|
US technology companies calls on Obama to scale back US mass snooping
|
|
|
| 10th December 2013
|
|
| See ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com |
An open letter to Washington Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress, We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to
reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual --- rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all
cherish. It's time for a change. For our part, we are focused on keeping users' data secure --- deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government
requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope. We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks,
transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com Sincerely, AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter,
Yahoo
|
|
Child's remark about solving the US debt crisis by killing all the Chinese causes 'outrage'
|
|
|
| 11th November 2013
|
|
| See article from ecns.cn
|
As some American Chinese continued their protests over a supposedly offensive TV show, US broadcaster ABC has published an Open apology declaration and promised not to let it happen again. ABC apologised for a 'mistake' in airing the talk show
and promised to permanently delete all related content and cancel the Kids table talk show element of the program. In Jimmy Kimmel Live aired on October 16, Jimmy Kimmel asked the kids about what to do with the huge debt owing to
China. One boy replied, Kill everyone in China. Jimmy commented that it was an interesting idea. Analysts said Jimmy Kimmel was wrong for not stopping the comment and for failing to explain to the kids that it was not the right
notion. The program sparked 'outrage' and protests from the Chinese communities. Protests were held in cities, including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, demanding a formal apology from ABC and Kimmel's dismissal.
|
|
Blue is the Warmest Colour banned from Idaho cinemas
|
|
|
| 20th October 2013
|
|
| See article from
theguardian.com |
Abdellatif Kechiche's award winning drama, Blue Is the Warmest Colour , has been effectively banned in the US state of Idaho. Carole Skinner, owner of the Flicks theatre in Boise, said the cinema was unable to show the film because its
alcohol licence prohibits the screening of movies which feature acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law and any person being
touched, caressed or fondled on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals . Blue is the Warmest Colour, suffice to say, includes pretty much all of the above. I'm surprised that Idaho gets to see any movies at all beyond Despicable Me 2 .
Update: The film will play in Idaho after all 5th December 2013. See
article from
blogs.idahostatesman.com After the media drama, hand wringing and claims that it wouldn't open in Idaho anytime soon, NC-17 movie Blue is the Warmest Color will begin a run at Edwards 9 Cinemas in Downtown Boise on Friday. Sorry,
Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. No news here after all. The movie --- a French lesbian coming-of-age drama --- is the sort of art-house film that normally would be shown at The Flicks. But theater owner Carole Skinner does not book films rated
NC-17. Why? Because she sells alcohol at her multiplex. Idaho statute prohibits businesses that serve alcohol from showing films with sexually related material or pretty much any view of human naughty bits. It's a ridiculous, outdated statute. But
Idaho theaters aren't required to sell alcohol. Edwards 9 Cinemas, for example, is not handcuffed by the restriction. |
|
Californian State Assembly and Senate pass a bill targeting 'revenge porn'
|
|
|
| 2nd October 2013
|
|
| 13th September 2013. See article
from nbclosangeles.com See
California State bill [pdf] from leginfo.ca.gov
|
Lawmakers in California have passed a bill targeting the posting of so called revenge porn , when compromising pictures are posted after a relationship has broken up. The bill makes it a crime to post pictures of anyone in a state of full or
partial undress even if the picture was originally taken with that person's consent. But a crime would have only been committed if the pictures were posted with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and [that] the other person suffers
serious emotional distress . The bill reads: This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of another, identifiable person without with his or her consent who is
in a state of full or partial undress in any area in which the person being photographed or recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the other
person suffers serious emotional distress would constitute disorderly conduct subject to that same punishment.
Both the Senate and Assembly unanimously passed Senate Bill 255. It is now awaiting state governor, Jerry Brown, to sign it
into law. Brown has 30 days to sign the bill into law, though it's unclear if he will. Much of the bill stayed intact during its movement through the state legislature, with a single change. The final version of the bill does not cover selfies
but Senator. Anthony Cannella, author of the bill, will try to include selfies, in an update next year. Update: The state governor gives his consent 2nd October 2013. See
article from philly.com California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.
Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in
jail and a $1,000 fine. |
|
|