ecopolis

New microchipped passports designed to be foolproof against identity theft can be cloned and manipulated in minutes and accepted as genuine by the computer software recommended for use at international airports.

Tests for The Times exposed security flaws in the microchips introduced to protect against terrorism and organised crime. The flaws also undermine claims that 3,000 blank passports stolen last week were worthless because they could not be forged.

via Timesonline.

The discovery at a Cornish nightclub of a computer memory stick with details of troop movements on it is being probed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The USB stick, outlining training for 70 soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, Yorkshire Regiment, was found on the floor of The Beach in Newquay in May.

Times, locations and travel and accommodation details for the troops were included in files on the device.

The MoD said it would take appropriate action over the “regrettable incident”.

Seems that also digital hardware “want to be free”

Creative Commons announced the launch of a research study that will definy differences between commercial and noncommercial uses of content. The study will explore how the definitions of “commercial use” and “noncommercial use” are understood among various communities and in connection with a wide variety of content.

Eric Steuer, September 18th, 2008

San Francisco, California, USA — September 18, 2008

The nonprofit organization Creative Commons has launched a research study that will explore differences between commercial and noncommercial uses of content, as those uses are understood among various communities and in connection with a wide variety of content. Generous support for the study has been provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Creative Commons provides free copyright licenses to creators who want to give the public certain permissions to use their works, in advance and without the need for one-to-one contact between the user and the creator. “Noncommercial” or “NC” is one of four different license terms that creators may choose to apply to their Creative Commons-licensed content. Works distributed under a Creative Commons license including the NC term may be used by anyone for any purpose that is not “primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation,” provided the use also complies with the other terms of the license. Works distributed under a Creative Commons license without the NC term may additionally be used for commercial purposes, an option that promotes creative reuse in a broader range of contexts.

“The study has direct relevance to Creative Commons’ mission of providing free, flexible copyright licenses that are easy to understand and simple to use,” said Creative Commons CEO Joi Ito. “The NC term is a popular option for creators choosing a Creative Commons license, and that tells us the term meets a need. However, as exponentially increasing numbers of works are made available under CC licenses, we want to provide additional information for creators about the contexts in which the NC term may further or impede their intentions with respect to the works they choose to share, and we want to make sure that users clearly understand those intentions. We expect the study findings will help us do a better job of explaining the licenses and to improve them, where possible. We also hope the findings, which will be made publicly available, will contribute to better understanding of some of the complexities of digital distribution of content.”

Full original press release here.

Albert Hofmann (January 11, 1906 – April 29, 2008[1][2]) was a Swiss scientist best known for synthesizing lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). He was 102 years.
He hoped LSD could be used to treat mental illness, but it became a popular street drug in the 1960s. ‘Turn on, tune in, drop out’

The last few years have been hard on poor old television.

Viewership has fallen across the board as core audiences — guys aged 18 to 34 in particular – are abandoning the device that raised them, opting instead for game controllers and the internet. Meanwhile, those who have remained loyal to TV are failing to remain similarly loyal to the advertising that makes it profitable, increasingly choosing to get their tube fix via commercial-annihilating digital video recorders, advertising-light DVDs, and (horror of horrors) pirate downloads.

With viewers putting up blinders to the ad-program-ad rhythm of for-profit television, the desirability of conventional 30-second commercial spot is tanking. For the first time in decades, a number of key markets have witnessed decreases in the amount spent on traditional ads, as marketers demand the ever-elusive bigger bang with in-program product placements and full-on brand integration within storylines. The result: as much as 15 full minutes of every hour of programming in North America is now dedicated to thinly veiled product placements, with shows like American Idol topping out at over 4,000 placements per season — all of this in addition to the average of 14 to 22 minutes out of 60 still set aside for traditional spots.

Given televisions’ incredible shrinking credibility, especially in the case of broadcast journalism, it is little wonder that we have suffered through the ceaseless debate over whether we live under the thumb of a “liberal media” or a “conservative media.” Luckily, we can safely disregard the question of television’s political affiliation, since we are rapidly approaching a sort of McLuhan-esque implosion which will render the answer irrelevant. It’s that moment when the specifics of the rock ‘em sock ‘em, talking-head debates may be school massacres or missing pageant queens, but the message itself always remains the same. That message is television, an ingenious device for the capturing of eyeballs. Increasingly, this device is being pressed into the service of a singular purpose. While this purpose could hardly be called a philosophy in the proper sense, as a system of narrow values it does require the exclusion of dissonant ideas to efficiently function.

Adbusters began, in large part, as a product of outrage over just how destructive, self-serving, and at times downright insane the deliberate exclusions of this system have become. We’ve learned, for example, that the keepers of the airwaves will permit you to expose the perils of cardiovascular disease; you may not, however, tell the truth about a major advertiser’s fat-laden products. Similarly, you are allowed to tell kids to get more exercise, but you can’t tell them to turn off their TVs in order to do so. You may encourage women to ignore the images produced by the beauty industry and to feel good about their own bodies, no matter the shape or size — but only if you’re selling soap in the process. And, most gallingly, you can pay lip service to the urgency of tackling climate change, and yet you can’t challenge people to buy less stuff as a way to actually go for it.

But it’s possible that you don’t care. Maybe you gave up on television a long time ago. Maybe you don’t even own a TV set anymore. For your personal peace of mind, that was probably a good move; with an estimated 112 million television households in the United States alone, however, we ignore the stirrings of TV at our own peril. The last couple of decades have seen unprecedented levels of consolidation in the realm of mass media. Today, the movers and shakers of TV are the very same people and corporate entities who control the majority of newspapers, of radio stations, of book publishing, of outdoor advertising, of music distribution, of film production, and of your favorite social networking sites. The dirty tricks and the sleights of hand that are used to keep urgent, dissonant messages off the air aren’t in any way specific to that TV. They are the natural consequences of corporate rule, and they will be brought to bear whenever we are too distracted to stand in the way.

Not by accident, more and more people are doing just that — stepping up to join the ongoing battle against a media system that has left civil society out in the cold and in the dark, a media system that has been busily propagating itself at the expense of our social, cultural, political and environmental health. It’s a battle that Adbusters has proudly taken up with its ongoing lawsuit against CanWest, Canada’s biggest media conglomerate.

What’s at stake in this struggle is not just access, but the creation of a whole new media aesthetic: a messier one, more spontaneous and unpredictable, one that fosters participation and social relevance, a genuine engine for the positive change. If Adbusters’ lawsuit is a success, one of the first manifestations of this aesthetic will be a strange new mood – exciting, challenging, even slightly dangerous — every time you switch on the box in your living room, where previously there was only a moribund device completely sewn-up by private, for-profit interests. This strange new mood will prove once and for all that television (just like newspapers, magazines and radio before it, and just like the internet after it) has the capacity to perform services other than selling us on the idea of buying, services of vital importance to the health of our species and its democracies. And like with all exciting, challenging, and slightly dangerous new moods, we’re betting it will prove to be pretty damned infectious.

by Clayton Dach from Adbusters

On Monday, January 7th, the British Columbia Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether or not Adbusters’ lawsuit against Global Television, the CBC, and the CRTC, should go forward. If the Adbusters lawsuit clears this hurdle, media rights advocates will celebrate an important victory in the battle against censorship.

For more than a decade, Adbusters, a magazine and media foundation, has been trying to pay major commercial broadcasters to air its public-service TV spots, but these attempts have been routinely blocked by network executives, often with little or no explanation. In 2004, Adbusters finally turned to the courts. It filed a lawsuit against the government of Canada and some of the country’s biggest media barons, arguing that the public has a constitutionally protected freedom of expression over the public airwaves.

At issue is the right of all Canadian citizens to have (as stipulated by the Canadian Broadcasting Act) “a reasonable opportunity…to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.”

“This case will decide if Canadians have the right to walk into their local TV stations and buy thirty seconds of airtime for a message they want to air,” says Kalle Lasn, editor-in-chief of Adbusters.

Ryan Dalziel of Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP, who is representing Adbusters, explains the special nature of this suit.

“This is not,” he says, “a bare-knuckle family law dispute, nor is it a Bay Street-style war of attrition between commercial entities. It is public interest litigation, brought by a not-for-profit organization with no chance of any monetary return.”

Adbusters is hoping Canadians will pay close attention to a landmark case that pits ordinary citizens and consumers against powerful special interests. The outcome will determine the future role of television in Canada.

It’s known that trough mobile phone it’s easy to track a people, but their use is not as engaging as a Iphone, where the locability capabilities of mobile is combined with the operativity of computing. And so seems that some Iphone and Leopard application send personal data where they shouldn’t…

Xian Li on the Hackintosh Formu:

“One more thing…

I’ve noticed a strange thing.
I tried with an iPod Touch with Socks.app or Weather.app and when it is connecting to apple, it sends an IMEI.
How come is it possible ?
Is it sending its serial number or whatever number… ?”

Apple’s terms of service for the device seem to permit this type of behavior. “When you interact with Apple, we may collect personal information relevant to the situation, such as your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, and contact preferences; your credit card information and information about the Apple products you own, such as their serial numbers and date of purchase; and information relating to a support or service issue,” it reads.

The iPhone may not be the only Mac application acting this way. On Digg, one commenter discovered Leopard was doing something similar in certain applications like the Calculator application and about the Iphone the Socks.app or Weather.app send data like IMEI number, IP address, and preference information.

From October 26 to October 28, the “Oil of the 21st Century” conference will take place in Berlin.

“Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century” – this quote by Mark Getty, chairman of Getty Images, one of the world’s largest Intellectual Proprietors, offers a unique perspective on the current conflicts around copyrights, patents and trademarks. Not only does it open up the complete panorama of conceptual confusion that surrounds this relatively new and rather hallucinatory form of property – it must also be understood as a direct declaration of war.

The “War Against Piracy” – a preventive, permanent and increasingly panic-driven battle that defies the traditional logic of warfare – is only one of the many strange and contradictory crusades that currently take place at the new frontier of Intellectual Property. Under the banner of the “Information Society”, a cartel of corporate knowledge distributors struggle to maintain their exclusive right to the exploitation and commodification of the informational resources of the world. With their campaign for “Digital Rights Management”, the copyright industries attempt to simultaneously outlaw the Universal Computer, revoke the Internet and suspend the fundamental laws of information. Under the pretext of the “Creative Commons”, an emerging middle class of Intellectual Proprietors fights an uphill battle against the new and increasingly popular forms of networked production that threaten the regimes of individual authorship and legal control. And as it envisions itself drilling for “the oil of the 21st century”, the venture capital that fuels the quest for properties yet undiscovered has no choice but to extend the battlefield even further, far beyond the realm of the immaterial, deep into the world of machines, the human body, and the biosphere.

But while Intellectual Property struggles to conquer our hearts and minds, ideas still improve, and technology participates in the improvement. On all fronts, the enormous effort towards expropriation and privatization of public property is met with a strange kind of almost automatic resistance. If piracy – the spontaneously organized, massively distributed and not necessarily noble reappropriation and redistribution of the Commons – seems necessary today, then because technological progress implies it.

Technological progress – from the Printing Press to the BitTorrent protocol – is what essentially drives cultural development and social change, what makes it possible to share ideas, embrace expressions, improve inventions and correct the works of the past. Human history is the history of copying, and the entirely defensive and desperate attempt to stall its advancement by the means of Intellectual Property – the proposition to ressurect the dead as rights holders and turn the living into their licensees – only indicates how profoundly recent advancements in copying technology, the adaptability and scalability they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, are about to change the order of things. What lies at the core of the conflict is the emergence of new modes of subjectivation that escape the globally dominant mode of production. The spectre that is haunting Intellectual Proprietors world-wide is no longer just the much-lamented “death of the author”, but the becoming-producer and becoming-distributor of the capitalist consumer.

The world has irrevocably entered the age of digital reproduction, and it is time to revisit the questions that Walter Benjamin raised in the light of photography and film: how to reaffirm the positive potential and promise that lies in today’s means of reproduction, how to refuse the artificial scarcity that is being created as an attempt to contain the uncontrolled circulation of cultural commodities, how to resist the rhetoric of warfare that only articulates the discrepancy between the wealth of technical possibilites and the poverty of their use, and how to renew the people’s legitimate claim to copy, to be copied, and to change property relations.

In order to deconstruct – and to develop radically different perspectives on – the “oil of the 21st century”, there is an urgent need for approaches that provide fewer answers and more questions, produce less opinion and more curiosity. The coils of the serpent are even more complex than the burrows of the molehill, and the task is to trace, with the same bewilderement that befell Franz Kafka at the advent of the modern juridical bureaucracies, the monstruous, absurd and often outright hilarious legal procedures and protocols of the Intellectual Property Era.

A project by Bootlab, based on a concept by Partner gegen Berlin, produced in cooperation with Sarai, The Thing and Waag Society, and funded by the German Federal Cultural Foundation.