For now, this is for desktop versions only. Facebook is looking for feedback from users before rolling out a mobile version, which it says make up 30 percent of its monthly users.
More at recode.
Twenty-five years after the world wide web was created, it is now caught in the greatest controversy of its existence: surveillance.
With many concerned that governments and corporations can monitor our every move, Horizon meets the hackers and scientists whose technology is fighting back. It is a controversial technology, and some law enforcement officers believe it is leading to ‘risk-free crime’ on the ‘dark web’ – a place where almost anything can be bought, from guns and drugs to credit card details.
Featuring interviews with the inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, and the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Horizon delves inside the ‘dark web’.
This happened January 31st 2014 I’m the downtown st Paul sky way… And they confiscated the phones for 6 months.
It is abundantly clear that things did not escalate until the second police officer came on the scene. That officer threatened Chris Lollie from the moment he arrived, telling him he was getting arrested no matter what. The second officer never bothered to assess the situation. He came into the situation looking to arrest someone. Lollie asked several times what he did wrong and why he needed to show identification. The best answer the police could give is “because I said so.”
These police officers are the reason people hate the police so much. The second officer comes in, acts like a bully and demands his authority be respected. The first officer is an enabler who does nothing to stop the second officers abusive behavior despite no crime having been committed.
Chris Lollie was at the First National Bank Building last January when he was approached by St Paul Police officers, according to an incident report. He started recording video on his cell phone as they asked for his name.
But in the video Lollie can be heard telling the officers he was in a public space picking up his kids from New Horizon Academy and wasn’t breaking any laws. In just a few seconds things escalate.
Lollie did not commit any crime. He was walking out of the area, which is his right as he was not being detained. He stopped walking once the officer told him he was under arrest. Until that point, Lollie had no legal requirement to stop walking.
Minnesota also does not have a “Stop and Identify” statute, which would require you to stop and identify yourself if criminal activity has occurred in the area.
Lollie was exercising his first and fourth amendment rights. He broke no law. He was under no obligation to follow their commands.
Lollie was charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction. But all charges were dismissed last month. Lollie did not respond to questions about why he released the video nearly eight months after it was recorded.
If they watch the original video, Lollie explains in the description of the video on YouTube, his cell phone was confiscated for six months. The charge of trespassing seems suspicious because he was in a public place in the middle of the day.
This is how the exchange should have gone. The first cop finds the person who made the complaint. If Lollie is in a public area, inform the person that they are allowed to legally be there and she could go on with her day. If he wasn’t allowed in that particular area, then the cop should have informed Lollie and asked him to move. The discussion would have been short and easy.
Cop 1: It is your right to not want to give me your name. You are not under arrest and you are free to leave if you wish, just please don’t occupy [whatever space it was he was allegedly in] because of [insert reason].
Lollie: That’s fine officer. I’m just on my way to pick up my kids.
And they both go their separate ways.
At no point in time was Lollie wrong and he was calm and reasonable until Cop 2 showed up.
Instead Cop 1 yammers on and on until Cop 2 comes along with a chip on his shoulder acting like Eric Cartman.
You can read more at The Atlantic.
Power exists to be used. Some wish for cyber safety, which they will not get. Others wish for cyber order, which they will not get. Some have the eye to discern cyber policies that are “the least worst thing;” may they fill the vacuum of wishful thinking.
As if it needed saying, cyber security is now a riveting concern, a top issue in many venues more important than this one. This is not to insult Black Hat; rather it is to note that every speaker, every writer, every practitioner in the field of cyber security who has wished that its topic, and us with it, were taken seriously has gotten their wish. Cyber security *is* being taken seriously, which, as you well know is not the same as being taken usefully, coherently, or lastingly. Whether we are talking about laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or the non-lawmaking but perhaps even more significant actions that the Executive agencies are undertaking, “we” and the cyber security issue have never been more at the forefront of policy. And you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Not only has cybersecurity reached the highest levels of attention, it has spread into nearly every corner. If area is the product of height and width, then the footprint of cybersecurity has surpassed the grasp of any one of us.
Greer’s speech was broken down into 10 sections: Mandatory reporting, net neutrality, source code liability, strike back, fall backs and resiliency, vulnerability finding, right to be forgotten, Internet voting, abandonment, and convergence.
Papers, Please has a nice breakdown of some of the more pertinent privacy and identification issues.