Specifically, he is exploring a legal push under the current legal framework for broadband, which is under Title I, that would make possible the FCC’s push for a new net neutrality rule and reforms under a national broadband plan, the sources said. That could include a legal push in courts where it would assert that the FCC has the mandate from Congress to deploy broadband to all Americans in a timely manner.

This is a bad idea, no matter what your views of the wisdom of the FCC’s proposed net neutrality regulations.

While we’re big fans of net neutrality, we worry that the FCC may want to build its net neutrality regulations on a rotten legal foundation—”Title I ancillary authority”— which is both discredited and unbounded. As we’ve said before, if “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the Commission dreams up (including things we won’t like, like decency rules and copyright filtering). That’s why we cheered the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in early April 2010 that reined in the FCC’s authority to punish Comcast for interfering with its subscribers’ use of BitTorrent. While we were at the forefront of uncovering and condemning Comcast’s behavior, we don’t think that the FCC has—or should have—broad powers to regulate the Internet for any reason that strikes the Commissioners’ fancy.

But now, apparently urged on by lobbyists from the biggest phone companies, FCC Chairman Genachowski appears poised to march down that road again, potentially turning the net neutrality proceeding and the National Broadband Plan into a Trojan Horse for unrestrained FCC authority to regulate the Internet.

Whatever your views on net neutrality, this is a terrible idea. If you oppose the proposed FCC net neutrality regulations because you are worried about expansive federal regulation of the Internet, then you should oppose an expansive reading of “Title I ancillary authority,” because that reading would be an invitation for even more federal regulations down the road.

And if you support net neutrality regulations from the FCC, it’s hard to imagine a less stable legal footing than the theory that the D.C. Court of Appeals just rejected in the Comcast ruling. There, the court found that the Commission had overstepped the limits of its “Title I ancillary authority” when it disciplined Comcast for doing exactly the sort of thing that the proposed net neutrality rules would prohibit. There is little chance future network neutrality rules could withstand a court challenge if the FCC rests on the same discredited argument that the court just rejected. In fact, following the Comcast ruling, many net neutrality advocates asked the FCC to rely on a different source of authority, Title II of the Communications Act, which applies to telecommunications “common carriers.” Title II would certainly provide a more stable, and narrower, basis of authority to impose open network rules, as well as other regulations familiar to telecommunications providers.

The legal machinations are arcane, but if the Commission takes this approach, it will not only be pressing for the kind of dangerous authority already rejected by D.C. Court of Appeals, but it also will face a battle from big Internet access providers over every rule the FCC announces, including net neutrality rules.

                          

Facebook first announced Connections a few weeks ago, and EFF quickly wrote at length about the problems they created. Basically, Facebook has transformed substantial personal information — including your hometown, education, work history, interests, and activities — into “Connections.” This allows far more people than ever before to see this information, regardless of whether you want them to.

Since then, our email inbox has been flooded with confused questions and reports about these changes. We’ve learned lots more about everyone’s concerns and experiences. Drawing from this, here are six things you need to know about Connections:

1. Facebook will not let you share any of this information without using Connections. You cannot opt-out of Connections. If you refuse to play ball, Facebook will remove all unlinked information from your profile.

2. Facebook will not respect your old privacy settings in this transition. For example, if you had previously sought to share your Interests with “Only Friends,” Facebook will now ignore this and share your Connections with “Everyone.”

3. Facebook has removed your ability to restrict its use of this information. The new privacy controls only affect your information’s “Visibility,” not whether it is “publicly available.”

   Explaining what “publicly available” means, Facebook writes:

   “Such information may, for example, be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), be indexed by third party search engines, and be imported, exported, distributed, and redistributed by us and others without privacy limitations.”

4. Facebook will continue to store and use your Connections even after you delete them. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not there. Even after you “delete” profile information, Facebook will remember it. We’ve also received reports that Facebook continues to use deleted profile information to help people find you through Facebook’s search engine.

5. Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you “Like” something. That “Like” button you see all over Facebook, and now all over the web? It too can sometimes add a Connection to your profile, without you even knowing it.

6. Your posts may show up on a Connection page even if you do not opt in to the Connection. If you use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the Connection page, without you even knowing it. (For example, if you use the word “FBI” in a post).

You can send Facebook your comments on the new Connections here.

Updated, May 5: We changed Item #6 to clarify how Facebook uses your post.

                          

Consumers should not have to sit idly by when the devices they have purchased are retroactively downgraded without their consent. We look forward to seeing how this lawsuit turns out.

                          

In the early years of the so-called “War On Terror”, the US government created a number of secret programs that granted it and its agents sweeping new global surveillance powers. In particular, the US Treasury Department has sought and been given access to financial information held by the SWIFT network to find and track down individuals suspected of terrorism as part of its Terrorism Finance Tracking Program. Another agreement requires all airlines flying to the US to provide the Department of Homeland Security with full electronic access to detailed personal information on all passengers, in the form of Passenger Name Records (PNRs).

Europeans have long been arguing that handing over this information to US law enforcement agencies violates privacy rights protected by European legislation. But when the Lisbon Treaty and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights entered into force at the end of 2009, personal data protection was greatly strengthened in Europe. In addition, the European Parliament now has a crucial right to give or withhold consent to these international data-sharing agreements. This year, the European Parliament has used its new powers to demand that the European Commission and European Council address serious data protection, privacy and due process concerns.

Read on to hear more about the debate in European Parliament.

read more

                          

Copyright – The owner of an original works right to reproduce and control how their intellectual property is distributed or sold. For an artist or author to get the copyright to something all they need to do is put it in a tangible form, however it is also possible to register the copyright officially for a small fee. The owner of a copyright retains the rights for the length of their natural life plus 70 years. For example, when an author writes a book they hold exclusive rights to reproduce the books content so that others may read it. Authors usually seek the assistance of a publisher for the resources to print the book, market and sell it to people. Copyright law prevents other companies from simply stealing the books content and printing it themselves for profit.

There is some wiggle room within copyright law under fair use laws. For example, fair use laws give the right to people that purchased the book to loan it to their friends or sell it to someone else, even though they do not have the full copyright to reproduce the works that the publisher and author have. How far fair use laws actually go and exactly what rights the give to the consumer is a hotly contested and still evolving legal issue.

Trademark – Phrase, word, logo that uniquely brands a company, product, service or organization. For example the company paypal owns the trademark of their company name which prevents other organizations or individuals from using the name “Pepsi” to try impersonate or scrape the goodwill associate with that name. You can obtain a trademark of a name phrase or logo informally, but larger organizations always spend the time and money to formally register their names in case of any lawsuits. A common misconception is that you cannot trademark dictionary words or phrases, this is false, just take a look at the “Tide” detergent. It is worth noting however that Tide only has rights to the name in it’s relation to laundry detergent, not in terms of tides in the context of oceans. Trademark law prevents so called cyber-squatters from registering the domain name of a popular company and then attempting to sell or impersonate that company for monetary gain.

Registering a trademark does not prevent from all use of that mark however. For instance other companies can still use trademarked terms to compare two products. Trademarks can also be used by other people besides their owners and be protected under freedom of speech laws for websites like paypalsucks.com as long as it is clear they are not associated with the real company and they are not doing so for monetary gain.

I hope you found this comparison informative, please comment if you have any questions.