Sharply focused ‘targeted’ advertising, social networking and ‘internet of things’ – these are just some of the uses for cable TV boxes that watch you, not the other way around. And they are coming soon.
For the moment, commercial drones are, unequivocally, legal in American skies after a federal judge has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has notmade any legally binding rules against it.
The judge dismissed the FAA’s case against Raphael Pirker, the first (and only) person the agency has tried to fine for flying a drone commercially. The agency has repeatedly claimed that flying a drone for commercial purposes is illegal and has said that there’s “no gray area” in the law. The latter now appears to be true, but it hasn’t gone the way the FAA would have hoped. Patrick Geraghty, a judge with the National Transportation Safety Board, ruled that there are no laws against flying a drone commercially.
Big brother is not who you think he is, asserts this article, putting more of a face on who actually uses these data about you daily.
The issue of employer access to health records came to the fore after comments from AOL’s CEO made public comments about two employee’s situations. This should not be the surprise that it is. For corporate-provided plans, of course they know – they’re paying for it.
The entertainment industry calls DRM “security” software, because it makes them secure from their customers. Security is not a matter of abstract absolutes, it requires a context. You can’t be “secure,” generally — you can only be secure from some risk. For example, having food makes you secure from hunger, but puts you at risk from obesity-related illness.
DRM is designed on the presumption that users don’t want it, and if they could turn it off, they would. You only need DRM to stop users from doing things they’re trying to do and want to do. If the thing the DRM restricts is something no one wants to do anyway, you don’t need the DRM. You don’t need a lock on a door that no one ever wants to open.
DRM assumes that the computer’s owner is its adversary.
After a federal court said last month that the government couldn’t prohibit Internet providers from slowing or blocking Web traffic, at least one ISP is being accused of taking advantage of the ruling.
On Wednesday, a Texas man named David Raphael wrote on his blog that Verizon was intentionally throttling Netflix subscribers and other Internet users who rely on Amazon’s cloud computing service. Verizon quickly denied the complaint, saying it continues to treat all traffic equally.
The state can’t yet figure out why health insurance shoppers are being told to contact a Pennsylvania woman at her home email address if they need help. Apparently they need more help than they realize – as does the state exchange, still bogged down by a litany of snafus. File this one under privacy? Quality? How about all of the above.