OpenWireless.org

The waters from Hurricane Sandy have rendered some telecommunications networks about as useful as the rudder on the Titanic. As city-dwellers have begun to seek an internet connection, finding a wifi hotspot has sometimes become almost as important as securing non-perishables and batteries for flashlights.

AllThingsD has collected a good deal of information on where to find wifi in areas where even strong cellphone signals may be in short supply:

In New York City, free Wi-Fi is usually available in city parks in partnership with AT&T, but since the parks are closed, and just getting close to one isn’t exactly a good idea right now what with the falling trees and all, that’s not much of an option.

There is a network of free and documented open Wi-Fi hotspots all over the city at NYCwireless.net, but the map appears not to be working. Instead I found a link to a PDF document that claims to be updated as of today, showing known hotspots around the city. Know this: Your mileage may vary.

Relevant to civic wireless needs, AllThingsD points out that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has just announced the Open Wireless Movement.

The website for the Open Wireless Movement is openwireless.org. The Open Wireless Movement wants to see a world where we can find the following in "any urban environment":

• Dozens of open networks are available at your fingertips.
• Tablets, watches, and other new devices can automatically join these networks to do nifty things.
• The societal expectation is one of sharing, and, as a result, wireless Internet is more efficient.
• The false notion that an IP address could be used as a sole identifier is finally a thing of the past, creating a privacy-enhancing norm of shared networks.

AllThingsD also noted that Boingo Wireless has a “Free AOL Wifi” deal in conjunction with–obviously–AOL, which will last all day Wednesday.

(Photo: Game Informer)

The Oatmeal is finally free of Charles Carreon's bizarre legal machinations. Mr. Carreon decided to drop his case against Matthew Inman, who apparently was represented by the EFF. Everything about this was weird. [EFF]

Porn producers are all about Project Glass. We're sure you can guess why. [PC Mag]

Apple is reportedly planning to debut a smaller, cheaper iPad--terrible news for the Nexus 7. [Bloomberg]

Kim Dotcom has a grudge against vice president Joe Biden. [TorrentFreak]

Airport security apparently stole the Nexus Q used at Google I/O. [Dan Ellis]

Mr. Lynch (blogs.technet.com)

We're pretty sure that the vast majority of Betabeat users not only don't use Internet Explorer, but also passionately despise it. But we'll give props when props are due, and despite Microsoft's one out of four star rating from the EFF on privacy, the company now appears to be taking a stronger stand on the issue.

Microsoft announced on its blog yesterday that Mozilla's Do Not Track feature would be automatically implemented within all copies of Internet Explorer 10. The move, Microsoft says, will empower users to make more informed decisions about the way third parties handle their data.

According to Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer:

We believe that consumers should have more control over how information about their online behavior is tracked, shared and used. Online advertising is an important part of the economy supporting publishers and content owners and helping businesses of all shapes and sizes to go to market....Of course, we hope that many consumers will see this value and make a conscious choice to share information in order to receive more personalized ad content. For us, that is the key distinction.

Unsurprisingly, advertising companies are in a tizzy about the decision--particularly the Digital Advertising Alliance, of which Microsoft is a member. Enabling Do Not Track cripples the industry's ability to serve highly-tailored ads based on a user's web activity. Stu Ingis, general counsel of the alliance, told the Wall Street Journal "that the industry supports 'consumer choice, not a choice made by one browser or technology vendor.'"

Of course, Mr. Ingis missed the point: Customers should be allowed to choose to opt in, not be forced to opt out.

(eff.org)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is continuing its fight for the rights of Internet users with its recently published annual study of the privacy policies of top Internet companies. The EFF ranked 18 major Internet companies based on four standards: their openness with data demands, transparency regarding government requests, whether or not they fight in court for users' privacy requests and whether or not they do so in Congress.

According to the EFF:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation examined the policies of 18 major Internet companies — including email providers, ISPs, cloud storage providers, and social networking sites — to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. We looked at their terms of service, privacy policies, and published law enforcement guides, if any. We also examined their track record of fighting for user privacy in the courts and whether they’re members of the Digital Due Process coalition, which works to improve outdated communications law. Finally, we contacted each of the companies with our conclusions and gave them an opportunity to respond and provide us evidence of improved policies and practices.

Unsurprisingly, Twitter scored 3.5 stars out of 4, one of the highest scores on the list, in part because of the company's affinity for Mozilla's Do Not Track feature, as well as its refusal to hand over user data without a warrant.

But Sonic.net, a small California-based ISP that uses bonded DSL to deliver high-speed Internet, topped the list with a full four out of four stars. This reporter used Sonic back in San Francisco, and while the connectivity was occasionally spotty (mostly due to our apartment's location), they were always extremely helpful and forthright about service and usage issues.

Also interesting to note is the fact that the little New York startup that could, Foursquare, apparently doesn't care about your privacy: it scored zero stars in EFF's study. Chew on that next time you decide to check in any place sketchy.

(Image via buzzfeed.com)

Slick hot-tub dwelling playboy and Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom is currently out on bail awaiting an extradition hearing in August, much to the chagrin of the FBI. But despite the slew of piracy-loving groupies attempting to nab a piece of that sweet, sweet billionaire tail, Dotcom has his sights set on more noble ventures: stopping the federal government from deleting all Megaupload user data.

Dotcom told TorrentFreak that his legal team is in negotiations with the Department of Justice "to allow all Mega users to retrieve their data." The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also taken up the cause, launching the website MegaRetrieval. “When the United States Government shut down access to Megaupload, a multitude of innocent users who stored legitimate, non-infringing files on the cloud-storage service were left with no means to access their data,” reads the site. And according to Dotcom, some of those users—innocent or not—may actually be government officials.

“Guess what – we found a large number of Mega accounts from US Government officials including the Department of Justice and the US Senate,” Dotcom told TorrentFreak. Though no visible smirk was reported, we can just feel it emanating through that statement.

As The Register pointed out, the government will most likely claim that the Megaupload accounts are for "research purposes," much like how men read Playboy "for the articles."

Dotcom continued, “I hope we will soon have permission to give them and the rest of our users access to their files.”

He then climbed upon one of his large giraffe statues and rode smugly into the sunset, his ankle bracelet beeping wildly.

Well, you should be!

In the ongoing quest to end the vile practice of illegally downloading music and movies, Congress is considering new legislation, SOPA, or Stop Online Piracy Act. But according to the EFF, the new law would allow for domain takedowns and eliminate the DMCA safe harbor, radically shifting the level of enforcement possible. 

Corynne McSherry at the EFF writes:

As with its Senate-side evil sister, PROTECT-IP, SOPA would require service providers to “disappear” certain websites, endangering Internet security and sending a troubling message to the world: it’s okay to interfere with the Internet, even effectively blacklisting entire domains, as long as you do it in the name of IP enforcement. Of course blacklisting entire domains can mean turning off thousands of underlying websites that may have done nothing wrong.  And in what has to be an ironic touch, the very first clause of SOPA states that it shall not be “construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech.” As if that little recitation could prevent the obvious constitutional problem in what the statute actually does.

SOPA would also up the pressure on service providers to police everything that they host or support. With large scale web platforms like YouTube or Tumblr, this is an increasingly massive and expensive task. Google also has to take into account the political implications of takedown notices, for example when it gets requests from law enforcement agencies to remove videos of police brutality.

Creating the ability to blacklist sites has frightening possibilities for future censorship. As Ms. McSherry writes, "The bill also requires that search engines, payment providers (such as credit card companies and PayPal), and advertising services join in the fun in shutting down entire websites. In fact, the bill seems mainly aimed at creating an end-run around the DMCA safe harbors. Instead of complying with the DMCA, a copyright owner may now be able to use these new provisions to effectively shut down a site by cutting off access to its domain name, its search engine hits, its ads, and its other financing even if the safe harbors would apply."

The great irony of course, is that the DMCA safe harbor hasn't prevented innovative companies from finding success streaming video and music. In fact studies show that piracy is countered most effectively by providing consumers with a compelling paid alternative, like Spotify or Hulu. And experts believe that the new legislation will actually make the internet less safe and less stable, by interfering at the DNS level.

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.