Los rumores de un video de Noelia haciendo fresquerí­as por ahí­ son realidad. Es un video cortito pero bien explícito! bastante NSFW!

Mira el video aquí.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/14/google_data_retention/

Data retention laws do not cover Google searches

Directive does not apply to search engines

By OUT-LAW.COM → More by this author

Published Thursday 14th June 2007 10:02 GMT

Google is not bound by the Data Retention Directive when it comes to search engine logs, Europe’s data protection committee has said. Google has used the Directive to justify keeping data, but OUT-LAW has learned that the law does not apply.

Google has come under increasing pressure in Europe to anonymise its server data, but the company says that it will wait until 18–24 months have passed before anonymising. Among its reasons for this was the Data Retention Directive.

However, a senior European data protection official told OUT-LAW today that Google cannot rely on that law as justification for its retention.

“The Data Retention Directive applies only to providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communication networks and not to search engine systems,” said Philippos Mitletton. Mitletton works for the European Commission’s Data Protection Unit, which itself is represented on the Article 29 Working Party, the committee of Europe’s data protection authorities.

“Accordingly, Google is not subject to this Directive as far as it concerns the search engine part of its applications and has no obligations thereof,” he said.

Google offers other services that will be caught by the Directive – notably its email service, Gmail, and its internet telephony service, Google Talk. If Google’s search function were caught by the Directive, it could alarm operators of any site with a search function – i.e. most large websites – because potentially they would be similarly caught and therefore need to store details of every search conducted and the addresses of the computers that instruct each search.

The Working Party had taken issue with Google’s policy of only anonymising data after 18–24 months. Google this week conceded some ground, saying that it would anonymise data after 18 months, but could extend that back to 24 months if laws anywhere in the world required them to do that.

Google had argued that the Retention Directive required it to keep the data for up to two years.

“The Data Retention Directive requires all EU Member States to pass data retention laws by 2009 with retention for periods between 6 and 24 months,” said Google global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer in a letter to the Working Party this week.

“Google is therefore potentially subject (both inside and outside the EU) to legal requirements to retain data for a certain period. Since not many member states have implemented the Directive thus far, it is too early to know the final retention time periods, the jurisdictional impact, and the scope of applicability. Because Google may be subject to the requirements of the Directive in some member states, under the principle of legality, we have no choice but to be prepared to retain log server data for up to 24 months,” said Fleischer.

The news that European data protection officials do not consider search queries to be covered by the legislation undermines one of Google’s main justifications for keeping the data.

The company said that the information is useful to it in a business sense. It said that other people’s search queries allow it to help a user refine their search and fix spelling errors. It also said that logs helped it guard against fraud.

“We believe that our decision to anonymize our server logs after 18 to 24 months complies with data protection law, and at the same time allows us to fulfill other critical interests, such as maintaining our ability to continue to improve the quality of our search services; protecting our systems and our users from fraud and abuse, and complying with possible data retention requirements,” said Fleischer’s letter.

Kid Sex Change or Kids Exchange?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/06/11/google.privacy.ap/index.htmlÂÂ

Google PRIVACY ‘Worst on the Web’

June 11, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) — Google Inc.’s privacy practices are the worst among the Internet’s top destinations, according to a watchdog group seeking to intensify the recent focus on how the online search leader handles personal information about its users.

In a report released Saturday, London-based Privacy International assigned Google its lowest possible grade. The category is reserved for companies with “comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy.”

None of the 22 other surveyed companies — a group that included Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AOL — sunk to that level, according to Privacy International.

While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to “achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy,” Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings.

In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users’ privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests.

“We are disappointed with Privacy International’s report, which is based on numerous inaccuracies and misunderstandings about our services,” said Nicole Wong, Google’s deputy general counsel.

“It’s a shame that Privacy International decided to publish its report before we had an opportunity to discuss our privacy practices with them.”

Privacy International contacted Google earlier this month, but didn’t receive a response, said Simon Davies, the group’s director.

The scathing report is just the latest strike aimed at Google’s privacy practices.

An independent European panel recently opened an inquiry into whether Google’s policies abide by Europe’s privacy rules.

Meanwhile, three consumer groups in the United States are pressuring the nation’s regulators to make Google change some of its privacy policies as part of its proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of online ad service DoubleClick Inc., which also tracks Web surfers’ behavior.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is looking into antitrust concerns raised by the DoubleClick deal, but has not indicated if privacy issues will be part of the inquiry.

Hoping to placate its critics, Google has pledged to begin erasing the information about users’ search requests within 18 to 24 months.

The company says it stockpiles data to help its search engine better understand its users so it can deliver more relevant results and advertisements.

Google maintains it protects its users’ privacy.

As Google becomes more knowledgeable about the people relying on its search engine and other free services, management hopes to develop more tools that recommend activities and other pursuits that might appeal to individual users.

Privacy International is particularly troubled by Google’s ability to match data gathered by its search engine with information collected from other services such as e-mail, instant messaging and maps.

“Under the microscope, it turns out that Google is doing much more with our data than we ever imagined,” Davies said.

Privacy International, which was founded in 1990, said it reached its preliminary findings after spending the past six months reviewing Internet privacy practices with the help of about 30 professors, mostly in the United States and United Kingdom. The group plans to update the report in September.

Seven of the Internet companies and Web sites included in Privacy International’s analysis received the second lowest grade of “substantial and comprehensive privacy threats.” This group included: Time Warner Inc.’s AOL, Apple Inc., Facebook.com, Hi5.com, Reunion.com, Microsoft’s Windows Live Space and Yahoo.

None of the companies or sites received Privacy International’s top grade, but five rated as “generally privacy-aware.” They were: BBC, eBay Inc., Last.fm, LiveJournal.com, and Wikipedia.com.

Internet Doomsday Creeps Closer
Big government pushes for total taxation and restriction on the last great outpost of free speech

Recent proposals in the U.S. Congress are taking a huge swipe at freedom in America once again by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on users of the internet.

State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other Internet-service connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail, reports CNet.

Several bills were introduced last week that could see all manner of new forms of internet taxation become a reality before the end of the year.

Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, introduced a bill (PDF link) for mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases, meaning that if you buy items through online sites like eBay or Amazon.com, you might have to start paying additional sales taxes on your purchases.

The Libertarian party has warned that the bill represents more big government intervention and that while Enzi insists the bill “would not increase taxes,” the Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act would open the door for states to charge sales tax on Internet sales. In contrast to his statement, the C-Net article states that Enzi warned that other taxes may zoom upward if his “mandatory sales tax collection” bill isn’t passed.

In a second and separate proposal during a House of Representatives hearing last week, politicians weighed whether to let a temporary ban on internet access taxes lapse when it expires on November 1.

Such a move would leave open the possibility that simply using the internet would require a tax to be paid which critics suggest could sound a death knell for broadband, DSL and “always on” high speed internet.

Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia compared the move to taxing people for simply entering shopping malls or libraries. With the U.S. economy already under considerable strain, taking a huge swipe at e-commerce, one of its cornerstones, seems like the worst possible thing Congress could do.

Furthermore, allowing taxation on internet access represents a slippery slope towards opening up the possibilities of taxing all kinds of internet based services.

“They might say, ‘We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,’ but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access,” said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican.

An email tax would certainly suit both the government and internet providers who would likely get a cut. Last year it was revealed that AOL is planning to charge mass-emailers a fee to avoid the ISP’s spam filters and guarantee that their marketing emails arrive straight in AOL subscribers’ inboxes. Yahoo! is also endorsing the scheme.

Under such a system email considered “uncertified” would risk running through AOL and Yahoo!’s discrimination process. And as this potential profit center for the two net giants takes off, there’s no incentive for either company to deliver the “free email” - and every incentive for them to get the world conditioned to paying for guaranteed delivery.

A United Nations agency also proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, indicating that the idea has been floating around for almost a decade.!– google_ad_client = “pub-0849512753345323″; google_ad_width = 234; google_ad_height = 16; google_ad_format = “234×60_as”; google_ad_type = “text_image”; //2007-05-17: Infowars.net Article Pages google_ad_channel = “2541726477″; google_color_border = “FFFFFF”; google_color_bg = “FFFFFF”; google_color_link = “000066″; //–>ÂÂ

In recent months, a chorus of propaganda intended to demonize the Internet and further lead it down a path of strict control has spewed forth from numerous establishment organs:

• Time magazine reported last month that researchers funded by the federal government want to shut down the internet and start over, citing the fact that at the moment there are loopholes in the system whereby users cannot be tracked and traced all the time.

The projects echo moves we have previously reported on to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a new form of the internet known as Internet 2.

• In a display of bi-partisanship, there have recently been calls for all out mandatory ISP snooping on all US citizens by both Democrats and Republicans alike.
• Republican Senator John McCain recently tabled a proposal to introduce legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.
• During an appearance with his wife Barbara on Fox News last November, George Bush senior slammed Internet bloggers for creating an “adversarial and ugly climate.”
• The White House’s own recently de-classified strategy for “winning the war on terror” targets Internet conspiracy theories as a recruiting ground for terrorists and threatens to “diminish” their influence.
• The Pentagon recently announced its effort to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror.
• In a speech last October, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a “terror training camp,” through which “disaffected people living in the United States” are developing “radical ideologies and potentially violent skills.” His solution is “intelligence fusion centers,” staffed by Homeland Security personnel which will go into operation next year.
• The U.S. Government wants to force bloggers and online grassroots activists to register and regularly report their activities to Congress. Criminal charges including a possible jail term of up to one year could be the punishment for non-compliance.
• A landmark legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations seeks to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web - and their argument is supported by the U.S. government.
• A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.
• The European Union, led by former Stalinist and potential future British Prime Minister John Reid, has also vowed to shut down “terrorists” who use the Internet to spread propaganda.
• The EU data retention bill, passed last year after much controversy and with implementation tabled for late 2007, obliges telephone operators and internet service providers to store information on who called who and who emailed who for at least six months. Under this law, investigators in any EU country, and most bizarrely even in the US, can access EU citizens’ data on phone calls, sms’, emails and instant messaging services.
• The EU also recently proposed legislation that would prevent users from uploading any form of video without a license.
• The US government is also funding research into social networking sites and how to gather and store personal data published on them, according to the New Scientist magazine. “At the same time, US lawmakers are attempting to force the social networking sites themselves to control the amount and kind of information that people, particularly children, can put on the sites.”

ÂÂ

The development of a new form of internet with new regulations is also designed to create an online caste system whereby the old internet hubs would be allowed to break down and die, forcing people to use the new taxable, censored and regulated world wide web.

Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. Both American and European moves mimic stories we hear every week out of State Controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.

The Internet is freedom’s best friend and the bane of control freaks. Its eradication is one of the short term goals of those that seek to centralize power and subjugate their populations under a surveillance panopticon prison.