; The FCC will propose the rules tomorrow with the intent to take a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=50461&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2010/10/13/fcc-wants-cell-carriers-to-warn-people-before-overages-occur/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Smartphones</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/gadgets/smartphones/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9c8df542e0f7376bd2d58f707dbdff00?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">daamoth</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>You May Now Legally Jailbreak Your iPhone and Rip DVDs</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2010/07/26/you-may-now-legally-jailbreak-your-iphone-and-rip-dvds/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2010/07/26/you-may-now-legally-jailbreak-your-iphone-and-rip-dvds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Aamoth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=37306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has just announced some big, big wins for consumers. Labeled as &#8220;exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act,&#8221; a law enacted in the late &#8217;90s to protect copyright holders against piracy, it&#8217;s now within consumers&#8217; legal rights to jailbreak phones, rip DVDs (for certain uses), and a 2006 exemption granting cell phone owners the right to unlock phones in order to switch carriers has been renewed. According to the EFF: &#8220;More than a million iPhone owners are said to have &#8216;jailbroken&#8217; their handsets in order to change wireless providers or use applications obtained from sources other than Apple&#8217;s own iTunes &#8216;App Store,&#8217; and many more have expressed a desire to do so. But the threat of DMCA liability had previously endangered these customers and alternate applications stores.&#8221; This exemption basically states that Apple can&#8217;t force people to only download iPhone apps that have been approved by Apple first. EFF attorney Corynne McSherry says, &#8220;Copyright law has long held that making programs interoperable is fair use.&#8221; So by jailbreaking your iPhone in order to make it compatible with software that&#8217;s available outside Apple&#8217;s app store, you&#8217;re no longer breaking any laws. (More on Techland: Gallery: Hits and Misses from Apple So Far) Now it&#8217;ll be interesting to see how many additional jailbreaking services pop up aside from the ones that are already freely available. It&#8217;ll be even more interesting to see if Apple provides its own method for opening up your iPhone. Don&#8217;t count on it, even though it might make sense from a technical perspective for Apple to oversee the jailbreaking process. The company&#8217;s got profits to protect and every app sold outside the App Store is money that doesn&#8217;t go to Apple. It&#8217;d make the most sense for Apple to open up all apps to its store with minimal oversight similar to how the Android Market works, so it could make sure to get a cut of as many apps as possible. That&#8217;s not really Apple&#8217;s style, though. The other big win for the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=37306&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2010/07/26/you-may-now-legally-jailbreak-your-iphone-and-rip-dvds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Smartphones</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/gadgets/smartphones/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9c8df542e0f7376bd2d58f707dbdff00?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">daamoth</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>San Francisco Cell Phone Sales to Require Radiation Information</title>
		<link>http://techland.time.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-cell-phone-sales-to-require-radiation-information/</link>
		<comments>http://techland.time.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-cell-phone-sales-to-require-radiation-information/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Aamoth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://timenerdworld.wordpress.com/?p=31212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The little info cards next to the cell phones sold in San Francisco stores will soon contain data on the amount of radiation the handsets give off thanks to a citywide vote that passed yesterday, according to the New York Times. There’s been conflicting scientific evidence over the years as to whether or not cell phone radiation is truly harmful, but the people of San Francisco have spoken and they feel it’s important enough an issue to bring to light. Each phone’s “specific absorption rate” (SAR) must be posted in 11-point or higher type once the law goes into effect. While the jury’s still out on whether or not a phone’s SAR can cause long-term damage, it’s important to note that the FCC already imposes a rule in the US that requires every phone to have an SAR of no higher than 1.6 watts per kilogram. That seems to indicate that there’s at least some cause for concern when it comes to radiation levels. According to the Times “Both the National Cancer Institute and the F.C.C. say that there is no scientific evidence that wireless phones are dangerous, but each agency continues to monitor continuing medical studies.” “A major study of cellphone use in 13 countries published online last month in the International Journal of Epidemiology found no increased risk for the two most common types of brain tumors, according to the cancer institute. In the most extreme cellphone users, there was a small increase in a type of cancer that attacks the cells that surround nerve cells, though researchers found that finding inconclusive.” The wireless industry, too, is opposed to the law, citing the apparent lack of scientific evidence and worrying that the mandate “might actually confuse consumers into thinking ‘some phones are safer than others.’” More on Techland: Mismatched Credit Card Data and Shipping Info Plagues iPhone 4 Orders T-Mobile Giving Away Free Phones This Saturday Vuvuzela: There&#8217;s An (Incredibly Annoying) App For That<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=techland.time.com&#038;blog=5290478&#038;post=31212&#038;subd=timenerdworld&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://techland.time.com/2010/06/16/san-francisco-cell-phone-sales-to-require-radiation-information/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Smartphones</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://techland.time.com/category/gadgets/smartphones/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9c8df542e0f7376bd2d58f707dbdff00?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">daamoth</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
