<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog">
<channel>
 <title>Blog Référencement Publicityweb - Legal and Privacy</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/taxonomy/term/7/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Nude-photo site wins injunction against Google</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/240</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;div class=&quot;image&quot;&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;node/216&quot;&gt;&lt;img width=&quot;95&quot; height=&quot;100&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;La soirée était très chaude !!!&quot; src=&quot;files/images/sf-hot.thumbnail.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;div class=&quot;caption&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;p &gt;According to a Los Angeles judge, some Google images are violating US copyright laws. The &lt;em &gt;Perfect 10&lt;/em&gt; company just won the preliminary injunction against Google.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul &gt;
&lt;li &gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6041724.html&quot;&gt;News.com&lt;/a&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6041724.html&quot;&gt;Nude-photo site wins injunction against Google&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li &gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcpro.co.uk/&quot;&gt;PC Pro uk&lt;/a&gt; : &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/84075/google-loses-image-battle-with-soft-porn-publisher.html&quot;&gt;Google loses image battle with soft porn publisher&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/google">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:24:05 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Google vs DoD about secret search results : the saga continues</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/238</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p &gt;Google &lt;a href=&quot;node/159&quot;&gt;refused to share its search datas to the US government&lt;/a&gt;, unlike Yahoo and MSN : they apparently want to protect their user&#039;s privacy (and, perhaps more importantly, their precious datas). And they paied a hard price : &lt;a href=&quot;node/165&quot;&gt;Google saw its largest 1-day loss ever&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;Now, they post their &lt;a href=&quot;http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-doj-motion.html&quot;&gt;Response to the DoJ motion&lt;/a&gt; on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://googleblog.blogspot.com/&quot;&gt;official Google blog&lt;/a&gt;. If you&#039;re really curious, you can even read the &lt;a href=&quot;http://googleblog.blogspot.com/pdf/Google_Oppo_to_Motion.pdf&quot;&gt;25-page pdf file containing the entire response&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/google">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:09:31 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Consumers Should Not Use New Google Desktop</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/221</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;div class=&quot;image&quot;&gt;  &lt;a href=&quot;node/222&quot;&gt;&lt;img width=&quot;100&quot; height=&quot;73&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;Big Brother is Watching You&quot; src=&quot;files/images/bigbrother.thumbnail.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;  &lt;div class=&quot;caption&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; Google today announced a new &amp;quot;feature&amp;quot; of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new &amp;quot;Search Across Computers&amp;quot; feature will store copies of the user&#039;s Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google&#039;s own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user&#039;s computers. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who&#039;ve obtained a user&#039;s Google password.  &lt;p &gt;&amp;quot;Coming on the heels of serious consumer concern about government snooping into Google&#039;s search logs, it&#039;s shocking that Google expects its users to now trust it with the contents of their personal computers,&amp;quot; said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. &amp;quot;If you use the Search Across Computers feature and don&#039;t configure Google Desktop very carefully&amp;mdash;and most people won&#039;t&amp;mdash;Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index. The government could then demand these personal files with only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you wouldn&#039;t even be notified in time to challenge it. Other litigants&amp;mdash;your spouse, your business partners or rivals, whoever&amp;mdash;could also try to cut out the middleman (you) and subpoena Google for your files.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/google">Google</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:27:57 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft censors Chinese blogger</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/117</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p &gt;&amp;quot;Microsoft has admitted to removing the blog of an outspoken Chinese journalist from its MSN Spaces site, citing its policy of adhering to local laws&amp;quot;&lt;br &gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;But censorship on the internet doesnt allways work. Those who can read Chineese can found the &lt;a href=&quot;http://anti.blog-city.com/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;new (Chineese) version of the censored blog&lt;/a&gt; which will perhaps be &lt;a href=&quot;http://anti2.blog-city.com/&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;translated in English&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br &gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/msn">MSN</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:39:52 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Spammer lands $11 billion fine</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/113</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p &gt;A small Iowa ISP should won $10 per spam from James McCalla, from Florida, who sent 280 million illegal spam e-mail messages. Yes, $11.2 billion!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;Now, spammers will learn that their actions would result in an economic death penalty.&lt;/p&gt;Article: &lt;a class=&quot;moz-txt-link-freetext&quot; href=&quot;http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28733&quot;&gt;Spammer lands $11 billion fine&lt;br &gt;&lt;/a&gt;Src: &lt;a class=&quot;moz-txt-link-freetext&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.theinquirer.net/&quot;&gt;The Inquirer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:11:20 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Claim back £300 per spam (Directive 2002/58/EC)</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/97</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p &gt;Good news : spammers get caught, and begin loosing trials, thanks to european privacy laws.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;&amp;quot;Net expert Nigel Roberts has won a landmark legal victory by chasing down a UK spammer and winning &amp;pound;300 in costs.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;&amp;quot;The case will also highlight the EU anti-spam law (Directive &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&amp;amp;lg=en&amp;amp;numdoc=32002L0058&amp;amp;model=guichet&quot;&gt;2002/58/EC&lt;/a&gt;) and its practical effectiveness.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:42:41 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Microsoft may face daily EU fine</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/90</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p &gt;&amp;quot;The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to 2m euros (&amp;pound;1.36m; $2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to its systems.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p &gt;Article: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm&quot;&gt;Microsoft may face daily EU fine&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br &gt;Src: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/&quot;&gt;BBC News&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br &gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:55:07 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>The current U.S. Patent system is harming innovation</title>
 <link>http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/node/89</link>
 <description>&lt;!-- google_ad_section_start --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The current U.S. system is harming innovation.	A simplified process with stronger patents would encourage economic growth&amp;quot;&lt;br &gt;&lt;br &gt;Article: &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051220_827695.htm&quot;&gt;Cutting Through the Patent Thicket&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br &gt;Src: &lt;a class=&quot;moz-txt-link-freetext&quot; href=&quot;http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051220_827695.htm&quot;&gt;BusinessWeek&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- google_ad_section_end --&gt;
</description>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/english">English</category>
 <category domain="http://blog.publicityweb.com/blog/legal">Legal and Privacy</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:49 +0100</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
