ceruleancat: (heteronormative)
Honour Turing's Legacy: Pardon All Men Convicted for Being Gay!


Alan Turing was posthumously pardoned by the Queen for his conviction under the "Gross Indecency" law that punished men for being gay. Now, it's time we extended that pardon.

The pardoning of Alan Turing was a step in the right direction - an acknowledgement that Britain's policies toward gay men were at one time completely misguided. But this single symbolic pardon isn't enough. There are still 15,000 men living today who were charged with the same crime.

Beginning in 1885, these men were charged with "gross indecency" and sentenced to jail, manual labor, and even chemical castration, as was the case in Turing's sentence. The law was written such that judges and lawyers could prosecute almost any case of homosexual acts where it could not be proven that there was sex involved.

Please sign the petition asking for the UK government to pardon the remaining men who were charged under the "gross indecency" laws.




ceruleancat: (gibbs stop this fuckery)
From Google's Terms of Service (my empahsis): http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

---

Another discussion of the problems with Google's new policy, from a somewhat different perspective:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/02/google_privacy_policy_the_missing_opt_out_isn_t_the_only_problem_.html

More google privacy issues: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_19990444
"Google deliberately worked around something in Safari to make ads work in the way it wanted them to work, regardless of whether the user wanted that or not."

And finally, I checked
the wiki pages on google again. Surprise surprise There is still no mention of the 2012 privacy controversies.

Stop ACTA!

Feb. 2nd, 2012 09:48 am
ceruleancat: (gibbs stop this fuckery)
Stop ACTA petition on Care2. Go sign.
ceruleancat: (Knowledge for dinner)
This is primarily for my own future reference, to simplify informing people.

Selected quotes:

If you're Google, the single-user treatment can have some benefits to you. For example, if you have an appointment in Google Calendar, when the app alerts you about it, it can also tell you if you're going to be late for the meeting based on location and traffic information it gathers from other Google apps.

On the other hand, some people may find it creepy that Google is keeping tabs on their locations and appointments.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/248698/google_revamps_its_myriad_privacy_guidelines_into_one_document.html

---

Google Policy Manager Betsy Masiello "explains that a number of Google services -- search, maps, and YouTube, for example -- can be used without persons identifying themselves through a login. For services that require logins, a number of tools and options are available to reduce the data being collected by Google.

Google isn't collecting more data from its users under the new policy, Masiello maintains. "Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google—whichever products or services you use," she writes. "This is something we have already been doing for a long time."


http://www.pcworld.com/article/248845/google_defends_privacy_changes_as_questions_mount.html
----

"The lack of opt-out means users cannot pick and choose which data they want integrated into their Google profiles. Private e-mail messages might contain any number of personal, embarrassing, or otherwise damaging information, and Google’s attempts to amplify and contextualize this information through targeted ads, Maps suggestions, or Calendar reminders could have negative consequences for users."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248715/googles_new_privacy_policy_why_you_should_care.html
---

"Google's announcement raises questions about whether consumers can opt out of the new data sharing system either globally or on a product-by-product basis. We believe that consumers should have the ability to opt out of data collection when they are not comfortable with a company's terms of service and that the ability to exercise that choice should be simple and straightforward."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248916/google_privacy_policy_claims_challenged_by_watchdog.html
---

Google was also initially rapped by an independent watchdog of the federal cloud, SafeGov.org, for creating privacy risks for government workers with the new policies. Google quickly responded that the new policies do not apply to government workers using Google Apps. That, though, raised the question that if the policies could put the privacy of government workers at risk, then might they also put the privacy of rank-and-file users at risk as well?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248845/google_defends_privacy_changes_as_questions_mount.html
ceruleancat: (not a daffodil)
I went looking for info on the new google privacy thing (to better inform others. I do not use a google account). Not getting any current (2012) results on a google search with the query "google privacy problems" (aside from the news section) was not surprising.
However, finding both Wiki articles to not be updated was very surprising, and suspicious.
The pages are stamped as last updated today, but there is no discussion dedicated to the new policy and its repercussions or criticism thereof.

My conspiracy bells are ringing.

Wiki on google http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
Wiki on google crit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
Anyone have any input on this?
ceruleancat: (Default)
Originally posted by [profile] electricdruid at The fiasco continues

ACTA in a Nutshell –

What is ACTA?  ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. A new intellectual property enforcement treaty being negotiated by the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, and Japan, with Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Canada recently announcing that they will join in as well.

Why should you care about ACTA? Initial reports indicate that the treaty will have a very broad scope and will involve new tools targeting “Internet distribution and information technology.”

What is the goal of ACTA? Reportedly the goal is to create new legal standards of intellectual property enforcement, as well as increased international cooperation, an example of which would be an increase in information sharing between signatory countries’ law enforcement agencies.

Essential ACTA Resources

  • Read more about ACTA here: ACTA Fact Sheet
  • Read the authentic version of the ACTA text as of 15 April 2011, as finalized by participating countries here: ACTA Finalized Text
  • Follow the history of the treaty’s formation here: ACTA history
  • Read letters from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden wherein he challenges the constitutionality of ACTA: Letter 1 | Letter 2 | Read the Administration’s Response to Wyden’s First Letter here: Response
  • Watch a short informative video on ACTA: ACTA Video
  • Watch a lulzy video on ACTA: Lulzy Video

Say NO to ACTA. It is essential to spread awareness and get the word out on ACTA.

Via Tumblr

ceruleancat: (Default)
amenirdis explains how this, and many similar moves, are a Republican election strategy, and that the bill, even if passed, is unconstitutional and non-functional.

From http://amenirdis.livejournal.com/237568.html
Mississippi's personhood ballot measure, which gives full rights as a citizen to a fertilized egg. Likewise, this is also completely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held over and over in recent years as part of the stem cell debate that fertilized eggs are not people. Multicell blastocysts are not people. The state of Mississippi has no authority to alter this in any way, and the law will be held unconstitutional immediately.

Profile

ceruleancat: (Default)
ceruleancat

October 2015

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25 262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 07:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios