Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Atari Online News, Etc. Volume 14 Issue 06
Volume 14, Issue 06 Atari Online News, Etc. February 10, 2012
Published and Copyright (c) 1999 - 2012
All Rights Reserved
Atari Online News, Etc.
A-ONE Online Magazine
Dana P. Jacobson, Publisher/Managing Editor
Joseph Mirando, Managing Editor
Rob Mahlert, Associate Editor
Atari Online News, Etc. Staff
Dana P. Jacobson -- Editor
Joe Mirando -- "People Are Talking"
Michael Burkley -- "Unabashed Atariophile"
Albert Dayes -- "CC: Classic Chips"
Rob Mahlert -- Web site
Thomas J. Andrews -- "Keeper of the Flame"
With Contributions by:
Fred Horvat
To subscribe to A-ONE, change e-mail addresses, or unsubscribe,
log on to our website at: www.atarinews.org
and click on "Subscriptions".
OR subscribe to A-ONE by sending a message to: dpj@atarinews.org
and your address will be added to the distribution list.
To unsubscribe from A-ONE, send the following: Unsubscribe A-ONE
Please make sure that you include the same address that you used to
subscribe from.
To download A-ONE, set your browser bookmarks to one of the
following sites:
http://people.delphiforums.com/dpj/a-one.htm
Now available:
http://www.atarinews.org
Visit the Atari Advantage Forum on Delphi!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atari/
=~=~=~=
A-ONE #1406 02/10/12
~ Web Piracy Resilient! ~ People Are Talking! ~ CIA Web Site Is Down!
~ Oklahoma Wants Sin Tax ~ Google Wallet Unsafe! ~ Iran Blocks Internet!
~ Google 'Drive' Coming! ~ Google Privacy Issues ~ New iPad Announcement?
-* Widespread Censorship Protest *-
-* Blocking New Google Privacy Changes *-
-* European Internet Campaigners Battle ACTA! *-
=~=~=~=
->From the Editor's Keyboard "Saying it like it is!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
It's been another long week here, and I'm bushed! A lot going on these
days, and not enough energy to think about them and report 'em here. The
GOP race has seen another shake-up, but I think it's just a bump in the
road for Romney. Then again, we all know anything is possible in
politics. I said possible, not probable!
We may get - I said, may get - more than an inch of snow this weekend!
Yes, it's possible that we'll get the biggest snow "storm" of the year,
at least to-date this winter! Well, I'll take a wait-and-see attitude,
but I'm not going to get overly shaken by this one! It's been a great
winter season so far - no snow on the ground at present. This is
something quite rare for this area, but you won't hear any complaints
from my corner!
So, let's move forward, not worry about politics or the weather, and just
get to this week's issue!
Until next time...
=~=~=~=
->In This Week's Gaming Section - Oklahoma The Latest To Pin Problems on Video Games!
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
=~=~=~=
->A-ONE's Game Console Industry News - The Latest Gaming News!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Oklahoma The Latest State To Pin Problems on Video Games, Proposes Sin Tax
An Oklahoma legislator is proposing a what about the children? bill (HB
2696) that aims to tax violent video games. Former schoolteacher and
current Democratic member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives,
William T. Fourkiller, wants to levy an excise tax rate of one percent on
the sale of violent video games; because these games supposedly spawn the
obese bullies which plague our society.
"Violent video games contribute to some of our societal problems like
obesity and bullying, but because they raise a lot of revenue, they can
also provide part of the solution," Fourkiller told Oklahoma Citys KFOR.
A sense of urgency surrounds HB 2696 as it has been pushed under the
emergency heading; Fourkiller says its necessary for the "preservation of
the public peace, health and safety." The taxs goals seem to be genuine,
and not simply intended to fatten the government wallet. The money gained
from HB 2696 will go directly to curing Oklahoma children of the socially
undesirable gaming sins which the bill is attacking; half of the money
will go towards the Bullying Prevention Revolving Fund, and the other
half will go towards the Childhood Outdoor Education Fund.
"A gentleman shot a police officer and stole his car," Fourkiller points
out. "He had been playing Grand Theft Auto."
A glaring problem with the bill is that it seems to be geared towards a
vague swath of video games in its definition: "Violent video game means
a video or computer game that has received a rating from the Entertainment
Software Rating Board of Teen, Mature or Adult Only." That means, aside
from obvious games like Fallout, Bully, Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty,
the bill would be taxing games like Beatles Rock Band, You Dont Know Jack
and The Sims 3; though according to the KFOR piece, Fourkiller says he
isnt targeting the video game industry.
As far as obesity goes, sedentary TV screen time as a whole has, in the
past, been painted as the main culprit for spawning overweight children.
However, Reason points to a recent Michigan State study which found that
race, age and socioeconomic status were stronger indicators of a childs
future BMI, rather than cellphones, gaming or the Internet.
Fourkiller may also have an outdated idea of gamer demographics, as the
ESA published a study which determined the average gamers age to be 37,
with 29% of all gamers over 50 and only 18% of gamers under the age of
18. So, if Oklahomas gamer demographic mirrors the ESA study, this
proposed sin tax could end up affecting many adults who enjoy their
sinful games.
If the bill doesnt get a majority in the Oklahoma House and Senate, it
will go to the public to vote on in November. Though 1% of a $50 game is
only 50 cents and may not seem much, the fear is that this bill could be
laying the groundwork for larger anti-gaming movements. Its definitely
not the first time these sentiments have surfaced in legislation: Texas
in 2006, Jon Erpenbach from Wisconsin in 2007, New Mexicos "No Child
Left Inside" movement in 2008. Of course, none of these propositions
seemed to make it far, and as weve seen with the California violent
video games case in July, going after games for their content can be
unconstitutional as it infringes on First Amendment rights. The Supreme
Courts ruling in California addresses much of Fourkillers argument:
Violence isnt the sole realm of video games; violent video games arent
necessarily connected to aggression; interactiveness, or "taking on a
role" as Fourkiller puts it, invites commentary and perspective, not
brainwashing; and ultimately, esthetic choices about art and literature
arent the governments decision. But what do you think? Is this recent
anti-video game legislation an example of a sentiment gaining traction?
Is this an issue that even concerns the government? Or should it be up
to parents alone to police gaming habits?
=~=~=~=
A-ONE's Headline News
The Latest in Computer Technology News
Compiled by: Dana P. Jacobson
European Internet Campaigners Battle ACTA
A controversial international accord billed as a way to beat online piracy
has sparked a fightback led by Internet users in ex-communist countries
who say the region's past underlines the need to defend freedom.
An international day of rallies against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA) has been scheduled for Saturday.
For weeks, the hub of discontent has been Poland, whose centre-right
government last week pledged to freeze the ratification process after a
storm of protest.
Observers underline that the issue strikes a chord like few others since
the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989.
"I haven't seen such major demonstrations in Poland for 20 years," Warsaw
sociologist Adam Ostolski told AFP.
Since late January, thousands of mostly young Poles have taken to the
streets nationwide brandishing anti-ACTA and anti-censorship banners.
They have sported the iconic mask of global "hacktivist" group Anonymous,
which along with similar organisations has claimed lesson-teaching attacks
on official websites.
The real and virtual campaigns, mustered on online social networks, kicked
off ahead of the January 26 signature in Tokyo of ACTA by Poland and 21
other European governments.
Poland's decision to freeze ratification has been echoed by its neighbours
the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
"Hacktivists" have also launched cyber attacks on the Czech government
and Prime Minister Petr Necas's ODS party.
ACTA was negotiated between the 27-nation European Union, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea,
Switzerland and the United States.
It aims to bolster international standards for intellectual property
protection, for example by doing more to fight counterfeit medicine and
other goods.
But its attempt to attack illegal downloading and Internet file-sharing
has sparked the most controversy, amid fears that it could curtail online
freedom.
The debate has been similar to that sparked in the United States over two
draft laws, the Protect Intellectual Property Act and Stop Online Piracy
Act - better know by their acronyms PIPA and SOPA - which led to
blacked-out page protests by Wikipedia and other websites.
Governments have come under fire for signing ACTA - which still needs
parliamentary ratification in most countries to come into force - after
talks with record companies and commercial media but not with groups
representing Internet users.
Critics say it gives copyright-holders too much clout, for example
allowing them to force the closure of websites without the same level of
proof as a court would demand.
"Poles are among the most active nations on the Internet and on social
networks in Europe," underlined Ostolski.
"For young people who lack much chance of climbing the social ladder, the
Internet is one of the last public arenas where they feel free. And then
along comes ACTA, and we start controlling that arena. For them, it's a
question of freedom, dignity and access to a culture," he added.
History also counts, said Mikulas Ferjencik, deputy leader of the Czech
Republic's Pirate Party, based on the Swedish cyber-freedom movement of the
same name.
Ferjencik has dubbed ACTA a "serious attack on civil liberties".
"I think people in Eastern Europe started file-sharing much earlier, well
before the big corporations even tried to impose a monopoly," he told AFP.
"Then there are other factors, such as our greater experience with
censorship and a lack of trust in the state," he added.
In Bulgaria, meanwhile, the noacta-bg.info website claims that "ACTA's aim
is to combat copyright infringement on the Internet but in reality it will
result in censorship on the last truly free space."
In Western Europe, the anti-ACTA mood has taken longer to spread, making
Saturday's rallies a litmus test.
Protests are planned in 54 German cities, as well as in Britain, France
and Italy.
Europeans Plan Widespread Protests Against Internet Censorship
Protests against Internet censorship will blanket Europe this weekend,
while Germany and Latvia announced Friday they would put the brakes on
signing a copyright treaty that has sparked controversy across the
continent.
More than 200,000 people have committed to attending rallies in 200 cities
to protest the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or "ACTA."
"The map of planned protests is just breathtaking," said Holmes Wilson,
co-founder of anti-ACTA group Fight for the Future. "You've got tens of
thousands of people taking to the streets in small cities, in countries
where large street protests are not common."
Proponents of ACTA say that the treaty will help fight global copyright
theft. Opponents, fresh off the SOPA and PIPA battlefields, argue that
ACTA will harm free speech on the Internet. They also accuse the treaty's
architects of holding negotiations away from the public eye.
"This is truly the Internet's Arab Spring," said Fight for the Future
co-founder Tiffiniy Cheng. "People are rising up against anti-democratic
laws that stifle individual freedoms. And they're organizing
spontaneously, without leaders, using tools available to everyone."
Public opposition to the treaty has already struck Europe. Last month,
thousands of people in Poland took to the streets in protest while the
European rapporteur for ACTA resigned after calling the negotiation
process a "charade."
It appears some European leaders have been listening to ACTA's naysayers.
Germany and Latvia's decision to delay signing ACTA puts them in league
with Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, who have also halted the
process.
A German foreign ministry spokesperson said that the country needed "time
to carry out further discussions" about the treaty, the
" target="_blank">BBC reported.
ACTA was signed by the U.S. and Japan in 2006. Australia, Canada, Morocco,
New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea signed on last year and the European
Union signed last month, but no country's legislature has yet ratified the
treaty. ACTA will go into force when ratified by at least six countries.
Would you hit the streets to protest ACTA? Is ACTA just as bad as SOPA and
PIPA? Let us know in the comments below.
Developments Related to Google Privacy Initiative
Some developments related to Google Inc.'s new privacy initiative:
Jan. 24: Google announces a plan to link user data across its email,
video, social-networking and other services. The company says the move will
simplify its privacy policy, improve the user experience and help
advertisers find customers more easily, especially on mobile devices.
Critics raise privacy concerns. The plan is to take effect March 1.
Feb. 1: Rival Microsoft Corp. runs full-page newspaper ads slamming Google
and its new policy. Microsoft uses the opportunity to tout its own
Web-based alternatives, saying for instance that users of its free email
service, Hotmail, don't have to worry about the content of their emails
being used to help target ads.
Feb. 3: The European Union's data protection authorities release a letter
to Google asking the company to delay the new policy until they have
verified that it doesn't break the bloc's data protection laws. Google
says it had briefed data protection agencies beforehand and had heard no
substantial concerns then.
Wednesday: A consumer watchdog group sues the Federal Trade Commission in
an attempt to prevent Google from making its planned changes. The
Electronic Privacy Information Center contends Google's new policies would
violate restrictions imposed in an agreement reached with the FTC last
year.
Lawsuit Seeks To Block Google's Privacy Changes
A consumer watchdog group is suing the Federal Trade Commission in an
attempt to prevent Google from making sweeping changes to its privacy
policies next month.
The planned revisions would enable Google Inc. to bundle the personal
information gathered by its Internet search engine and other services,
such as Gmail, YouTube and Plus, so the company can gain a better
understanding of its users and potentially sell more advertising. Google
has depicted the switch as an improvement that will make its privacy
policies easier to understand and help deliver more helpful information
to users.
But the Electronic Privacy Information Center contends Google's new
policies would violate restrictions imposed in an agreement reached with
the FTC last year. Google submitted to the rules to resolve complaints
that the company had improperly exposed users' email contacts in a
now-defunct service called Buzz.
A lawsuit filed Wednesday by EPIC maintains the agreement gives FTC the
power to stop Google from making the planned privacy change. The complaint
also is seeking an order from a Washington federal court to block Google's
policy changes from taking effect March 1.
Among other things, EPIC alleges Google's new privacy guidelines require
users' consent. The group also alleges Google hasn't thoroughly explained
the motives for the changes, making it an "unfair and deceptive business
practice."
In a statement, Google said it has gone to great lengths to explain the
changes to users since announcing the planned switch two weeks ago. The
Mountain View, Calif., company previously has said it explained the
privacy revisions to the FTC.
"We take privacy very seriously," Google said. "We're happy to engage in
constructive conversations about our updated privacy policy, but EPIC is
wrong on the facts and the law."
FTC spokeswoman Claudia Bourne Farrell said agency "takes compliance with
our consent orders very seriously and always looks carefully at any
evidence that they are being violated."
CIA's Website Is Down, But Where's Anonymous to Take Credit?
The Central Intelligence Agency's website CIA.gov is unresponsive in what
looks a lot like a denial of service attack, but it's a bit too early to
blame it on Anonymous, which usually likes to loudly take credit for these
kinds of things. Of the key Twitter accounts that usually tout successful
hacks by the loose-knit hacking network, none directly took credit for the
website take-down. Youranonnews, which is the closest thing the group has
to an official account, tweeted the news, but cited Russia Today's story
about the attack. It didn't claim credit. Another reliable Anonymous news
feed, AnonymousIRC, hasn't mentioned the CIA.gov attack. Only the account
@AnonymousPress, which Russia Today cited, appeared to take credit, and
that wasn't very explicit: "http://cia.gov DOWN | #UMAD? | #Anonymous."
But if it is the work of Anonymous or some allied hacker, it wouldn't be
the first time they've targeted the CIA. Back in June, the Anonymous
splinter group LulzSec took credit for bringing down the site, "for the
lulz." If this is a repeat of that, they're being a lot quieter about it,
which isn't Anonymous's normal M.O. on what it's dubbed FuckFBIFriday. One
well-known Anonymous hacker, who goes by the handle Sabu, reportedly led
LulzSec over the spring and summer and still tends to broadcast
Anonymous's claimed victories. His account mentions nothing so far of the
CIA hack.
Iran Blocks The Internet
The Iranian government has reportedly begun blocking access to the
Internet. A post on Hacker News explains that since yesterday, its been
difficult to impossible to get online. "Since Thursday Iranian government
has shutted [sic] down the HTTPS protocol which has caused almost all
Google services (Gmail, and Google.com itself) to become inaccessible,"
Sara70 writes. "Almost all websites that rely on Google APIs (like
Wolphram Alpha) wont work."
This month marks the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution (a
celebration which continues through March), and the Iranian government is
allegedly attempting to contain potential demonstrations by quieting
citizens connection to the rest of the world.
Websites using HTTPS are many: in addition to Google and its various Web
products, they include Facebook, Hotmail, and Yahoo. An Iranian citizen
who wished to remain anonymous told Cnet this morning that despite the
widespread news, the government is denying these actions.
If the Iranian officials plan to cut off citizens during the entire
holiday, that means Iran could be in the dark until next month. Iran
operates its Internet much like China, meaning it has its own state run
firewall. According to various reports, work-arounds typically used to
circumvent this are not working.
Last year the Middle East fell into a similar Internet blackout when
protestors demonstrations began making the rounds via various social
networking sites. Despite the heavy-handed censorship, the Arab Spring
revolutions continued on and there were even spikes in activism as a
result of the black outs.
Still, the Internet has proved a powerful tool not only in reaching the
outside world but in uniting forces on the inside. Facebook and Twitter
have particularly been mouthpieces of the people during these recent
rebellions. Although this should cause everyone to wonder how Twitters
new International censorship policy will work in practice.
In 2009, Iranian citizens used Twitter to organize what have become called
the 'Twitter Revolutions.' The microblogging site even delayed scheduled
maintenance so that it could remain up and running for the protestors.
Relationships between US-based Web companies and Iran have remained tense
since, and intense restrictions remain. However, any progress thats been
made may be hurt by the nations decision to restrict citizen access.
Study Finds Internet Piracy Resilient Despite MegaUpload Takedown
Traditional entertainment corporations and the U.S. government rejoiced
as the Internet felt the hard-handed impact of MegaUploads take-down.
But a study released by DeepField Networks, titled "File Sharing in the
Post MegaUpload Era," has offered compelling data proving that the
effect on file sharing was only temporary, and that the celebration
among copyright advocates was entirely premature.
MegaUpload formerly sat at the throne among file-sharing services and
accounted for 30 percent to 40 percent of all file-sharing-related
traffic at any given time. To give some idea of its massive scale, total
Internet traffic dropped between 2 percent and 3 percent during the hour
following the MegaUpload raid on January 18.
The drastic decline is attributed to DeepFields revelation that that
merely six file-sharing service providers cater to the majority (80
percent) of total file-sharing traffic.
Megavideo accounted for 34.1 percent of total file sharing traffic on
Jan. 18 before the raid. The second-largest file-sharing service,
Filesonic (which has shuttered its file sharing functionalities following
the raid), once accounted for a hefty 19.1-percent market share.
But as DeepFields data from Jan. 19 shows, traffic post-raid did not
permanently hamper MegaUpload users. Rather, users redirected their
loyalty to other existing services, thereby crowning Putlocker the new
king.
The inconvenience as a user that comes out of Megavideos shut down, due
in part to a heavy dependence on the American server provider Carpathia
Hosting, is rather minor. Now most file-sharing services servers are
relegated to more expensive hosting, and users may experience slightly
slower download speeds, provided that theyre downloading across
continents. The greater issue arose when the U.S. government decided to
deny temporary access to MegaUpload users files, both legitimate and
pirated.
With this in mind, its possible that "too big, too quickly," contributed
to MegaUploads downfall. MegaUploads subscription and advertising model
supported a lavish lifestyle for CEO Kim Dotcom and other execs. Among
the seized property from MegaUpload executives were a 2008 Rolls-Royce,
2010 Maserati, 1989 Lamborghini and 14 Mercedes-Benz vehicles, sporting
vanity license plates that included, CEO, HACKER, GOOD, and GUILTY.
Despite the lucrative market for pirated content, and unfounded claims of
piracys purported negative effects on the entertainment industrys bottom
line, copyright advocates have entirely underestimated the resiliency of
users, and the gusto with which they bounced back.
For example, The Pirate Bay has moved toward magnet links, which allow
users to access torrents without having to download a file. One Pirate Bay
user scraped the services 1,643,194 torrents into a mere uncompressed
164MB. In the event that The Pirate Bay disappears off of the face of the
Internet, you could conceivably stash away a complete index of its pirated
offerings on a thumb drive.
At the end of the day, MegaUpload is just one large head on the mythical
Hydra beast of file-sharing networks. Chop one head off and two more
regenerate to replace the fresh stump. Has the MegaUpload takedown tackled
piracy? It has. Was it effective? Not really. The hive mind that is the
Internet will get what it wants. DeepFields finding is just one example
of why resisting is futile and unproductive, short of the Great Firewall.
But even then, you can always bypass it using a virtual private network.
Apple Plans To Announce New iPad 3 at Beginning of March
This time round, there wont be an Apple event in February. Instead, its
early March when well get the full and official announcement about the
upcoming iPad 3, apparently.
According to John Paczkowski at AllThingsD, 'sources close to the company'
expect an Apple event of some kind in San Francisco very early in March.
Theres no exact date yet on when the iPad 3 will be launched. After
previous announcements, however, the new devices usually follow within
just a matter of weeks.
As we reported a few weeks ago, the next generation iPad could potentially
be quite a nice upgrade to the iPad 2. Its likely to be a similar size
and shape, but could offer a higher-resolution 2048x1536 Retina display, a
faster quad-core processor, improved graphics chip and perhaps a better
camera.
Google Drive Cloud Storage Service Expected Soon
Google will soon launch a fully-featured cloud storage service called
Google Drive, reports Amir Efrati at the Wall Street Journal. Drive would
compete directly with other consumer-friendly cloud services, like
DropBox, Box, and SugarSync, among others, and will allegedly be priced
below that of other similar services.
Like DropBox and others, Drive will have its own dedicated apps for both
PC and mobile devices, Efratis sources say. Users will be able to upload
any type of file, like text documents, music, or video files, from any
Web-connected device, including smartphones and tablets. Also like many
other cloud-storage services, Drive will also include a file-sharing
feature, though its not yet clear how that feature will function,
especially given the recent heat surrounding Megaupload and its ilk.
Google already offers additional cloud storage space for Docs, Gmail, and
Picasa at a cost of $5 per year for 20GB extra, or $20 per year for 80GB.
And it seems likely that Drive will have both a free option, as well as
expanded storage at a similarly low cost, which would price it far below
comparable services. DropBox, for example, gives users 2GB for free, but
charges about $10 every month for 50GB of storage, or $20 a month for
100GB. Box is more expensive, at a cost of $10 a month for 25GB. And
SugarSync, the least expensive of these three potential Drive competitors,
still costs $5 a month for 30GB.
The reason Google can offer storage for such a low cost is because it owns
one of the worlds largest and best-connected server infrastructures.
Compare this to DropBox, which pays to lease server space from Amazon.
(Amazon also offers its own consumer storage service, Cloud Drive, which
offers 5GB free, and additional storage at a cost of $1 a year per GB,
starting at 20GB.) Since Google would only have to pay for the cost of
running its servers, rather than pay a usage fee to another company, it
can keep costs low for customers.
While Google may be able to beat DropBox and company on price, theres no
guarantee that it will trump them on functionality. In fact, Google is
notorious for releasing products that lack a polished feel. That said,
Google is pushing hard to more tightly knit together its wide variety of
services, and Drive will surely be woven into its quilt of digital
offerings, giving it an instant user base. In short: DropBox should
definitely be worried, but its not yet time to hit the panic button.
Drive will reportedly launch in the coming weeks or months.
Google Wallet Now Just as Unsafe as a Regular Waller
After a week of hacks, Google's mobile payment system has lost more of
its credibility as a safe payment option, making it just as vulnerable to
money-theft as a regular-old billfold. When Google first announced Wallet,
it emphasized all the security features, ensuring multiple layers of
safety with its hyper-encrypted NFC technology. "A safer Wallet,"
proclaims the Wallet website. And when the security features all work, it
actually was safer than credit cards.
But the latest hack pushes Google Wallet out of the safety zone because
really, anyone could do it. All the previous holes, one earlier this week
and the other last december, happened on "rooted" phones, meaning that
the normal, non tech-savvy thief would have a hard time getting in.
"Android actively protects against malicious programs that attempt to gain
root access without the user's knowledge. Based on this report's findings
we have made a change to the app to prevent deleted data from being
recovered on rooted devices," a Google spokesperson told CNET back in
December. Reassuring until The Smart Phone Champ came along and discovered
a trick it could use on non-rooted phones. The blog explains:
Go into the application settings menu and clear the data for the
Google Wallet app. After doing that your Google Wallet app will be reset
and will prompt for you to set a new pin the next time you open it. The
problem here is that since Google Wallet is tied to the device itself and
not tied to your Google account, that once they set the new pin and log
into the app, when they add the Google prepaid card it will add the card
that is tied to that device. In other words, theyd be able to add your
card and have full access to your funds.
If someone got their hands on the phone, it would take about one to two
minutes for that person to create a new PIN, which would allow
authorization of payments. Just watch. Mom could do it.
"You'll notice it's going to have access to whatever funds were on your
Google prepaid account," he explains in that video. Google has ensured
that nobody can go into the Wallet when the phone sites idle, so this
only works when a thief has the device in hand. Just like a wallet thief
would have access to all the dollars within, a Google phone thief gets
that cash. "That's a pretty big security hole there," he continues. Yes,
just as big of a security hole as carrying around wads of money.
Google Loses Bid to Exclude E-Mail From Oracle Trial
Google Inc., fighting a patent lawsuit filed by Oracle Corp., lost its
appeals court bid to keep secret an engineers e-mail that says the Web
search company should negotiate a license for Java technology.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington today
denied Googles request to overturn a judges order that the information
could be presented to a jury when the case goes to trial. Tim Lindholm
wrote the e-mail in August 2010, days before Oracle alleged in a lawsuit
that Googles Android operating system had been designed using patented
and copyrighted features of Oracles Java programming language.
Lindholms e-mail was related to an effort by the company and its lawyers
to formulate a response to Oracles allegations and is protected by
attorney-client privilege, Mountain View, California-based Google argued.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, saying that Lindholms e-mail states "he
was responding to a request from Googles management, not Googles
attorneys."
"The e-mails discussion is directed at a negotiation strategy as opposed"
to a legal strategy, Circuit Judge Alan Lourie wrote for the three-judge
panel. "The e-mail does not evidence any sort of infringement or
invalidity analysis."
In the e-mail to Andrew Rubin, the executive in charge of Googles mobile
division, Lindholm said he was asked by company co-founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin to "investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for
Android and Chrome."
"Weve been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck," Lindholm
wrote. "We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the
terms we need."
Google said the e-mail was mistakenly disclosed to Oracle.
Oracle, based in Redwood City, California, has said its seeking at least
$1 billion in damages. U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco
has rejected earlier versions of how Oracle calculated the damages
estimate.
The case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 10-03561, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
=~=~=~=
Atari Online News, Etc. is a weekly publication covering the entire
Atari community. Reprint permission is granted, unless otherwise noted
at the beginning of any article, to Atari user groups and not for
profit publications only under the following terms: articles must
remain unedited and include the issue number and author at the top of
each article reprinted. Other reprints granted upon approval of
request. Send requests to: dpj@atarinews.org
No issue of Atari Online News, Etc. may be included on any commercial
media, nor uploaded or transmitted to any commercial online service or
internet site, in whole or in part, by any agent or means, without
the expressed consent or permission from the Publisher or Editor of
Atari Online News, Etc.
Opinions presented herein are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the staff, or of the publishers. All
material herein is believed to be accurate at the time of publishing.
