Showing posts with label web news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label web news. Show all posts

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Google Takeout from the Data Liberation Front

We believe you should be able to export your information from Google products when you want to. We have a special engineering team called the Data Liberation Front which has one goal – to make it easier for our users to move their data in and out of Google products.
That’s useful if you want to store a copy of your information on your own computer, or if you want to leave Google for another product and take your information to the new service. We’ve launched a data liberation tool called Google Takeout which makes it easier to move data in and out of Google products.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Blogger rolls out country-specific URLs


Google has begun to direct users that read blogs on its Blogger/Blogspot platform to country-specific URLs in an effort to prevent censorship laws from any one country affecting those that may not find the content objectionable.
After the changes roll out, visiting a blog at [blogname].blogspot.com will take the reader to a version for their own country. For example, blogs will redirect to [blogname].blogspot.com.au when visited by an Australian reader. What this means is that in the event that content is banned in a certain country, and Google is required to remove it, it will still be made available for readers in other countries.
"Content removals can be managed on a per-country basis, which will limit their impact to the smallest number of readers. Content removed due to a specific country's law will only be removed from the relevant ccTLD [country-code top-level domain]," Google's support pages read.
Google already has ccTLDs implemented for its search engine, which return results tailored to the user's location, and in some cases have been filtered to comply with local laws.
Similar to how users can opt to use the US version of Google search, users can view country-specific version of blogs by entering a special "no country redirect" (NCR) URL. For example, Australians can choose to view the US version of a blog by navigating to [blogname].blogspot.com/ncr. This sets a cookie in the user's browser to stop redirection to the default local version.
There is nothing to prevent users from picking a foreign version of a Blogger blog, and thus illegally viewing content in their country, but they may be prevented by other restrictions not imposed by Google. As an example, it is feasible that the Chinese government could use its own filter to block all access to Blogspot domains, except for those in the .cn ccTLD, effectively giving it better control over what blogs its citizens can view. Bloggers from within China, however, may be able to post locally illegal content to Blogger, which in turn would then be viewable by other countries that do not consider it to be illegal.
At the moment, Google logs each request for content removal in the Chilling Effects database to provide users with transparency over what content is in question, and who the complainant is. These have included blogs that link to pirated software.
So far, it appears that Australia is the only country that has the country-specific URLs implemented, and the complete roll-out is expected to take several months. The web giant will eventually have to deal with domain squatters, such as those that have bought up the Blogspot domain names for Malaysia and Belgium.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Twitter begins censoring tweets by country, when required by law

Twitter has confirmed that it will begin to censor tweets, if required by law, on a country by country basis. Until now the micro-blogging service has remained a free and open platform for millions of people worldwide, empowering its users to say and share whatever they like.
"The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact […] almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits," the company said in a statement on its blog.
Like all worldwide, borderless businesses though, Twitter is required to obey the laws of the countries it is in, so in order to comply they will begin censoring content published that falls foul of laws in individual countries, rather than on a global level.
For example, in countries like France and Germany, where pro-Nazi comments and celebration are against the law, Twitter will censor tweets containing pro-Nazi comments for micro-bloggers in those two countries, whilst still allowing those that do not ban it to view the tweets.
"One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user's voice," Twitter continued. "We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can, and we will be transparent with users when we can't. The Tweets must continue to flow."
The company said it would do its best to contact any users affected by the new censorship policy, and will clearly mark any tweets that have been censored. They have also extended their transparency through chillingeffects.org with a Twitter section on the site to make it easier for people to find legal notices and takedowns – currently it is mainly full of DMCA takedown requests, presumably we will begin to see tweets that are censored added to the site accompanied by the reasons they were blocked.
As one of the leaders of a free and open web, Twitter is likely to see considerable condemnation for taking this stance. It does however have little choice if it wants to avoid heavy lawsuits and government pressure the world over. Ultimately they hope to continue to allow the freedom that has enabled creativity to flow without breaking individual country’s laws.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Facebook shutting down March 15 (or April 1)



Facebook is closing down. The Roman Emperor of social networking is tired of it all. He is heading for pastures new. Oh, and you might never be able to get your photos (or your pokes) back.
Such was the story printed by the venerable Weekly World News in order to allay the boredom of standing in line at Albertson's.
The fateful day of Facebook's going away was said to be March 15, the Ides. The tides of sadness immediately crashed over the Web, as the hurt, the bewildered, the forlorn, and, no doubt, the Schadenfreunds of freunds lamented, jeered, and cheered.
With just a few clicks from the cities and the sticks, the twig of a rumor began to sprout a trunk.


"Hope it's not true, but if it is, we'll have to accept it," typed one Facebookian through tears of woe.

The reaction, no doubt, was fueled by the Weekly World News quoting Zuckerberg as saying: "Facebook has gotten out of control. And the stress of managing this company has ruined my life. I need to put an end to all the madness."

Yes, there really exist people who haven't seen "The Social Network."

Even IT security site Sophos, a sane mind in a frightening world, felt compelled to offer its own frisson of fright that such a thought had gained any traction at all on the Web.

Suddenly Wi-Fi became short for wild-fire as panic buttons were depressed and the depressed began to panic that their online friends would disappear into the cloud with no GPS home.

Many will, no doubt, opine that the spreading of such a rumor shows how gullible people can be and how much damage can be done through the Web's stunning immediacy.

Some, however, might consider that the greater sadness lies in the fact that people seem incapable of distinguishing not between rumor and fact, but between the Weekly World News and the National Enquirer.

Just because both are seen at supermarket checkouts doesn't mean both espouse the same principles of subterfuge.

The Weekly World News has long peddled tales of nonsense, such as the idea that George Clooney will run for president (he's not that silly), or that Michael Jackson faked his own death (he wasn't that devious).

The Enquirer, on the other hand, is the publication that revealed John Edwards' relationship with Rielle Hunter.

If people can't distinguish between these two similarly shaped publications, how can we expect them to distinguish between the rumor that Facebook is shutting down and the rumor that it's now worth $50 billion?