Donate Organs with Facebook

It seems that Facebook isn’t content with just harvesting information, and is currently looking into harvesting your organs. For real.

Actually, it’s not that fatal. Mark Zuckerberg is just planning to enable an option for Internet users to register as an organ donor via his social network. Thus far it seems to be entirely optional, and the experts failed to get alerted to anything in the Terms and Conditions about signing away access to your kidneys.
The NHS' Blood and Transplant wing informs that around 10,000 people in the United Kingdom are waiting for a new organ. The thing is that although having an organ donor card means your ex vitals are legally up for grabs, in case of your family being too distraught at the idea the hospitals won’t proceed. However, the NHS believes that if you make it completely clear that you want your organs donated, your family is much more likely to consent.
The NHS told the press that only 50% of registered organ donors informed their families about their intention to donate their organs after death – and so the new registration process will be another way to bring in donations.
According to the NHS Blood and Transplant group’s director, Sally Johnson, Facebook could become a great way to get users talking about turning their bodies into carveries after they croak. Sally Johnson explained that the group really needs more people to sign up, so the Facebook campaign is a really exciting new way to make it as quick and easy as it only could be.
The largest social network in the world hopes to start such schemes in many other regions, but thus far it only has plans in the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands.

Google Failed to Reduce Search Dependence

The world-wide known search engine Google had a 5-year plan intended to reduce its dependence on search revenue to 65% by next year. Which, apparently, didn’t work right. According to the local media reports, this figure appeared in the paperwork related to the Google vs. Oracle trial and showed that in fact Google was off its targets by many miles. The plan saw the company receiving over 35% of its 2013 revenue from outside its search operation. That’s what Google wanted to reach back in 2010.

It seems that Internet commerce and an initiative to bring Google services to TV were on the list of things Google was going to shift to. After the experts saw the paper, they most likely laughed and assumed that Google TV and commerce ambitions didn’t really happen. According to Herman Leung, Susquehanna Financial Group analyst, two years ago Google was a little more aggressive than it is now.

Actually, the projections for the company’s different businesses were part of a presentation to Google’s board of directors two years ago. The search giant tried to convince American District Judge William Alsup to keep the papers secret, saying they were commercially sensitive. At the same time, making the company look silly over failing to meet its goals doesn’t count as “commercially sensitive” to the judge. Jim Prosser, a spokesman for the company, claimed that the papers didn’t represent current thinking about its business operations, but he forgot to say why it was so important to have this data suppressed.

The paper also reveals how Google sees an emerging threat from cooperation between the largest social network in the world, Facebook, and Microsoft’s Bing search engine. Google was worried that Facebook-Bing users might bypass it. Meanwhile, its own YouTube business was estimated to generate $5 billion by 2013, due to a $3 billion contribution from its own TV project, which actually never happened.

২০ বছর পূর্ণ করলো এসএমএস

চলতি বছরেই মোবাইলের মাধ্যমে কোনো ইন্টারনেট সংযোগ ছাড়াই লিখিত যোগাযোগের সবচেয়ে জনপ্রিয় মাধ্যম টেক্সট মেসেজিং বা এসএমএস-এর ২০ বছর পূর্ণ হয়েছে। খবর গার্ডিয়ান-এর।

সূত্র জানিয়েছে, বিশ্বের তিনভাগের দুইভাগ মানুষেরই রয়েছে এই এসএমএস, যার পূর্ণরূপ হচ্ছে শর্ট মেসেজ সার্ভিস বা টেক্সট মেসেজিং-এর সুবিধা। অর্থাৎ, প্রায় ৪০০ কোটি মানুষ এই এসএমএস সেবা উপভোগ করেন। এই বিপুল পরিমাণ মানুষের প্রযুক্তিটি ব্যবহারের অন্যতম কারণ হচ্ছে, সবচেয়ে কমদামের নড়বড়ে মোবাইল ফোনেও এসএমএস-এর সুবিধা থাকে।

গার্ডিয়ান দাবি করেছে, প্রযুক্তির স্বর্গরাজ্য সিলিকন ভ্যালিতে এ পর্যন্ত যতো প্রযুক্তির উদ্ভব হয়েছে, এসএমএস-এর কাছে সেগুলো কিছুই না। তার চেয়ে মজার বিষয় হলো, এসএমএস-এর উদ্ভাবনও সিলিকন ভ্যালিতে নয়। ১৯৮২ সালে ইউরোপিয়ান টেলিফোনি কনফারেন্সে জিএসএম প্রযুক্তি চালুর সিদ্ধান্ত নেয়া হয়। এ জন্য প্যারিসে কিছু ইঞ্জিনিয়ারকেও নিয়োগ দেয়া হয় সে সময়।

এর পাঁচ বছর পর ১৩টি ইউরোপীয় দেশ, মোবাইল ফোন যোগাযোগের জন্য জিএসএম প্রযুক্তিকে সাধারণ মোবাইল টেলিফোন সিস্টেম হিসেবে চালু করতে এক চুক্তিপত্রে স্বাক্ষর করে। প্রথম জিএসএম প্রযুক্তির নেটওয়ার্কে ফোন কলটি করেন ১৯৯১ সালে তৎকালীন ফিনিশ প্রধানমন্ত্রী। পরবর্তীতে প্রথম জিএসএম প্রযুক্তির মোবাইল ফোন বিক্রির জন্য অনুমোদিত হয় ১৯৯২ সালে। ধীরে ধীরে এটি বিশ্বব্যাপী মোবাইল ফোন যোগাযোগের সর্ববৃহৎ নেটওয়ার্ক হিসেবে গড়ে ওঠে।

জিএসএম প্রযুক্তি তৈরির সময়ই এসএমএস-এর ধারণার উদ্ভব এবং টেলিফোন সিগনালের মধ্য দিয়ে বার্তা পাঠানোর জন্য প্রযুক্তিটি তৈরি হয়। এর একমাত্র সীমাবদ্ধতা থাকে এই যে, এটি ১৬০টি অক্ষর বা বর্ণের বেশি ডেটা ধারণ করতে পারে না। তবে এই সীমাবদ্ধতা থাকলেও সাম্প্রতিক সময়ে এসএমএস টেক্সট মেসেজিং যোগাযোগের অন্যতম জনপ্রিয় মাধ্যম বলেই জানিয়েছে গার্ডিয়ান।

মিথ্যাচারের জন্য ক্ষমা চাইলেন ইয়াহুর প্রধান নির্বাহী

অবশেষে নিজের ভুল স্বীকার করে ক্ষমা চাইলেন ইয়াহুর প্রধান নির্বাহী স্কট থম্পসন। জীবনবৃত্তান্তে নিজের শিক্ষাগত যোগ্যতা সম্পর্কে মিথ্যাচারের অভিযোগ তুলে কয়েকজন শেয়ার হোল্ডার ৭ মে এর মধ্যে থম্পসনের পদত্যাগ দাবি করলে তিনি ভুল তথ্য দেয়ার কথা স্বীকার করে ক্ষমা চেয়েছেন। তবে তার পদত্যাগের ব্যাপারে কোন সিদ্ধান্ত হয়নি।

ইয়াহুর প্রধান নির্বাহী স্কট থম্পসন

শেয়ারহোল্ডারদের অভিযোগের প্রেক্ষিতে ইয়াহু পরিচালনা পর্ষদের মুখোমুখি হন থম্পসন। সেখানে তিনি তার বিরুদ্ধে ওঠা অভিযোগের ব্যাপারে নিজের বক্তব্য দেন। তবে কেন তিনি তার স্নাতক ডিগ্রি নিয়ে মিথ্যাচার করেছেন তা পরিচালনা পর্ষদের পক্ষ থেকে জনসম্মুখে প্রকাশ করা হয়নি।

গণমাধ্যমকে দেয়া লিখিত চিঠিতে থম্পসন উল্লেখ করেন, ‘আমরা সবাই কঠোর পরিশ্রম করে চলেছি প্রতিষ্ঠানটিকে সামনের দিকে এগিয়ে নিতে। কিন্তু এধরনের কর্মকাণ্ড আমাদের অগ্রগতিতে বাধার সৃষ্টি করছে। তাই আমি ব্যাপারটি নিয়ে আর জটিলতা সৃষ্টি করতে চাইনা। আমি আমার ভুল স্বীকার করে নিচ্ছি, ব্যাপারটি যেন এখানেই শেষ হয়’।

এবার আসবে আইফোন ৫

সম্প্রতি জানা গেছে, অ্যাপলের সাম্প্রতিক এক অভিযোগ অনুসারে ধারণা করা হচ্ছে, আইফোনের পরবর্তী সংস্করণের নাম আইফোন ৫-ই হবে। এর আগেই আইফোন ৫ বের করা হবে বলে ধারণা করা হলেও সিইও টিম কুক ঘোষণা করেছিলেন আইফোন ৪এস-এর। খবর ম্যাশএবল-এর।

সূত্র জানিয়েছে, আইফোন৫ ডটকম নামের একটি ওয়েবসাইট বন্ধ করার জন্য অ্যাপল ওয়ার্ল্ড ইনটেলেকচুয়াল প্রোপার্টি অর্গানাইজেশনের কাছে দাবি জানিয়েছে। এতে করে অ্যাপলের পণ্য আইফোন-এর নামে রেজিস্ট্রেশন করা এই ডোমেইনের মালিকানা অ্যাপলের হাতে চলে যেতে পারে।

২০০৮ সালে অস্ট্রেলিয়ার রেজিস্ট্রারের মাধ্যমে নিবন্ধন করা আইফোন৫ ডটকম সাইটে মূলত আইফোন নিয়ে বিভিন্ন আলোচনা করা হয়। এক পোস্টে এর এক ব্যবহারকারী দাবি করেছেন, তারা এই সাইট বন্ধের বিরোধিতা করবেন।

তবে ডোমেইনের মালিকানা অ্যাপলের হাতে যাক বা না যাক, এই ঘটনার মধ্য দিয়ে পরবর্তী আইফোনের নাম আইফোন ৫ হবে, এই ধারণা আরও পাকাপোক্ত হয়েছে ব্লগার ও প্রযুক্তিবিদদের মাঝে।

ফেইসবুকে সবার ওপর নজরদারি করতে চায় এফবিআই

সম্প্রতি মার্কিন গোয়েন্দা সংস্থা এফবিআই জানিয়েছে, তারা ফেইসবুকের মতো সোশাল নেটওয়ার্কে সন্দেহভাজনের ওপর নজর রাখতে ও তথ্য পেতে দ্রুততর কোনো রাস্তা খুঁজছে। খবর ম্যাশএবল-এর।

এদিকে সিনেট এক প্রতিবেদনে বলেছে, উচ্চপদস্থ এফবিআই ও সরকারি কর্মকর্তারা বিভিন্ন ইন্টারনেট ইন্ডাস্ট্রি লিডারদের সঙ্গে দেখা করে নতুন এক প্রস্তাবিত আইনের বিরোধিতা না করার জন্য অনুরোধ করছেন। সূত্র জানিয়েছে, ওই আইন অনুযায়ী এফবিআই সহজেই তাদের সন্দেহভাজনের ব্যাপারে যাবতীয় তথ্য পেতে পারবে এবং তাদের অনলাইন কর্মকাণ্ডে নজর রাখতে পারবে।

এফবিআই বলছে, যোগাযোগ প্রযুক্তি ইন্টারনেটভিত্তিক হয়ে পড়ায় ফোনে ওয়্যারটেপের মাধ্যমে আড়ি পাতার মতো পুরনো পদ্ধতি আর চলছে না। তাই নতুন এই আইন পাস হলে সোশাল নেটওয়ার্কগুলোকে তাদের সাইটের কোড পরিবর্তন করতে হবে যাতে এফবিআই যে কারো সব কর্মকাণ্ড ও যোগাযোগ মাধ্যমের ওপর নজর রাখতে পারে। ম্যাশএবল জানিয়েছে, আইন পাস হলে ভিওআইপি, ইনস্ট্যান্ট মেসেজিং (চ্যাট) এবং ইমেইলের ওপর নজর রাখা সম্ভব হবে।

কপিরাইট ভাঙ্গার মামলায় পড়লো গুগল

সম্প্রতি জানা গেছে, কপিরাইট ভঙ্গের অভিযোগে গুগলকে দোষী সাব্যস্ত করেছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের এক আদালত। জানা গেছে, ওরাকলের প্রোগ্রামিং ল্যাঙ্গুয়েজ জাভার কপিরাইট আইন ভঙ্গ করেছে তারা। খবর বিবিসির।

সূত্র জানিয়েছে, ১০০ কোটি ডলার ক্ষতিপূরণের দাবি করেছে ওরাকল, যা প্রযুক্তির ইতিহাসে সবচেয়ে বড় অঙ্কের মামলা বলে মন্তব্য করেছে বিবিসি।

স্যান ফ্রান্সিসকোর আদালত সূত্রে বিবিসি জানিয়েছে, গুগলের জনপ্রিয় মোবাইল অপারেটিং সিস্টেম অ্যান্ড্রয়েডে ৯ লাইন জাভা কোড রয়েছে যার মালিক আসলে ওরাকল। তবে গুগল একে ভুল বিচার করা হয়েছে বলে মন্তব্য করেছে এবং এজন্য উচ্চতর আদালতে আবেদন করেছে।

Pirate Bay Enjoys 12 Million Traffic Boost, Shares Unblocking Tips

Last week the UK High Court ruled that several of the country’s leading ISPs must block subscriber access to The Pirate Bay. The decision is designed to limit traffic to the world’s leading BitTorrent site but in the short-term it had the opposite effect. Yesterday, The Pirate Bay had 12 million more visitors than it has ever had, providing a golden opportunity to educate users on how to circumvent blocks. “We should write a thank you letter to the BPI,” a site insider told TorrentFreak.

Last Friday the UK High Court ruled that several of country’s leading ISPs must censor The Pirate Bay website having ruled in February that the site and its users breach copyright on a grand scale.

The blocks – to be implemented by Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media (BT are still considering their position) – are designed to cut off all but the most determined file-sharers from the world’s most popular torrent site.

On hearing the news a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak that the measure will do very little to stop people accessing the site and predicted that “the free advertising” would only increase traffic levels.

It’s not possible to buy advertising “articles” from leading UK publications such as the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, but yesterday The Pirate Bay news was spread across all of them and dozens beside, for free. The news was repeated around the UK, across Europe and around the world reaching millions of people. The results for the site were dramatic.

“Thanks to the High Court and the fact that the news was on the BBC, we had 12 MILLION more visitors yesterday than we had ever had before,” a Pirate Bay insider informed TorrentFreak today.

“We should write a thank you note to the BPI,” he added.

The blockade, which was not contested by any of the ISPs listed above, will be implemented during the course of the next few weeks. While that time counts down, The Pirate Bay say they are viewing the interim period as an opportunity to educate site visitors on how to deal with censorship by bypassing it.

“Another thing that’s good with the traffic surge is that we now have time to teach even more people how to circumvent Internet censorship,” the insider added.

In court papers released today, Mr Justice Arnold said that since the terms of the court order (how the blocks would be implemented technically) had been agreed to by the ISPs in question, there was no need for him to detail them in his ruling. However, The Pirate Bay told us that by taking a range of measures, any blocking technique employed by any ISP can be overcome.

First off they advise that the most simple solution is to use a VPN, such as iPredator or other similar services that carry no logs.

These VPN providers cost money but there are free solutions too. Companies such asVPNReactor offer a free service that is time limited to around 30 mins per session, but that’s plenty of time for users to get on Pirate Bay and download the torrent files they need. Once users have the torrents in their client, the blocking has been bypassed and even with the VPN turned off, downloads will still complete.

Pirate Bay are also recommending the use of TOR but only for the initial accessing of their website and the downloading of the .torrent files. Torrent clients themselves should never be run over TOR, the system isn’t designed for it and besides, transfers will be pitifully slow. TPB also point to I2P as a further unblocking option.

While the above options will cut straight through any kind of blocking with zero problems, Pirate Bay are also advising people to change their DNS provider. By permanently switching to a DNS offered by the likes of OpenDNS and Google, users of UK ISPs that censor The Pirate Bay purely by DNS will have a free and effective work around.

As readers will recall, there are other simple unblocking solutions where domain names are blocked by ISPs but their related IP addresses remain unfiltered. These include theMAFIAAFire plugin and the simple action of typing a site’s IP address directly into a browser. However, in this UK case there is a problem with these solutions.

According to court papers made available today, it seems that on the advice of an expert and after being agreed to by the ISPs in question, IP address blocking of The Pirate Bay is now part of the injunction. This means that the techniques in the above paragraph simply won’t work.

To circumvent this kind of problem, The Pirate Bay can be accessed via a 3rd party – a so-called ‘proxy’. One of these purely for the job is being operated by the UK Pirate Party.

Quite how long this particular proxy stays up remains to be seen though. The Dutch Pirates tried a similar thing and were quickly pursued by rights holders. Nevertheless, there are countless free proxies online that can do the job just as well.

In just a few weeks the block of The Pirate Bay will be implemented and despite all the coverage and millions of extra visitors to the site, thousands of users will remain unprepared. Those patient enough to type a question into a search engine will regain access to the site in a few minutes.

But will the impatient start pumping more money into the pockets of the BPI? That’s the big question.

Update: Virgin Media just started blocking The Pirate Bay.

Blocked

Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

A landmark ruling in one of the many mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US has delivered a severe blow to a thus far lucrative business. Among other things, New York Judge Gary Brown explains in great detail why an IP-address is not sufficient evidence to identify copyright infringers. According to the Judge this lack of specific evidence means that many alleged BitTorrent pirates have been wrongfully accused by copyright holders.

Mass-BitTorrent lawsuits have been dragging on for more than two years in the US, involving more than a quarter million alleged downloaders.

The copyright holders who start these cases generally provide nothing more than an IP-address as evidence. They then ask the courts to grant a subpoena, allowing them to ask Internet providers for the personal details of the alleged offenders.

The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person.

Previous judges who handled BitTorrent cases have made observations along these lines, but none have been as detailed as New York Magistrate Judge Gary Brown was in a recent order.

In his recommendation order the Judge labels mass-BitTorrent lawsuits a “waste of judicial resources.” For a variety of reasons he recommends other judges to reject similar cases in the future.

One of the arguments discussed in detail is the copyright holders’ claim that IP-addresses can identify the alleged infringers. According to Judge Brown this claim is very weak.

“The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,” he writes.

“An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”

“Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function – here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film – than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.”

The Judge continues by arguing that having an IP-address as evidence is even weaker than a telephone number, as the majority of US homes have a wireless network nowadays. This means that many people, including complete strangers if one has an open network, can use the same IP-address simultaneously.

“While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of US homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals,” Judge Brown writes.

“Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff’s film.”

Judge Brown explains that the widespread use of wireless networks makes a significant difference in cases against file-sharers. He refers to an old RIAA case of nearly a decade ago where the alleged infringer was located at a University, on a wired connection offering hundreds to tracks in a shared folder. The Judge points out that nowadays it is much harder to pinpoint specific infringers.

Brown also cites various other judges who’ve made comments on the IP-address issue. InSBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036 for example, the court noted:

“By defining Doe Defendants as ISP subscribers who were assigned certain IP addresses, instead of the actual Internet users who allegedly engaged in infringing activity, Plaintiff’s sought-after discovery has the potential to draw numerous innocent internet users into the litigation, placing a burden upon them that weighs against allowing the discovery as designed.”

Judge Brown concludes that in these and other mass-BitTorrent lawsuits it is simply unknown whether the person linked to the IP-address has anything to do with the alleged copyright infringements.

“Although the complaints state that IP addresses are assigned to ‘devices’ and thus by discovering the individual associated with that IP address will reveal ‘defendants’ true identity,’ this is unlikely to be the case,” he concludes.

In other words, the copyright holders in these cases have wrongfully accused dozens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands of people.

Aside from effectively shutting down all mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the Eastern District of New York, the order is a great reference for other judges dealing with similar cases. Suing BitTorrent users is fine, especially one at a time, but with proper evidence and not by abusing and misleading the courts.

The Avengers: Why Pirates Failed To Prevent A Box Office Record

Despite the widespread availability of pirated releases, The Avengers just scored a record-breaking $200 million opening weekend at the box office. While some are baffled to see that piracy failed to crush the movie’s profits, it’s really not that surprising. Claiming a camcorded copy of a movie seriously impacts box office attendance is the same as arguing that concert bootlegs stop people from seeing artists on stage.

A week before its premiere in US movie theaters, a camcorded version of The Avengers appeared online.

Immediately thousands of fans jumped on the release and according to figures collated by TorrentFreak, in the days that followed it was downloaded half a million times. While this may very well be a record for a “CAM” movie, it failed to exceed the download numbers of several other movies that were available in higher quality.

Record or not, the movie’s distributer Disney must have been terrified by this early release. However, this weekend the suits at the studio were able to breathe a sign of relief, or rather, start popping open the Champagne.

With more than $200 million in box office revenue, The Avengers had the most successful first weekend in movie history. It broke the record set by Harry Potter last year by more than $30 million, despite the “massive” piracy.

But is this really such a big surprise? Not when you look at the numbers.

Of all the people who downloaded a pirate copy of the film about 20% came from the US. This means that roughly 100,000 Americans have downloaded a copy online through BitTorrent. Now, IF all these people bought a movie ticket instead then box office revenue would be just 0.5% higher.

Not much of an impact, and even less when you consider that these “pirates” do not all count as a lost sale.

We don’t think that there are many movie fans who see a low quality camcorded version of a movie as a true alternative to watching a film in a movie theater. The two are totally different experiences, and not direct competition at all.

If anything, downloading a camcorded movie could be compared to downloading a low quality bootleg of a concert. People who download these are collectors, passionate fans, or just curious. But in no way do these bootlegs seriously hurt concert attendances.

The same might be said for advance leaks of games. These pre-release copies are often downloaded by tens of thousands of people, but not necessarily those who refuse to pay. The people who download these buggy and sometimes hardly playable games are often curious game fanatics who tend to buy the official game when it comes out.

The claim that camcorded films are killing the movie industry is nonsense and spending millions of dollars on anti-camcording technologies is simply not worth it.

But does this mean that piracy is not an issue for the movie industry at all? Well not so fast.

A recent study showed that the US box office is not suffering from movie piracy, but that there is a detrimental effect on international box office figures. The researchers attribute this impact to the wide release gaps, which sometimes result in a high quality DVD copy being available on pirate sites while a movie is still showing in theaters.

These high quality copies are more likely to “compete” with movie theater attendance and if a movie is not showing in local theaters at all, it definitely has the potential to impact future attendance.

This is even more true for the DVD-aftermarket and VOD sales. High quality pirated copies are direct competition and can impact revenues.

The challenge for the movie industry is to make legal offerings more appealing than pirated counterparts. Of course it may not always be able to compete with “free,” but there is still a lot of ground to make up when it comes to availability and quality of legal offerings.

But in no way are camcorded copies killing the US movie industry.