What better day than your wedding day to indulge? How to Make a Twinkies Wedding Cake

Facebook proposes more transparent privacy policy, wants to know what you think of it

Facebook had some weaknesses of privacy in a not too distant past, and has worked to improve its policies to better inform users how their Facebook information is used. Last year, the Office of the Data Protection Ireland made an audit using Facebook data and determined that, while Facebook does a good job, more information should be provided for each of us. Well, the social network has recently responded by creating a Hub and Conditions for countless policies so easy to find. Also adds new examples and explanations for the use of data about how the policy book "uses cookies on its site, while shedding some light on how our information is used for advertising and improving the operation of the site. There is also a detailed description of the activity log tool that allows you to see every bit of information we have been entrusted to Mr. Zuckerberg, so that you can better manage your photos and wall posts. These changes have not yet been set in stone, however, because Facebook wants to know what you think before you do. Just go to the Facebook site governance to examine changes and will provide information or resolve a concert Q & A session with the Chief Privacy Erin Egan on Monday (May 14) at noon , time to say face-to-face digital.

Facebook offers privacy policy more transparent, wants to know what you think originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, May 11th, 2012 2:19:00 p.m. EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds. Permalink
Find best price for : --Engadget----Facebook--

Hacked Privacy Settings in Safari iOS May Cost Google $10 Million

FTC Said to Fine Google $10 Million Over Safari Ad Cookies

How to Make a Single Chocolate Chip Cookie

Dissent in the ranks: why one FTC commissioner didn't like Google's fine

The fine of $ 22.5 million in Google user tracking cookies Apple did not respond to one of five members of the Federal Trade Commission. But why not?

A point I missed most of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fine against Google - $ 22.5 million, which would be much more for you or me, but earnings operations amounted to about 15 hours, depending on the operating profit of the company's second quarter -. was the dissenting opinion of one of five commissioners, J. Thomas Rosch more

update: ..

Rosch again dissented from the FTC settled with their Facebook privacy settings alteration in the exhibit below)

The commissioners split 4-1 on what they thought should be the correct way to deal with Google for their behavior. In fact, dissent Rosch was so strong that the other four had to write a review (PDF) to explain their reasoning.

But first, here's the beef Rosch. In his minority opinion (PDF), he said he thinks the law requires FTC (and others)

to determine if it is both "reason to believe that" there is no accountability and if the complaint is "public interest" before we decide any complaint, if a dispute or complaint a consent decree.

pretty clear so far? It sets up what are the rules for deciding whether to vote on something: responsibility and the public interest

now it gets interesting.

No doubt in my mind that there is "reason to believe" that Google is in contempt of a prior order of the Commission. However, I disagree to accept the consent decree, and probably can not be concluded that the consent decree is in the public interest when it contains a disclaimer.

other words, if Google does not accept that is responsible for what you have, then Rosch not think he should be released with a simple fine. In fact, it is really annoying (reading between the lines) is that Google is, is that the FTC has no jurisdiction, and that makes this the right place: Points to the FTC decision (delivery of the goods) which states: "[The] defendant [Google] denies any violation of the order of the FTC, the responsibility of each and every one of the claims stated in the request, and all allegations of material required, to except those relating to jurisdiction and venue. "

However, at the same time, the Commission maintains a civil fine of $ 22.5 million against Google for the same conduct. Cancellation of the denial of responsibility in such circumstances is unprecedented.

also notes that Google has been charged before with "deceptive conduct" on Buzz, your social network, which was registered or not you really want to be registered (similar to Google and, in De Indeed, although it seems to handle privacy much better - much better than anyone can say how it really happens there). Google, says Rosch, in essence, be charged with contempt of the consent order the FTC on Buzz - which is how he got into all this

Rosch said:

"This scenario - the violation of a consent order -. There is acceptance by the Commission of the denial of responsibility for Google even more inexplicable"

• noted that $ 22.5 million "represents a minimum amount of profits or income from Google." But worse, he says:

"Now, the Commission authorized the risk of being denied not only in this area, but also in the regulation of Facebook where Facebook, simply pledged to" go and sin no more "(as opposed to Google, Facebook was not under command). There is nothing to prevent future respondents with fewer resources than Google and lower profiles than those of Google and Facebook to deny responsibility in the future. "

And this is the real heart Rosch mamjority the request to the decision, if we let Google (and Facebook, which was also placed under a consent order, essentially trading rules around privacy of their so often) was not admitting that what they did was wrong, then others will too. And if

not do that, then it becomes a law for large lobbies with strong operations and a law for children.

aa
For clarity, I sent an email to the FTC, on Thursday and the office of Commissioner Rosch answered my questions as follows:

Find best price for : --View----Facebook----Rosch----Federal----Google--

Lian Li Envisions Smartphone /Tablet Users Going Gaga for Three New Ultra Compact PC Cases

Apparently owning a smartphone or tablet means it is biased in favor of computer cases ultra-compact in the large mid-tower or full spare large towers aluminum and steel. Ask Lian Li, which today unveiled a trio of little boxes made of brushed aluminum "for smart phones and tablet" driving people seeking to build "centers of personal data storage for all mobile devices." Plant interesting, right?

The first is the PC-Q02, with its minimalist design and quiet. It measures 5.86 x 6.9 x 7.87 inches (WxHxD) and is compatible with mini-ITX motherboards. The case does not come with the fans, instead of relying on the vents in the back and side panels to maximize natural air flow. Features include a single drive bay of 5.25 inches, supporting a 3.5-inch and two 2.5-inch HDD / SSD, two USB 3.0 ports and a 300W power supply included.

second to bat is the PC-Q03, a small case fan with improved graphics capabilities. It is essentially the same as the PC-Q02, only slightly higher than 7.83 x 9.64 x 8.26 inches (WxHxD), allowing you to receive graphics cards up to 7.8 cm long. It also features HD audio ports on front panel.

Finally, Lian Li PC-P16 has unveiled its mini tower chassis, which measures 7.83 x 6.29 x 11.41 inches (WxHxD). This is built for storage of dependence and may contain a single 3.5 inch hard drive and up to three 2.5-inch HDD / SSD, although it comes with a drive bay of 5.25 inches, which excludes an internal optical drive. As the PC-Q02, it comes with a 300W power supply.

Find best price for : --smartphone----Lian--