visitor maps

Translation-Traduction

Friday, July 6, 2012

Pire que l’ACTA, le projet INDECT ?

 

 

IndectOn ne peut pas dire que le gouvernement soit cachottier, mais bizarrement, il y a des projets dont on entend nettement moins parler. Il est donc temps de vous familiariser avec le plan Indect, qu’on pourrait largement qualifier de cyber-espion.

Fondé par l’union européenne, il s’agit d’un système d’information intelligent soutenant l’observation, la recherche et la détection pour la sécurité des citoyens en milieu urbain. Lancé en toute discrétion le 1er janvier 2009, son objectif principal est de détecter automatiquement les menaces, comportements anormaux ou violence.

Au demeurant fort louable, sa mise en place pose en revanche quelques soucis. Si le projet abouti, Minority Report sera une réalité bien tangible, ce Big Brother épiera tous les faits et gestes des internautes qu’il conservera bien au chaud dans ses serveurs. Indect sera d’ailleurs lié à une base de données regroupant les fichiers policiers et les fichiers biométriques d’identité.

Douteux ? Polémique ? Pensez-vous … Le projet est passé par un examen éthique le 15 mars 2011 à Bruxelles où il a été examiné par des experts Autrichiens, Français, Hollandais, Allemands, et Britanniques. Il a été déclaré viable et sans vice. Sous couvert de développer un outil de protection, nous risquons donc d’être espionné 24/24.

Si vous voulez vous renseigner, il y a bien un site officiel en anglais, mais aucun document sur la Toile. Heureusement, le site est traduisible en polonais …

Après SOPA, PIPA, ACTA … Veuillez-vous lever pour L’infect l’Indect !

http://www.indect-project.eu/

Monday, May 28, 2012

First study on Morocco’s retail Islamic finance sector launched

IFAAS announces the launch of the first independent study of Morocco’s emerging retail Islamic finance sector: Islamic Finance in Morocco – sizing the retail market

IFAAS (Islamic Finance Advisory & Assurance Services), the international Islamic finance consultancy, has announced the imminent launch of its exclusive report entitled, Islamic Finance in Morocco – sizing the retail market, analysing the consumer retail market for Islamic financial products and services in Morocco. The report is the first of its kind for the country and is due to be launched in June. It is the result of an independent survey performed on a representative random sample of the Moroccan population across all major regions of the Kingdom. 

Islamic Finance in Morocco – sizing the retail market, sets out the market opportunities for financial institutions with interest in the Moroccan market.  The report measures the potential market size for Islamic retail banking, finance and Islamic insurance Takaful and assesses how it will compete with mainstream, conventional finance.  

This report will be of particular importance for financial institutions looking to set-up their Islamic operations in Morocco as IFAAS’ report provides full analysis of the consumer demand for Islamic finance in the Kingdom.  It profiles consumers according to their existing use of financial products and services, evaluates their attitudes towards Islamic Finance and reports on their tendency to take out Islamic products and services.  The report also analyses consumer understanding of how Islamic financial products and services work and their likely behaviour when Islamic financial products become available in the Moroccan market. 

With Islamic Finance in Morocco – sizing the retail market, bankers and insurers with interests in the Moroccan market will find answers to a number of key questions including, how receptive are Moroccan consumers to switch from conventional to Islamic products; under which conditions and how quickly? Which Islamic finance products are most desired? How price sensitive is the Moroccan consumer and would more expensive products be acceptable? Do Moroccan consumers understand the difference between a fully-fledged Islamic bank and an Islamic window of a conventional bank? How important is the institution’s compliance with Shari’ah principles and its Shari’ah Board rulings for the consumer? How much new business is anticipated with the launch of Islamic financial products in the country? In a nutshell, IFAAS’ report provides a comprehensive overview on the real potential of the retail Islamic finance within the Moroccan market.

Commenting on the forthcoming launch of the report, Farrukh Raza, managing director of IFAAS said, “Decision makers looking to develop a retail offering need concrete data and consumer insights in order to make critical business decisions”.  IFAAS’ report, Islamic Finance in Morocco – sizing the retail market, based on scientifically validated information, fulfils the demand for this data enabling financial institutions to build appropriate business and product strategies. The report is a must-have for any institution considering its next move in the nascent Moroccan Islamic finance sector.” 

IFAAS commissioned a highly reputed local research firm to independently undertake the quantitative survey. Random, face-to-face, street interviews were conducted on a weighted sample size of over 800 individuals, reflecting a true picture of the Moroccan consumer market... The target sample was composed of men and women aged 18 to 55 years, from a variety of socio-economic categories, living in urban and rural areas and consisted of both banked and unbanked groups of the population.  In terms of geographical coverage, the study was conducted in towns and surrounding rural municipalities of Casablanca, Rabat, Marrakech, Agadir, Fez, Tangier and Oujda.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Google Lawyer Touts Oracle Trial Victory

 Google Inc.'s general counsel lauded the courtroom victory won by the Internet giant Wednesday against Oracle Corp. as a warning for firms considering filing patent litigation in the future.

A federal jury had decided earlier in the day that Google didn't infringe two of Oracle's patents that protect its Java technology, as Oracle had alleged.

image

The win for Google came as its high-profile San Francisco trial with Oracle over both patent and copyright claims related to Google's Android mobile phone software drags into its second month, and appears to be drawing to a close.

"I think you've seen a lot of patent cases filed lately, and most of them have not resulted in successful outcomes for plaintiffs," said Google General Counsel Kent Walker. "That may send a message to those who might want to do these things in the future."

Mr. Walker declined to say how much Google has spent to defend itself against Oracle's infringement allegations, but said such lawsuits can cost about $5 million per patent to defend.

Oracle originally asserted seven patents against Google, though that number had been whittled down to two by the time the trial began last month.

It wasn't immediately clear if Oracle will appeal the patent verdict.

An Oracle spokeswoman declined to comment.

The patent verdict capped a second phase of the ongoing trial. A first phase had been focused on Oracle's copyright infringement claims.

That first phase ended with a mixed verdict, as the jury found Google infringed on copyrights protecting Java interfaces, but couldn't decide if that was acceptable under the fair use doctrine—which allows for some limited use of copyrighted material.

The trial is expected to resume next week, though the jury has been dismissed.

Mr. Walker said he expects the judge overseeing the case to issue a ruling on the copyrightability of the Java interfaces some time in the next couple of weeks.

If the judge rules that some or all of the interfaces can be protected with copyrights, Oracle is expected to pursue damages that could be significant.

Mr. Walker said a ruling that the interfaces are protected "would be a real threat to software development," which often relies on making legal use of others' code.

Google's general counsel said excessive patent litigation partly results from flaws in the U.S. patent system, which can issue legal protections to broad or obvious ideas.

"The goal is to make sure we have high quality patents," Mr. Walker said, "so that a patent doesn't become a lottery ticket" in court.

Google's partners have faced a number of additional infringement suits related to Android, which is developed according to an open source model that makes use of outside engineering.

Earlier this week, Google closed its acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings, which has a broad portfolio of thousands of patents.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

How will verdict in Oracle-Google copyright case affect the search giant’s business?

 

May 8 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge said Oracle Corp. can’t seek $1 billion in damages from Google Inc. for infringing copyrights when it developed Android software running on more than 300 million mobile devices because a jury couldn’t agree on whether it was “fair use.”

A jury in San Francisco yesterday found that Google, the largest Web-search provider, infringed Oracle’s copyrights for programming tools and nine lines of code. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at this point Oracle can only seek damages on the nine lines, which by law would be at most $150,000.

“There has been zero finding of liability on copyright, the issue of fair use is still in play,” Alsup said about the 12-member jury’s decision on the programming tools. He ordered the patent phase of the case to begin today; damages will be taken up by the jury in the last phase of the eight-week trial.

Anyone can use copyrighted work without consent of the owner if it advances the public interest by adding something new or functional. Google attorney Robert Van Nest asked Alsup to declare a mistrial, saying the issue of whether the company is liable for infringement is directly linked to the question of whether it was fair use. Alsup gave each side until May 10 to submit arguments on that issue and didn’t say when he’ll rule.

“Google won the battle and it remains to be seen who won the war,” said Brian Love, an intellectual property attorney and teaching fellow at Stanford Law School.

Mobile Devices

Oracle alleged that Google, based in Mountain View, California, stole copyrights and patents for the Java programming language when it developed the Android operating system for mobile devices, which were released in 2007. Oracle acquired Java when it bought Sun Microsystems Inc. in 2010.

Oracle, the largest maker of database software, is seeking damages as well as a court order preventing Google from distributing Android unless it pays for a license.

“Oracle, the nine million Java developers, and the entire Java community thank the jury for their verdict in this phase of the case,” Deborah Hellinger, an Oracle spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “The overwhelming evidence demonstrated that Google knew it needed a license.

‘‘Every major commercial enterprise -- except Google -- has a license for Java and maintains compatibility to run across all computing platforms,’’ she said.

Last Word

The jury’s findings may not be the last word on infringement. While the panel was asked to decide whether Google infringed parts of Java called application programming interfaces, or APIs, the ultimate decision on whether APIs are covered by copyrights will be made by Alsup later in the case. Alsup told the jury to assume APIs are copyrightable; he can decide later that they aren’t.

Alsup must also rule on Oracle’s request for a judgment in its favor that Google infringed Java copyrights and its copying wasn’t fair use. A ruling for Oracle could set aside the jury’s decision.

‘‘We appreciate the jury’s efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin,” Google spokesman Jim Prosser said in an e-mail. “The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that’s for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle’s other claims.”

Seven Notes

The jury found yesterday that Google didn’t infringe the documentation for the 37 APIs at issue. The panel also determined that Google infringed just 1 of 3 Java codes that were in dispute. In addition, jurors concluded that while Google proved that “Sun and/or Oracle” led the company to believe it didn’t need a license for the Java technology, Google didn’t show that it relied on that knowledge when it decided not to seek a license.

The verdict came on the fifth day of deliberations in the trial, which began April 16. The jury sent Alsup seven notes during its discussions with questions, including some about the meaning of “fair use.” A May 3 note said the panel couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. Alsup ordered jurors to continue deliberations, and after learning the panel was still at an impasse, ordered them to deliver a partial verdict.

Java is a free language. Oracle argued that the parts of Java that Google used are covered by copyrights and that the search engine company was required to pay for a license to use the technology.

Operating System

Google denied infringement, saying it developed Android from scratch and that the Java elements it used aren’t covered by copyrights. Any bits of copied Java in Android constituted fair use because Google gives Android away for free to programmers and it expanded the language’s usefulness by finding a way to build a smartphone operating system with Java, something Sun and Oracle were unable to do.

Oracle argued that the Java copying was for Google’s commercial benefit -- to increase use of Google’s search engine, which generates advertising revenue -- and added nothing new to Java.

The next phase of the case is about two Java patents Oracle alleges were infringed.

The case is Oracle v. Google, 10-3561, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Google's driverless car now street legal in Nevada

The Google car that can drive itself is now eligible to ride on the streets of Nevada.

Technically speaking, what this means is that the car - yes, the car itself - has been issued its own driver license. In other words, the state of Nevada feels the inner workings of Google's smart vehicle contain the same capacity of driving ability and human judgment as any physical person sitting behind the wheel.

The car in question is a Prius, and has been loaded with a very special software package originally designed by Google for use in and around the company's headquarters in Mountain View, California.

But it is in Nevada where Google has been spending most of its time with the contraption as of late, since that's the state that it has been able to sweet talk into actually making it legal to take on the streets.

The software within the car uses all sorts of tools, ranging from a set of short-range radar sensors and video cameras to a persistent Internet connection that constantly scans Google Maps for road and traffic updates.

While obviously it is still a highly focused and experimental project, it could be the beginning of a ripple effect on the entire automotive industry.

Of course, Google hasn't really put the car through its full paces just yet. When it goes for a test drive, the car always has trained employees inside, who are able to override the autopilot mechanism at a moment's notice.

Interestingly enough, though, the only time that the driverless car has been in an accident is when it was being driven in manual override mode. It has never shown any safety problems when in its driverless state.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Home How To How to delete yourself from the Internet

 

You may not feel like the flotsam and jetsam that make up the facts of your life are important, but increasingly companies are using that dry data to make your every online step as indelible as if written in blood. Here's how to take back your digital dignity.

Seth Rosenblatt by Seth Rosenblatt   April 19, 2012 6:19 PM PDT

The Internet companies that power your online life know that data equals money, and they're becoming bolder about using that data to track you. If they get their way, your every online step would be not only irrevocable, but traceable back to you. Fortunately, there are some positive steps you can take to reclaim your online history for yourself.

The online privacy software company Abine, which makes Do Not Track Plus, also offers a service called DeleteMe, which removes your data from numerous tracking sites and keeps it from coming back. In an unusual gesture, though, they've made public how to do for yourself everything that DeleteMe does. Here's my take on their advice.

Be warned, though. The following are not easy instructions, and it's not because they're technically complex. They require a tenacity and wherewithal that is likely to either exhaust you, drive you borderline bonkers, or both. (And no, I haven't followed the instructions to remove myself because it's essential to my job that I can be found by strangers.)

Step 1: Prepare yourself: You're going to have to be polite.
These instructions require patience for the antics of others and determination to get the job done. It's not a bad idea to get something inanimate to take your frustrations out on, because often getting your data successfully removed or changed will require the good faith of the person you're dealing with. Things are not likely to go your way the first time around.

Step 2: Aggressively track sites that aggressively track you.
This is where the DeleteMe service comes in. They currently charge you $99 to un-track you from the tracking data clearinghouses, which in turn sell your data to others entities. You can follow Abine's list of services and do the deed yourself, and that means writing many e-mails, sending numerous faxes, and placing enough phone calls to make you wish for a time machine so you can go back to the 19th century to do violence unto Alexander Graham Bell.

One thing that isn't clear from Abine's list is that most of these data aggregators will re-add you within a few months, so I recommend at least bi-annual checks to see if they've sucked up your data again. Be tenacious, be polite, and if this is important to you, stick with it until you get what you want.

If you're concerned about privacy and people making connections between your birthday, your address, and your Social Security number, you owe it to yourself to perform at least one Web search for your name and see what comes up. You might be unpleasantly surprised.

Step 3: To protect your reputation, removal must be done from the source.
To get Google, Bing, and other search engines to notice a change in information as it is presented on the Web, the original site hosting that information must change. It doesn't matter which site is the source. It could be Facebook, or a local blog, or a gaming forum. If it's showing up in search results, it has little to do with the search engine and everything to do with the site of origin. Once that site has changed, then you'll see a change in the search results.

Getting something removed from a site is not a scientific process, even though you must be methodical about it. Ask politely, and as I noted above, you're likely to have to ask more than once and using more than one way to communicate. You likely will have to be a rake at the gates of Hell, but one that uses words like "please" and "thank you".

Look for the name of a writer, or Web site manager, and if no contact information is listed, do a WhoIs search by typing "whois www.site-name.com". Be sure to include the quotes. That will tell you who registered the site, which is a good place to start on smaller Web sites. Look for phone numbers, e-mail, and fax numbers, and follow up your initial communication.

Once you have a name, even if you can't find a phone number or e-mail, you can probably take an educated stab at one. Use a site like E-mail Format to help you out. And in your e-mail, be sure to explain clearly, concisely, and logically why your request ought to be honored.

A willingness to compromise can get you better results, too. If, for example, your initial request to fully remove your name gets refused, see if asking to have your identity anonymized will work. And if one person at the site you've contacted keeps stalling you, see if there's another you can contact instead.

Step 4: Get Google to hustle on search engine changes.
If you've been successful in changing a site, but Google is still showing the older version, you can use Google's URL Removal Tool to accelerate the process. Note that this will require a Google account, and that if you get Google to change, you're going to have to submit requests to other major search engines like Bing separately.

Step 5: Paint over the bad with good.
In cases where you can't get the site to remove the content that's negatively affecting your reputation, you can create new, fresh, positive content to counteract it. The idea is that the Positive You will bury the Negative You. Rick Santorum is a great example of how this can work in reverse, and no, I'm not going to link to it for you.

You can also use social-networking sites to bury bad news. From About.Me to Flickr to Twitter, social networks tend to rank highly in search results. By creating and maintaining accounts that use your real name, you can elevate the social networking results for your name and, ideally, drop the results you want to bury onto the second page of results. Since studies show that second-page results are viewed significantly less often than first-page, this could be a successful burying strategy.

However, a key component of this is linking the networks, so be prepared to do far more social networking than you had been.

Step 6: Go (politely) nuclear. Get a lawyer.
If you suspect something is actually defamatory, seek out legal advice. Gather your evidence, be polite and firm, and seek out someone who can guide you through the thorny legal thicket. This will also depend on your country -- England has much broader defamation and libel laws than the United States does -- and your budget.

There is no foolproof method for changing how you're presented on the Internet, whether looking at purely personally-identifiable data or the much more subjective presentation of your personal reputation. However, if these are concerns of yours, you're not alone out there, and these six steps will give you concrete actions you can take to reclaim your identity and repair how others see you.

Clubic.com - Articles / Tests / Dossiers