EX-PHILLY TV ANCHOR GETS HOUSE ARREST FOR HACKING

According to BNA Internet Law news, recently, "A former TV newsman in Philadelphia who said he felt threatened by his co-anchor's "rising star" was sentenced to six months of house arrest after hacking into her e-mail and leaking gossip that contributed to her downfall". This displays exactly how easy it is to "hack". This article also ultimately displays the impact hacking can have on the victim in both their social life and professional lfie. In order to protect against hacking in general, I feel as if it is up to the individual to protect themselves. An individual can take numerous precautions in order to ensure this protection. Articles like this one display the obvious vulnerabilities of internet programs. Therefore it is up to each and everyone of us to look out for ourselves to avoid this type of invasion of privacy and those alike.

Facebook removes Italian neo-Nazi pages

According to a recent BNA Internet Law news article, the European parliament filed a complaint with Facebook regarding pages that promoted violence against gypsies. According to facebook, ""Facebook supports the free flow of information, and groups provide a forum for discussing important issues. However, Facebook will remove any groups which are violent or threatening". This very attribute of Facebook gives one an idea of the power that it wields. By posting information or opinion on facebook, one is able to reach a large audience. Evidence for this statement is provided by the fact that I can think of few people that do not have a facebook. By accessing this outlet, individuals are therefore able to share information that may very well be harmful. It seems as if Facebook needs to take the necessary precautions in order to stop this potentially harmful information from being posted in the first place.

HACKERS ACCESS SOME WHITE HOUSE EMAILS

According to an article published by BNA Internet Law News, "Emails that were going to the highest levels of the White House were ending up with the central authorities in China," said O. Sami Saydjari, president of the Cyber Defense Agency, a consulting firm." Although these emails were not classified, it still brings to light the ability (of people with the expertise) to retrieve information. What is even more disturbing is how often this goes on, whether or not it's made public or not. "The more that you see, the more numb you become to it," said one U.S. official familiar with the White House breach, who added that the mounting volume of attacks are of great concern. This mounting volume of attack is calling attention the fact that security measure presently being taken simply aren't cutting it.

GOOGLE'S GROWTH MAKES PRIVACY ADVOCATES WARY

The article I'm dealing with in this blog post deals with the level of power Google has attained throughout the years. This article points specifically to the the storage of search queries on the site. What worries people of this type of storage is the potential for the invasion of privacy. According to Google though, many of the accusations are not necessarily legitimate and can be attributed to a certain level of naivety of how the system works amongst critics. In defense of their position, representatives of Google claims that they only collect information to provide their service : " "You're flying blind without that information, so we have to collect a little bit," he said. "But we're really (collecting) the bare minimum we can to provide that service." Criticisms and defenses aside, this article brings the potential of privacy invasion in the future to the forefront (through the internet in particular).

TURKEY BANS BLOGGER.COM DUE TO LINKS TO INFRINGING CONTENT

As the title implies, recently Turkey banned the use of this site, Blogger.com, due to alleged copyright infringement amongst those who use this site to blog. To me, this seems like censorship at it's finest and seems to be going too far. Thousands of people use this site to voice their opinion day and day out and I simply don't see their explanation as being legitimate. Who is to say that there aren't motives beyond those given as to why Turkey has shut the site down? In no way am I advocating Copyright Infringement, but at the same time I feel like the restriction of use regarding this site should be a case by case basis rather than punishing the entire population of bloggers.

YOUTUBE SNUBS MCCAIN CAMPAIGN PLEA

"YouTube has rejected a request from U.S. presidential candidate John McCain's campaign to review its fair use policy and stop removing political campaign videos that may infringe copyright so swiftly. The McCain campaign's general counsel sent a letter to executives from YouTube and parent company Google earlier this week asking for a "full legal review" of takedown notices submitted against videos posted by political candidates and campaigns." This article from BNA Law Internet News brings up a very interesting topic. It brings up the topic of the power of popular websites to influence the way people think. More specifically, it can be said (after reading this article) that popular websites have political influence. The very fact that the McCain campaign went to the length of sending a letter to Youtube acknowledges the fact that they realize this power.

BUSH SIGNS CONTROVERSIAL ANTI-PIRACY LAW

"President George W. Bush signed into law yesterday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music copyright infringement at the federal level. The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority." This article, published by BNA deals with an already prevalent issue today. This article however provides a different dimension by recognizing the fact there is now an "intellectual property czar" that reports directly to the president. The question this brings up is whether or not this is a necessary step that the U.S. government really needs to be taking. It has been argued that this bill is unnecessary "because the recording and movie industry had the right to take accused infringers to court." Another argument against this idea points to the fact there are already many penalties for copyright violations. These opposing arguments bring to light another question: Is government overstepping their bounds?