Palestine Airlines back to skies with statehood goal

May 28, 2012







Palestine Airlines back to skies with statehood goal.(HD).Palestinian Airlines is back in the skies after being grounded for seven years by deepening enmities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regional director of the airline said this is part of the independent state. On May 9, Palestinian Airlines, grounded since 2005, resumed operations, starting with biweekly flights between El-Arish and Marka Airbase in the Jordanian capital of Amman. The new route means residents of Gaza no longer have to travel to Cairo, some 350 kilometers away, to board flights. El-Arish is an Egyptian coastal resort in northern Sinai, about 60 kilometers from Gaza. “We have started with flights from Amman to El-Arish and from El-Arish to Amman,” Palestinian Airlines Director-General Zeyad Albad told Agence France-Presse. “We are going to have flights from El-Arish to Jeddah [Saudi Arabia] soon, and we are trying to set up some new routes to Turkey and the [United Arab] Emirates.The airline hopes it will eventually turn a profit, but for now national pride and making life easier for the Gazans are more important, said regional director Azmi Samaan. “We want the Palestinian flag to continue flying,” he said in an interview at Marka Airbase, according to the Associated Press. “This is part of the independent state, to have an airline, no matter what it will cost us.” The carrier is a tiny operation, with just two 48-seat turboprop planes, two weekly flights and a borrowed hub in Egypt. The 15-year-old airline’s fortunes have been closely tied to the quest for a Palestinian state.But the airline was forced to suspend operations from Gaza after Israel imposed restrictions on the airport and then rendered it unusable by tearing up its runways and bombing it in 2001.Hmmmmm….Thanks to US taxpayer money from Obama?Read the full story here.

Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood… What we now call Al Qaeda is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. How did the World Trade Center fall?


Palestine Airlines back to skies with statehood goal

May 28, 2012

Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood… What we now call Al Qaeda is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. How did the World Trade Center fall?

Palestine Airlines back to skies with statehood goal.(HD)(Other).Palestinian Airlines is back in the skies after being grounded for seven years by deepening enmities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regional director of the airline said this is part of the independent state. On May 9, Palestinian Airlines, grounded since 2005, resumed operations, starting with biweekly flights between El-Arish and Marka Airbase in the Jordanian capital of Amman. The new route means residents of Gaza no longer have to travel to Cairo, some 350 kilometers away, to board flights. El-Arish is an Egyptian coastal resort in northern Sinai, about 60 kilometers from Gaza. “We have started with flights from Amman to El-Arish and from El-Arish to Amman,” Palestinian Airlines Director-General Zeyad Albad told Agence France-Presse. “We are going to have flights from El-Arish to Jeddah [Saudi Arabia] soon, and we are trying to set up some new routes to Turkey and the [United Arab] Emirates.The airline hopes it will eventually turn a profit, but for now national pride and making life easier for the Gazans are more important, said regional director Azmi Samaan. “We want the Palestinian flag to continue flying,” he said in an interview at Marka Airbase, according to the Associated Press. “This is part of the independent state, to have an airline, no matter what it will cost us.” The carrier is a tiny operation, with just two 48-seat turboprop planes, two weekly flights and a borrowed hub in Egypt. The 15-year-old airline’s fortunes have been closely tied to the quest for a Palestinian state.But the airline was forced to suspend operations from Gaza after Israel imposed restrictions on the airport and then rendered it unusable by tearing up its runways and bombing it in 2001.Hmmmmm….Thanks to US taxpayer money from Obama?Read the full story here.


The New York Times and Janet Robinson’s $24 Million Exit Package

May 28, 2012

New York Magazine has a lengthy, fascinating – yes, even tantalizing, if, like me, you follow the business side of media and were once a NYT Co shareholder – article in the current issue on the inside process by which Janet Robinson, the ex-NYT Co CEO, was forced out in December 2011. Fired, however, with a goodbye kiss of almost $24 million, which, according to the article, was “nearly half the company’s profits in 2011.” Writer Joe Hagen says he interviewed more than 30 people “intimately familiar with different aspects” of the Times’ business, none of whom would talk for attribution – not surprising, but then leaving the reader in the position of essentially having to take the reporter on trust.

It’s a heck of a good read, and I suspect pretty much true overall, whatever quibbles other insiders might have over the details. Particularly so in its insider accounts of conflicts between the family members for whom the Times is a career, the family members for whom it is a trust fund, and the public shareholders (who, in keeping with the traditional but still peculiar newspaper ownership structure in America, have non-voting or reduced voting shares compared to the controlling family – the traditional structure at the NYT, the old LAT, the old WSJ, etc., though much altered now). As the article delicately describes the trust-fund family members, most of them “have admirable if low-wage jobs as academics, novelists, musicians, and psychotherapists, but the money [from NYT Co dividends] also funded second homes and hobbies such as underwater exploration.” Which is to say, without the dividends amounting to a trust fund, the extended family looks much like the lower tier of the New Class, which is suffering these days, and not the upper tier, which is doing fine, thanks very much.

Overall, however, the business prospects of the NYT Co. look to rest on whether it can make its digital paywall approach stick or not. I think that’s unclear, but I have divided views. On the one hand, I doubt the quality of reporting and product can be maintained without a digital subscription stream, otherwise it just dissolves into online media outlets cribbing each other for fewer and fewer tidbits of hard information with more and more cheap opinion enveloping it (if one thinks this describes the Times now, imagine a Times reporting the news from Syria as though it were Yahoo’s Your Tango – whatever one’s objections to the Times’ narrations, and I have many, things could be much, much worse). On the other hand, I’m not sure people are willing to pay for it online; I’m not sure there is a mass audience that, if put to the choice, actually cares that much – it would be convenient to say, that’s because they object to the Times’ content, but I doubt it’s that, I think people just don’t care about paying for news, period. The article notes that part of the internal shuffle involved a battle in which the former web development head, Martin Nisenholtz, fought for a free-digital model, and lost out to Robinson. She then lost out to elements of the family and to Sulzberger’s new girlfriend. Against the big picture of newspaper companies, the insider fight looks like this:

In the era of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., when newspapers have flailed under new digital realities, the New York Times Company has shrunk dramatically. Once it was a wide-ranging media empire of newspapers and TV stations and websites, and even a baseball team, that was worth almost $7 billion; today it’s essentially two struggling newspapers and a much-­reduced web company, all worth less than $1 billion (for comparison, consider that the Internet music company Pandora is valued at almost $2 billion) … Over time, there was less and less for Robinson, and [family insider executive] Michael Golden, to manage. It was inevitable, say veteran Times executives, current and former, that the two would come into conflict as their respective portfolios disappeared and the struggle for influence over the tinier island of the New York Times came to a head.

bullshit. people paid for content on paper. they will pay for it online if it’s worthy of their money. don’t give the Times any credit. My family would gladly want a subscription if their news could be trusted. There simply are too many other sources… and I trust a multitude of sources more then I trust one…. and… I believe I just stumbled on how profits will come. Do you remember those Columbia records you could get in the mail? People would pay for subscriptions if the media were bundled together. Or say like cable TV…. no one would of paid for just CNN… but bundle CNN’s biased reporting with a subscription to 100 other channels and there’s the business model. Something for everyone… even if you don’t like the media brown shirts…. and… oh shit… I really don’t want to help these narrow minded short sighted people.


The New York Times and Janet Robinson’s $24 Million Exit Package

May 28, 2012

Media companies will Cannibalize themselves like Palestinians.

(volokh.com)New York Magazine has a lengthy, fascinating – yes, even tantalizing, if, like me, you follow the business side of media and were once a NYT Co shareholder – article in the current issue on the inside process by which Janet Robinson, the ex-NYT Co CEO, was forced out in December 2011. Fired, however, with a goodbye kiss of almost $24 million, which, according to the article, was “nearly half the company’s profits in 2011.” Writer Joe Hagen says he interviewed more than 30 people “intimately familiar with different aspects” of the Times’ business, none of whom would talk for attribution – not surprising, but then leaving the reader in the position of essentially having to take the reporter on trust.
It’s a heck of a good read, and I suspect pretty much true overall, whatever quibbles other insiders might have over the details. Particularly so in its insider accounts of conflicts between the family members for whom the Times is a career, the family members for whom it is a trust fund, and the public shareholders (who, in keeping with the traditional but still peculiar newspaper ownership structure in America, have non-voting or reduced voting shares compared to the controlling family – the traditional structure at the NYT, the old LAT, the old WSJ, etc., though much altered now). As the article delicately describes the trust-fund family members, most of them “have admirable if low-wage jobs as academics, novelists, musicians, and psychotherapists, but the money [from NYT Co dividends] also funded second homes and hobbies such as underwater exploration.” Which is to say, without the dividends amounting to a trust fund, the extended family looks much like the lower tier of the New Class, which is suffering these days, and not the upper tier, which is doing fine, thanks very much.
Overall, however, the business prospects of the NYT Co. look to rest on whether it can make its digital paywall approach stick or not. I think that’s unclear, but I have divided views. On the one hand, I doubt the quality of reporting and product can be maintained without a digital subscription stream, otherwise it just dissolves into online media outlets cribbing each other for fewer and fewer tidbits of hard information with more and more cheap opinion enveloping it (if one thinks this describes the Times now, imagine a Times reporting the news from Syria as though it were Yahoo’s Your Tango – whatever one’s objections to the Times’ narrations, and I have many, things could be much, much worse). On the other hand, I’m not sure people are willing to pay for it online; I’m not sure there is a mass audience that, if put to the choice, actually cares that much – it would be convenient to say, that’s because they object to the Times’ content, but I doubt it’s that, I think people just don’t care about paying for news, period. The article notes that part of the internal shuffle involved a battle in which the former web development head, Martin Nisenholtz, fought for a free-digital model, and lost out to Robinson. She then lost out to elements of the family and to Sulzberger’s new girlfriend. Against the big picture of newspaper companies, the insider fight looks like this:

In the era of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., when newspapers have flailed under new digital realities, the New York Times Company has shrunk dramatically. Once it was a wide-ranging media empire of newspapers and TV stations and websites, and even a baseball team, that was worth almost $7 billion; today it’s essentially two struggling newspapers and a much-­reduced web company, all worth less than $1 billion (for comparison, consider that the Internet music company Pandora is valued at almost $2 billion) … Over time, there was less and less for Robinson, and [family insider executive] Michael Golden, to manage. It was inevitable, say veteran Times executives, current and former, that the two would come into conflict as their respective portfolios disappeared and the struggle for influence over the tinier island of the New York Times came to a head.

bullshit. people paid for content on paper. they will pay for it online if it’s worthy of their money. don’t give the Times any credit. My family would gladly want a subscription if their news could be trusted. There simply are too many other sources… and I trust a multitude of sources more then I trust one…. and… I believe I just stumbled on how profits will come. Do you remember those Columbia records you could get in the mail? People would pay for subscriptions if the media were bundled together. Or say like cable TV…. no one would of paid for just CNN… but bundle CNN’s biased reporting with a subscription to 100 other channels and there’s the business model. Something for everyone… even if you don’t like the media brown shirts…. and… oh shit… I really don’t want to help these narrow minded short sighted people.


Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered it up’ for years

May 28, 2012
Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn't know its software would collect the private information

Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn’t know its software would collect the private information

Google is facing an inquiry into claims that it deliberately harvested information from millions of UK home computers.

The Information Commissioner data protection watchdog is expected to examine the work of the internet giant’s Street View cars.

They downloaded emails, text messages, photographs and documents from wi-fi networks as they photographed virtually every British road.

It is two years since Google first admitted stealing fragments of personal data, but claimed it was a ‘mistake’.

Now the full scale of its activities has emerged amid accusations of a cover-up after US regulators found a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the information was being captured as its cars trawled the country but did nothing.

Around one in four home networks in the UK is thought to be unsecured – lacking password protection – allowing personal data to be collected. Technology websites and bloggers have suggested that Google harvested the information simply because it was able to do so and would later work out a way to use it to make money.

The slow reaction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to deal with the data theft is in direct contrast to the vigorous efforts of watchdogs in Germany, France and even the Czech Republic.

The fact that the Government was at the same time courting executives at Google opens up uncomfortable questions about its relationship with the company.

Last month a report by the US media regulator the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revealed that the Google programmer who wrote the Street View software repeatedly warned that it collected personal data, and called for a legal and privacy review.

Yesterday he was named as Marius Milner, 41, a British software engineer from Hove, East Sussex, who now lives in California. He has pleaded the fifth amendment against self-incrimination and refused to answer investigators’ questions.

how data was stolen.jpg

CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE THAT SLOWLY UNRAVELLED

OCTOBER 2006: Computer engineer Marius Milner devises software for Google Street View vans which captures private information from personal computers. He warns there are privacy implications and the company should consult lawyers.

MAY 2007: Google Street View launched in the US.

2008: Milner again warns two colleagues – including a senior manager – that personal data is being collected.

MARCH 2009: Street View launches in the UK.

EARLY 2010: UK data protection watchdog, the Information Commissioner (ICO) launches inquiry into Street View.

APRIL 27 2010: Google denies collecting information, only to admit a few days later: ‘We have been mistakenly collecting samples of data from open Wi-Fi networks … Quite simply, it was a mistake’.

OCTOBER 22 2010: Google admits: ‘In some instances entire emails were captured … as well as passwords.’

NOVEMBER 2010: ICO secures formal undertaking that Google will improve data protection compliance but concludes any collection of personal data was ‘inadvertent’.

JANUARY to SEPT 2011: Google refuses four times to co-operate with US Federal Communications Commission, before finally giving some key information such as names of employees who created Street View software.

APRIL 16 2012: Google fined £15,000 by FCC after it found the company ‘wilfully and repeatedly’ failed to help with its investigation.

APRIL 30 2012: FCC report finds that rather than being ‘a mistake’ Google’s software was ‘intended’ to harvest information from networks.

MAY 27 2012: ICO indicates inquiry into Street View’s harvested data.

Yesterday at the family home, his stepmother said: ‘He has always had a love of computers, even from an early age I think. He is a brilliant mind.

‘He got a degree from Trinity College, Cambridge. My husband is an elderly man. He is nearly 90 and he is rather distressed by this. We really don’t want to say any more.’

The report by the FCC attacked Google for inadequate oversight of Street View, and claimed it was planning to use the data collected for other internal projects.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s Office said it would examine what Google knew at the time and whether it breached the Data Protection Act.

But critics said the ICO was doing ‘too little, too late’, and pointed to its earlier report into Street View which concluded that any collection of personal data was ‘inadvertent’.

As Britain’s privacy watchdog was accused of being lily-livered in its handling of Google, regulators in the US and continental Europe confronted it head on.

In Germany Google was forced to stop filming for Street View owing to privacy concerns by Hamburg prosecutors, who opened a criminal investigation.

In France Google was fined £87,000 by the privacy regulator CNIL, the largest it had ever handed out.

In the Czech Republic Street View was banned in September 2010 after negotiations between Google and the authorities over privacy concerns failed.

A Tory MP said he would raise the issue of Google’s information gathering when Parliament reconvenes.

Robert Halfon said: ‘The FCC report seems to indicate that there is far more to it than an innocent mistake. Clearly what happened is unacceptable.

‘Google created the privatised surveillance society by hoovering up our emails and wifi data. Google has some serious questions to answer.’

Concern about links between the internet giant and the Government have emerged in recent weeks, with the Daily Mail revealing that Tory ministers have met Google executives an average of once every month since the General Election.

Google Street View swivels around Parliament Square looking towards Big Ben. The bank of personal data collected could have been used by Google to develop new products

Google Street View swivels around Parliament Square looking towards Big Ben. The bank of personal data collected could have been used by Google to develop new products

Earlier this month Google was fined £15,000 by the FCC after it found the company ¿wilfully and repeatedly¿ violated orders to hand over information it requested while investigating Street View.

Earlier this month Google was fined £15,000 by the FCC after it found the company ‘wilfully and repeatedly’ violated orders to hand over information it requested while investigating Street View

This week Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will face the Leveson Inquiry to face questions about his links to another multi-national company, News International.

His special adviser Adam Smith was forced to quit after text messages were published by the inquiry showing his closeness to a News International lobbyist. Mr Hunt has also faced repeated calls to quit.

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch said: ‘It appears Google deliberately and without remorse spied on people’s wi-fi networks and has now been caught trying to cover it up.

‘The continued thirst of big-data companies for personal information is a serious threat to privacy and all too often consumers find themselves without redress when their rights are compromised.’

Cameron and Hunt attend Google executive's wedding
Cameron and Hunt attend Google executive's wedding

Guests of the Google bride: Close links between Google and the Conservative Party were on display this weekend at the society wedding of senior Google executive Naomi Gummer. Miss Gummer, a former political secretary to Jeremy Hunt, married Henry Allsopp, 38, in an Oxfordshire ceremony attended by Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife Samantha, as well as the embattled Culture Secretary, who came with his wife and their two young children

Big day: Bride Naomi Gummer, 27, with her husband Henry Allsopp, who married in Chadlington, Oxfordshire this weekend

Big day: Bride Naomi Gummer, 27, with her husband Henry Allsopp, who married in Chadlington, Oxfordshire this weekend

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said: ‘We are currently studying the FCC report to consider what further action, if any, needs to be taken.

Google provided our office with a formal undertaking in November 2010 about their future conduct, following their failure in relation to the collection of wi-fi data by their Street View cars.

‘This included a provision for the ICO to audit Google’s privacy practices. The audit was published in August 2011 and we will be following up on it later this year, to ensure our recommendations have been put in place.’

Google spokesman Anthony House said: ‘We have always been clear that the leaders of this project did not want or intend to use this payload data. Indeed Google never used it in any of our products or services.

‘Both the Department of Justice and the FCC have looked into this closely – including reviewing the internal correspondence – and both found no violation of law.’

yeah… but try to download a movie illegally and these guys get pissed


Google deliberately stole information but executives ‘covered it up’ for years

May 28, 2012
Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn't know its software would collect the private information

(dailymail.co.uk) Google, pictured street-mapping in Bristol, has always claimed that it didn’t know its software would collect the private information

Google is facing an inquiry into claims that it deliberately harvested information from millions of UK home computers.
The Information Commissioner data protection watchdog is expected to examine the work of the internet giant’s Street View cars.
They downloaded emails, text messages, photographs and documents from wi-fi networks as they photographed virtually every British road.
It is two years since Google first admitted stealing fragments of personal data, but claimed it was a ‘mistake’.
Now the full scale of its activities has emerged amid accusations of a cover-up after US regulators found a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the information was being captured as its cars trawled the country but did nothing.
Around one in four home networks in the UK is thought to be unsecured – lacking password protection – allowing personal data to be collected. Technology websites and bloggers have suggested that Google harvested the information simply because it was able to do so and would later work out a way to use it to make money.
The slow reaction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to deal with the data theft is in direct contrast to the vigorous efforts of watchdogs in Germany, France and even the Czech Republic.
The fact that the Government was at the same time courting executives at Google opens up uncomfortable questions about its relationship with the company.

Last month a report by the US media regulator the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revealed that the Google programmer who wrote the Street View software repeatedly warned that it collected personal data, and called for a legal and privacy review.
Yesterday he was named as Marius Milner, 41, a British software engineer from Hove, East Sussex, who now lives in California. He has pleaded the fifth amendment against self-incrimination and refused to answer investigators’ questions.

how data was stolen.jpg

CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE THAT SLOWLY UNRAVELLED

OCTOBER 2006: Computer engineer Marius Milner devises software for Google Street View vans which captures private information from personal computers. He warns there are privacy implications and the company should consult lawyers.
MAY 2007: Google Street View launched in the US.

2008: Milner again warns two colleagues – including a senior manager – that personal data is being collected.

MARCH 2009: Street View launches in the UK.

EARLY 2010: UK data protection watchdog, the Information Commissioner (ICO) launches inquiry into Street View.

APRIL 27 2010: Google denies collecting information, only to admit a few days later: ‘We have been mistakenly collecting samples of data from open Wi-Fi networks … Quite simply, it was a mistake’.

OCTOBER 22 2010: Google admits: ‘In some instances entire emails were captured … as well as passwords.’

NOVEMBER 2010: ICO secures formal undertaking that Google will improve data protection compliance but concludes any collection of personal data was ‘inadvertent’.

JANUARY to SEPT 2011: Google refuses four times to co-operate with US Federal Communications Commission, before finally giving some key information such as names of employees who created Street View software.

APRIL 16 2012: Google fined £15,000 by FCC after it found the company ‘wilfully and repeatedly’ failed to help with its investigation.

APRIL 30 2012: FCC report finds that rather than being ‘a mistake’ Google’s software was ‘intended’ to harvest information from networks.

MAY 27 2012: ICO indicates inquiry into Street View’s harvested data.

Yesterday at the family home, his stepmother said: ‘He has always had a love of computers, even from an early age I think. He is a brilliant mind.
‘He got a degree from Trinity College, Cambridge. My husband is an elderly man. He is nearly 90 and he is rather distressed by this. We really don’t want to say any more.’
The report by the FCC attacked Google for inadequate oversight of Street View, and claimed it was planning to use the data collected for other internal projects.
A spokesman for the Information Commissioner’s Office said it would examine what Google knew at the time and whether it breached the Data Protection Act.
But critics said the ICO was doing ‘too little, too late’, and pointed to its earlier report into Street View which concluded that any collection of personal data was ‘inadvertent’.
As Britain’s privacy watchdog was accused of being lily-livered in its handling of Google, regulators in the US and continental Europe confronted it head on.
In Germany Google was forced to stop filming for Street View owing to privacy concerns by Hamburg prosecutors, who opened a criminal investigation.
In France Google was fined £87,000 by the privacy regulator CNIL, the largest it had ever handed out.
In the Czech Republic Street View was banned in September 2010 after negotiations between Google and the authorities over privacy concerns failed.
A Tory MP said he would raise the issue of Google’s information gathering when Parliament reconvenes.
Robert Halfon said: ‘The FCC report seems to indicate that there is far more to it than an innocent mistake. Clearly what happened is unacceptable.
‘Google created the privatised surveillance society by hoovering up our emails and wifi data. Google has some serious questions to answer.’
Concern about links between the internet giant and the Government have emerged in recent weeks, with the Daily Mail revealing that Tory ministers have met Google executives an average of once every month since the General Election.

Google Street View swivels around Parliament Square looking towards Big Ben. The bank of personal data collected could have been used by Google to develop new products

Google Street View swivels around Parliament Square looking towards Big Ben. The bank of personal data collected could have been used by Google to develop new products
Earlier this month Google was fined £15,000 by the FCC after it found the company ¿wilfully and repeatedly¿ violated orders to hand over information it requested while investigating Street View.

Earlier this month Google was fined £15,000 by the FCC after it found the company ‘wilfully and repeatedly’ violated orders to hand over information it requested while investigating Street View

This week Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt will face the Leveson Inquiry to face questions about his links to another multi-national company, News International.
His special adviser Adam Smith was forced to quit after text messages were published by the inquiry showing his closeness to a News International lobbyist. Mr Hunt has also faced repeated calls to quit.
Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch said: ‘It appears Google deliberately and without remorse spied on people’s wi-fi networks and has now been caught trying to cover it up.
‘The continued thirst of big-data companies for personal information is a serious threat to privacy and all too often consumers find themselves without redress when their rights are compromised.’

Cameron and Hunt attend Google executive's wedding
Cameron and Hunt attend Google executive's wedding
Guests of the Google bride: Close links between Google and the Conservative Party were on display this weekend at the society wedding of senior Google executive Naomi Gummer. Miss Gummer, a former political secretary to Jeremy Hunt, married Henry Allsopp, 38, in an Oxfordshire ceremony attended by Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife Samantha, as well as the embattled Culture Secretary, who came with his wife and their two young children
Big day: Bride Naomi Gummer, 27, with her husband Henry Allsopp, who married in Chadlington, Oxfordshire this weekend

Big day: Bride Naomi Gummer, 27, with her husband Henry Allsopp, who married in Chadlington, Oxfordshire this weekend

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said: ‘We are currently studying the FCC report to consider what further action, if any, needs to be taken.
Google provided our office with a formal undertaking in November 2010 about their future conduct, following their failure in relation to the collection of wi-fi data by their Street View cars.
‘This included a provision for the ICO to audit Google’s privacy practices. The audit was published in August 2011 and we will be following up on it later this year, to ensure our recommendations have been put in place.’
Google spokesman Anthony House said: ‘We have always been clear that the leaders of this project did not want or intend to use this payload data. Indeed Google never used it in any of our products or services.
‘Both the Department of Justice and the FCC have looked into this closely – including reviewing the internal correspondence – and both found no violation of law.’

yeah… but try to download a movie illegally and these guys get pissed


‘Our friends the Saudis’ ban use of English language and Gregorian calendar

May 28, 2012

(Carl)The Saudi government has banned the use of the Gregorian calendar in all official state and business dealings, according to a report in the local daily al-Watan. The Saudis have also banned government and private agencies and businesses from using the English language to answer phone calls or to communicate in general.

According to the report, all ministries and agencies must use only the Islamic calendar and the Arabic language.

Al Watan said the Saudi Interior Ministry believes that some ministries and agencies could “sometimes” use the Gregorian calendar when, for example, coordinating flight schedules with foreign airlines, but only on the condition that it is associated with the corresponding Hijri (Islamic) date.

Here is a useful calendar conversion chart for those of you planning to visit Saudi Arabia soon.(MORE)

I actually don’t have a problem with this if it were not for the fact that the Arabs project this behavior on the Jews in Israel. The Jews should be able to demand Hebrew, but guess what… they don’t