Stefano Quintarelli' (alias Quinta)'s weblog.
Service has been detached from Transport; IP has dissolved the tie; Media bits are data bits
Consumer electronics dictates the only rule of the game: The Network wants to be Neutral
Penso che Uber con le NCC, se usata in modo corretto, possa essere conforme alle norme italiane.
Penso che UberPop sia decisamente contrario alle norme italiane. L'europa prevede il car pooling ed e' possibile un rimborso. quello e' ils enso del car pooling, non un guadagno. Il rimborso edve essere commisurato ai costi e quindi ai chilometri, slegato dal tempo (mica sono barche..) Il car pooling deve essere finalizzato a condividere un tragitto, non a determinarne uno nuovo.
penso che i taxi sono regolati per offrire delle garanzie ai clienti (es. fedina penale, capacita' di guida, turni e periodi di riposo, manutenzione, tariffe, non rifiuto di passeggeri, ecc.) e certamente alcune regole possono essere applicate o controllate male, e andrebbero sistemate, ma non cessare di esistere.
un altra regola e' la possibilita' di avere corse con un meccanismo fair di assegnazione, trasparente e controllato.
e se dovessimo ritenere che il modello di uber e' inevitabile, questi controlli e queste garanzie dovrebbero stare in capo alla societa' che gestisce il servizio. non dovrebbero saltare le garanzie per il solo fatto che cambia il mezzo dell'intermediario.
beh, non esattamente. nel senso che una cosa e' analizzare e seguire un set definito ex ante e limitato, altra cosa e' poter analizzare un set illimitato, non definito nemmeno ex post.
altro punto e' che nell'uso normale tu sai chi ti segue e puoi escludere delle persone dal seguirti, in questo caso tu non sai chi prende i tuoi tweet e non puoi escludere che qualcuno lo faccia.
Don’t let them get away with it! We need your help today, and you can do that in two ways:
Make a donation to help us recover the lost revenue. We run this web site on a shoestring, and the money we fully expected to bring in from Google ads now puts a big hole our budget. We simply can’t afford to lose this income – but we’re not taking down the Abu Ghraib page. No way, no how! Please make your tax-deductible donation today.
Contact Google ads and give them a piece of your mind. Tell them that you don’t appreciate their efforts on behalf of the Washington censors and demand that they reinstate us immediately. Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheater Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Telephone: 650-253-0000 You can also interact with Google at their forum
Non rileva qui il merito del sito, se siano "giuste" o "sbagliate" le cose che dice, ma il fatto di una azienda che prende una decisione di fatto censoria.
Les opérateurs télécoms et les sites Internet vont devoir participer plus activement à la lutte contre le terrorisme en France. Le projet de loi renseignement présenté jeudi, qui étend le champ de l'interception des communications électroniques, réserve plusieurs surprises aux intermédiaires techniques dont Le Figaro dévoile le contenu.
anni fa si discuteva del fatto che per questioni di enforcement qualcuno sarebbe arrivato a vietare l'uso di crittografia e qualche amico disse che solo uno stato nazista l'avrebbe fatto..
io spero veramente che l'Italia non segua questo esempio.
l'equilibrio tra censura e privacy è delicato. delicatissimo.
IMHO è opportuno che in ogni caso ci siano tutte le garanzie del caso. sia per la censura (decisioni dell'autortià giudiziaria) sia della privacy (Garante della privacy)
We're big believers in the value of disaggregation - of breaking down traditional data center technologies into their core components so we can build new systems that are more flexible, more scalable, and more efficient. This approach has guided Facebook from the beginning, as we've grown and expanded our infrastructure to connect more than 1.28 billion people around the world. Over the last three years, we've been working within the Open Compute Project (OCP) to apply this principle to open designs for racks, servers, storage boxes, and motherboards. And last year, OCP kicked off a new networking project with a goal of developing designs for OS-agnostic top-of-rack (TOR) switches. This was the first step toward disaggregating the network - separating hardware from software, so we can spur the development of more choices for each - and our progress so far has exceeded our expectations: Broadcom, Intel, Mellanox, and Accton have already contributed designs for open switches; Cumulus Networks and Big Switch Networks have made software contributions; and the development work and discussions in the project group have been highly productive. Today we're pleased to unveil the next step: a new top-of-rack network switch, code-named "Wedge," and a new Linux-based operating system for that switch, code-named "FBOSS." These projects break down the hardware and software components of the network stack even further, to provide a new level of visibility, automation, and control in the operation of the network. By combining the hardware and software modules together in new ways, "Wedge" and "FBOSS" depart from current networking design paradigms to leverage our experience in operating hundreds of thousands of servers in our data centers. In other words, our goal with these projects was to make our network look, feel, and operate more like the OCP servers we've already deployed, both in terms of hardware and software.
If you fly a drone and post footage on YouTube, you could end up with a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration.
Earlier this week, the agency sent a legal notice to Jayson Hanes, a Tampa-based drone hobbyist who has been posting drone-shot videos online for roughly the last year.
The FAA said that, because there are ads on YouTube, Hanes's flights constituted a commercial use of the technology subject to stricter regulations and enforcement action from the agency. It said that if he did not stop flying “commercially,” he could be subject to fines or sanctions.
"This office has received a complaint regarding your use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (aka drone) for commercial purposes referencing your video on the website youtube.com as evidence," the letter reads. "After a review of your website, it does appear that the complaint is valid."
The hobby use of drones and other model aircraft has never been regulated by the FAA, but the agency has been adamant about making a distinction between hobby and commercial use, which has led to much confusion over the last couple years.
Where, exactly, does commercial use begin and hobby use end, for instance? If you fly for fun, but happen to sell your footage later, were you flying for a "commercial purpose?" What if you give it to a news organization that runs it on a television station that has ads on it? What if you upload it to YouTube and Google happens to put an ad on it? What if you decide to put an ad on it?
The letter makes clear that at least some in the FAA (this one was sent by Michael Singleton, an aviation safety inspector in the FAA's Tampa office) take a very wide view of what is "commercial."
"With this letter the FAA is claiming that drone-obtained art created by a hobbyist becomes retroactively 'commercial' if it is ever sold, or if, as here, it is displayed on a website that offers monetization in the form of advertising," Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based attorney specializing in drone issues told me. "Selling art is unquestionably one's right, and the government is forbidden from infringing upon that right."
Hanes told me that his videos are technically "monetized" on YouTube but that he has never received a payment from Google and the revenue he's technically earned from Google’s ads is less than a dollar.
"I've been flying only for fun, as a hobby," he told me.
FAA spokesperson Les Dorr told me he is looking into specifics of the case, but said that, often, competitors will alert local enforcement offices about drone use. The question then, is can someone really have a "competitor" if they're not flying commercially?
"In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply," Dorr said. "It’s not uncommon for a competitor who is not flying a UAS to alert us to such operations. I don’t know if that was the case here."
Hanes's case is without precedent. The FAA has sent many cease-and-desist letters to commercial drone operators, but those letters have mainly been in response to registered businesses that advertise drone-for-hire services on their websites. To my knowledge, the agency hasn’t sent letters like this to hobbyists. Hanes's website redirects to his YouTube page, and he offers no traditional commercial services.
Google leaked the complete hidden whois data attached to more than 282,000 domains registered through the company's Google Apps for Work service, a breach that could bite good and bad guys alike.
The 282,867 domains counted by Cisco Systems' researchers account for 94 percent of the addresses Google Apps has registered through a partnership with registrar eNom. Among the services is one that charges an additional $6 per year to shield from public view all personal information included in domain name whois records. Rather than being published publicly, the information is promised to remain in the hands of eNom except when it receives a court order to turn it over.
Starting in mid 2013, a software defect in Google Apps started leaking the data, including names, phone numbers, physical addresses, e-mail addresses, and more. The bug caused the data to become public once a domain registration was renewed. Cisco's Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group discovered it on February 19, and five days later the leak was plugged, slightly shy of two years after it first sprung.
sarebbe una bella lettura per il weekend se non avessi schedulate riunioni sabato e domenica conde i giuristi per dei progetti di legge... sigh. mi sa che i miei commenti arriveranno tardi..
With the rise of the Internet of Things comes a lot of convenience, such as smart fridges that let you access the internet and call for service in the case of malfunction, or devices that can monitor your energy usage and send you Twitter updates.
It also comes with a new problem: many of these internet-connected devices don't have malware protection. And it's now been documented that someone is taking advantage. Security company Proofpoint has discovered a botnet attack — that is, a cyber attack whereby the attacker hijacks devices remotely to send spam — incorporating over 100,000 devices between 23 December and 6 January, including routers, multimedia centres, televisions and at least one refrigerator.
The attack sent out over 750,000 spam emails, in bursts of 100,000 emails at a time, three times a day, with no more than 10 emails sent from any one IP address, making them difficult to block. Over 25 per cent of the emails were sent from devices that weren't conventional computers or mobile devices. It is the first documented case of common appliances being used in a cyber attack — but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the first time it occurred, and it certainly won't be the last.
A Quebec man charged with obstructing border officials by refusing to give up his smartphone password says he will fight the charge.
The case has raised a new legal question in Canada, a law professor says.
Alain Philippon, 38, of Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Que., refused to divulge his cellphone password to Canada Border Services Agency during a customs search Monday night at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.
Philippon had arrived in Halifax on a flight from Puerto Plata in the Dominican Republic. He's been charged under section 153.1 (b) of the Customs Act for hindering or preventing border officers from performing their role under the act.
According to the CBSA, the minimum fine for the offence is $1,000, with a maximum fine of $25,000 and the possibility of a year in jail.
Philippon did not want to be interviewed but said he intends to fight the charge since he considers the information on his phone to be "personal."
The CBSA wouldn't say why Philippon was selected for a smartphone search.
In an email, a border services spokesperson wrote, "Officers are trained in examination, investigative and questioning techniques. To divulge our approach may render our techniques ineffective. Officers are trained to look for indicators of deception and use a risk management approach in determining which goods may warrant a closer look."
Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said that under Canadian law, travellers crossing the Canadian border have a reduced expectation of privacy.
He said border officials have wide-ranging powers to search travellers and their belongings.
"Under the Customs Act, customs officers are allowed to inspect things that you have, that you're bringing into the country," he told CBC News. "The term used in the act is 'goods,' but that certainly extends to your cellphone, to your tablet, to your computer, pretty much anything you have."