censorship

Opinions
December 28, 2008
by

High-level British MP wants movie-like ratings system for the internet

By on December 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM.

High-level British MP wants movie-like ratings system for the internet

In a move guaranteed to attract well deserved controversy, Andy Burnham, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, has publicly stated that delegates from the British government hope to meet with members of the Obama administration to pitch the idea of creating a content-based rating system for all English-based websites. Essentially what Burnham is proposing is having the internet follow the same rules as British TV where it is against the law to air violent programs before 9pm. But since the internet is very different in nature from TV, Burnham suggested that a time-based filter be created in which websites must block “offensive” and “violent” material. For extra precaution, ISPs would be asked to offer rating-based “child-safe” packages in which it is only possible to access websites that are pre-approved as inoffensive and appropriate for those of a young age.

Read

[image credit]

14 Comments
Opinions
September 3, 2008
by

Google Chrome assumes ownership of your soul

By on September 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM.

Google Chrome assumes ownership of your soul

Every time Google drops a new product, the internets go wild with excitement, speculation, and general madness. All of this hoopla is generally for good reason, as the boys down in Mountain View have a history of rolling out revolutionary services that quickly gain ubiquitous presence in our everyday lives. The recent introduction of the Chrome browser was no exception to this rule, though if the EULA is any indication of Google’s plans, we might want to hold off on wide-scale adoption. According to several clauses in the user license, Google assumes ownership of anything you post, publish, and/or create while using their new browser. Sound fishy? Check this out: “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.” We can’t think of any reason why this would be a necessary step for Google to take, and its inclusion raises a serious red flag about the company’s intentions, especially considering their well known “Don’t be evil” motto. Peep the sections after the jump courtesy of the fine folks over at Gizmodo, and sound off here in the comments.

UPDATE: Google has responded to this one in record time. Noting the general level of scrutiny and dis-satisfaction around the web in regards to their invasive privacy policy, the company states that they ”are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.” Kudos, Google!

Thanks, Jose!

Read

More →

35 Comments