European Law Enforcent raid purchasers of Android software-implant

at 09:02 on 2015-10-29

Reuters has a brief blurb about European authorities rading purchasers of an Android software-implant, DroidJack which they say is designed to track and eaves-drop on phones, and can solely be used for illegal purposes.

RFC 7686 reserves .onion

at 08:46 on 2015-10-29

We're getting kick-ass at seeing through walls using just Wi-Fi—MIT

at 08:28 on 2015-10-29

Liability Hammer Comes Down on Google, But Hits Users

at 08:10 on 2015-10-29

According to a South Australian Supreme Court ruling, a Web site—including a search engine—may be considered the publisher of information simply by providing a functional hyperlink to it. It distinguishes this from merely providing the URL in a non-functional manner.

From EFF.org Updates:

The judgment … goes to amazing lengths to justify why a search engine should be found liable in such a case, but its reasoning defies common sense. For example, the court explains that Google was liable for "publishing" the defamatory articles because it provided a working hyperlink to them, whereas if it had published the bare URLs without hyperlinks, it would not have been so liable (it would also not have been much of a search engine, in that case):

If a search of Dr Duffy's name had merely returned the URL of the first Ripoff Report webpage without functioning as a hyperlink and without accompanying text, it could not be said that Google was a publisher of the content of that material. To access the first Ripoff Report webpage, the user would need to enter the URL into the address box of the internet browser. Although this seems like complete nonsense, regrettably there is precedent under the Australian common law that even a mere disseminator of information, such as a news vendor or a library, can assume liability for "publishing it."

But while a news vendor or library chooses the publications that they sell or lend, a search engine's mission is to index the entire Internet, of which it can have no such knowledge. Therefore we believe that the court erred, and that if the case is appealed to Australia's High Court (as it could be), the court would have grounds to establish a narrower definition of "publication", and set Australian law back on a more sensible course.