Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 19 2020

10:12
Ebook.bike Owner Risks Crippling Sanctions Over Piracy Case Discovery Failures

January 18 2020

20:34
‘Local’ Pirate Sites Are Thriving Around the World
12:08
‘Casting Couch’ Movie Company Orders Cloudflare to Unmask Tube Site Pirates

January 17 2020

21:59
Manga Scanlation Teams Don’t Want War, They Want Accessible Content
10:51
Pirated Copy of ‘1917’ Leaks in Massive Screener Dump

January 16 2020

22:23

Listening To: “Weed The People,” Latino USA (Oct. 4, 2019)

I’ve been listening to Weed the People, an episode from late last year on Latino USA about the development of legally licensed marijuana markets — mainly with reference to California — and the way it interacts with local entrepreneurs, booming but hindered state and national markets, and the shadow of the racialized war on drugs for black and Latino weed dealers who bore the brunt of the war on drugs.

Shared Article from NPR.org

Weed The People

Throughout his decades of selling weed, Ramón García never thought he'd see the day marijuana became legal in California. But while he now owns a le…

npr.org


Proviso: the NPR story admits that, as far as their reporters were able to determine, there isn’t much hard data to prove racial disparities in access to or profits in legalized weed markets. I wish there were some effort to gather the hard data; until there is some, take this as the usual anecdotal reporting — it seems like there might be a racial disparity here; here are, definitely, some anecdotes of black and Latino weed dealers who have had to put up with a lot more crap in their lives than they ever should have had to put up with, and who now face a lot of obstacles that don’t serve any obviously beneficial purpose in the effort to go legit. (Even if there isn’t a systematic racial disparity when you tally everything up, there are lots of individual cases of injustice; if there is a systematic racial disparity, so much the worse, and if so that would tells us something about how policing and legalization work in American society.)

Obviously, no matter what ends up happening here, it’s hard to deny that the situation now — whatever its flaws — is not as bad as the situation that proceeded liberalization; obviously, nobody should want a halt to the process or a return to Drug War policing. But there’s also a sort of Against Legalization point that needs to be made here — about the effects that unsurprisingly, naturally occur when liberalization is only allowed to happen when and where it can be refracted through an elaborate, expensive, in some ways highly conservative regulatory regime for permitting and controlling the sale of weed to willing customers — something which, need we recall, is really just fine, and does not actually need to be controlled by the state, and should never have been treated as a crime in the first place.

The city government in Oakland has approached the issue by trying to manipulate the issuing of permits — by implementing a priority queue that’s explicitly intended to benefit racial minorities, and operationally designed in favor granting licenses more quickly to people who had been arrested for drug crimes and people from neighborhoods where a lot of other people were arrested for drug crimes. But what if the permits themselves — and the drive to maintain social and economic control behind those permits — are part of the problem?

There are really a couple of different angles from which you might look at this story. (a) A social justice-oriented Leftist is probably going to see this story mainly from the angle of racial justice.[1] People like Ramón Garcia are struggling to make their way into above-ground cannabis market, whereas white-owned dispensaries and well-financed businesses[2] are moving in much more easily. If you want to know why, a lot of the reason has to do with the white privilege, with the history of racist motives behind Nixon’s or Reagan’s War on Drugs and mass incarceration policies, and with the long shadow of racist overpolicing and imprisonment in communities of color — black and Latino folks like Ramón Garcia have faced decades of racist drug policies, generations of criminalization, violence, police harassment, etc.; they are disproportionately likely to bear criminal records and to bear economic costs that make it harder to go into business, harder to meet the permitting requirements, etc. You’re going to look at the fears that caused regulations on legalized weed and dispensary licensing to be written in the narrow, restrictive way that they have been written; on the disparate legacies of drug policies in different communities; and on the micro-scale effects of police and prison, as well as the macro-scale structural factors, which conspire to make it hard to access funding or do the other things that you would need to do to start or expand any kind of business.

(b) A market freedom-oriented libertarian is probably going to look at the same story and see it mainly from the angle of overregulation and barriers to entry. Weed could have been legalized by just getting the government out of the business of policing and controlling weed sales. Prohibition could have been replaced by freedom and governmental indifference. But instead, prohibition was replaced by regulation and permitting. Part of the reason for this is for the government to make sure it can extract sin tax revenues from weed sales. Part of the reason is a busy-bodying regulatory state trying to control how the legal weed market shaped up. So if you want to know why well-funded, big businesses are moving into this market so rapidly, while smaller-scale entrepreneurs like Ramón Garcia are struggling to make their way into the above-ground cannabis market — even though many of them, like Garcia, have extensive pre-existing acumen, resources and business connections from their years as underground weed dealers — then you’d look to the punitive legal legacy of drug prohibition, and to the extent and invasiveness of the regulations that now screen who can enter the formal industry and who can’t. Ramón was arrested 20 years ago because of an over-aggressive police search and a bullshit gun control charge, and he had to keep his business in the shadows for years because he didn’t have the capital to meet the state’s marijuana regulations until only a couple of years ago. The state and city governments limit the number of permits that can be given out. Keeping your permit requires dealing with a lot of complex and expensive regulations — many of them about some really chickenshit requirements.[3] The state legalizes cannabis only so long as you get in the queue for a tightly limited number of permits, pay inspection fees and taxes, pay out for a storefront location and insurance, and lay out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at a go because you’ve just been informed that you have to make sure your weed van is street-legal, up to a standard set by some state policy. It’s not too surprising that this hurts bottom-up entrepreneurship and helps people who are ensconced within existing formal business worlds and who have access to extensive funding. Regulation and licensing mean overwhelming complexity barriers to entry, tight rationing barriers to entry, and huge financial barriers to entry. That helps the well-resourced and formal businesses, and it hurts the poor, marginalized, and informal-sector entrepreneurs.[4]

In either case, it’s hard to deny that a whole lot of black and Latino people have been victimized by the racial politics and the police violence of the drug war. The state owes them reparations for the years of damage that it has done. And the way they’ve tried to go about legalization risks excluding many of them from a market where — despite the risks and the costs and the violence unjustly inflicted on them under Prohibition — they had at least made something of a living up to now. But the best thing to do is not to try to tweak the licensing scheme to favor a different class of legal weed dealer; it’s to get rid of the restrictions and licensing entirely — to let as many people as possible enter the legal weed market, with a minimum of interference or monitoring by police, city governments and state regulators.

See also.

  1. [1]You could also see it from the standpoint of socioeconomic class, but in America these are going to be all tangled up together, and most of the time a social justice ideology is going to go more quickly to race than to class as a default way of understanding problems of power and criminalization in American history.
  2. [2]Some of these are incumbents from the Medical Marijuana market; others are new green-rush startup businesses.
  3. [3]For example: Check the segment beginning at 16:06, at a trade show for the legal weed business in Oakland. The city government in Oakland is sponsoring a trade conference to try to help POC weed entrepreneurs show off their wares and meet up with investors; but meanwhile Ramón’s business is stalled. He hasn’t been able to distribute any weed recently, because the state started enforcing a rule that requires compliant distribution vehicles. Or in other words, Ramón needs a new van — with specs the state approves — before he can distribute any more weed. He was supposed to have the van already but it took a while to raise the money. Man, all the paperwork is signed. We were supposed to get it delivered yesterday; now they’re telling us early next week, man… It’s the issues of doing business, right? …
  4. [4]The typical thing to say here from a libertarian standpoint would be that it helps incumbents and hurts startups — and to point to the problem of regulatory capture — but that needs to be taken with a certain amount of nuance, since erstwhile illegal drug dealers are incumbents in the weed market; while many green-rush investors are newcomers. It would be better to say that licensing and regulation help incumbents within the formal business world, and hurt people who are trying to break into that world, even if it’s in a line of business they’ve been practicing for years in the informal or illegal sector.
20:02
RomUniverse’s Request to Dismiss Nintendo Piracy Lawsuit Fails
17:42

Gwyneth Paltrow und ihre „Smells Like My Vagina“-Kerze jetzt auch bei Netflix

Immerhin:

Der eine oder andere Netflix-Abonnent kündigt seinen Vertrag, weil das Streaming-Portal ab dem 24. Januar die Doku-Serie „Goop Lab“ über das Wellness- und Medien-Imperium „Goop“ der Schauspielerin Gwyneth Paltrow ins Programm nimmt.

Vor wenigen Tagen erschien der Trailer zur Serie und er verspricht viel Sendezeit für eben jene Inhalte, für die Paltrow und ihre Marke schon oft kritisiert wurden.

Da ist von Heilbehandlungen mit bewusstseinsverändernden Drogen die Rede, von Exorzismen, von Medien mit übersinnlichen Fähigkeiten und von Orgasmuskursen. Während der Erfolg von Goop suggeriert, dass sich für diese Show viele Zuschauer finden werden (das Unternehmen wurde im Jahr 2018 auf einen Wert von 250 Millionen US-Dollar geschätzt), macht sich Netflix bei einigen Abonnenten damit sehr unbeliebt.

Sie kritisieren, dass der Sender den fragwürdigen bis sogar gefährlichen Gesundheitsratschlägen und unbewiesenen Behauptungen über die Wirkungen esoterischer Quatsch-Behandlungen, die Goop in ihren Augen verbreitet, eine Plattform gibt.

Auch bei Twitter trenden Hashtags wie #SayNoToGoop oder #cancelnetflix. Die Computer-Bild meint sogar, die Fans liefen „Sturm“ gegen den medialen Humbug und schreibt von einem „Eigentor“ für Netflix.

Bei anderen Medien herrscht eher ein gewisses Amüsement vor, insbesondere über „das neueste Hype-Produkt ihrer fragwürdigen Firma“: eine Kerze, „die nach ihrer [Paltrows] Vagina riechen soll“:

Sie kostet theoretisch 75 US-Dollar, aber seit darüber berichtet wird, ist sie natürlich restlos ausverkauft. Weil sehr viele Menschen wissen wollen, wie… aber lassen wir das.

Kein Wunder, dass hier und dort darüber spekuliert wird, ob das „Goop“-Unternehmen von Gwyneth Paltrow entweder Verarsche oder aber ein einziger großer Betrug ist:

It’s not clear whether Paltrow intends to scam people with her business or not.

Aber sie mache definitiv jede Menge Geld damit, hochpreisige Placebo-Produkte zu verkaufen. Viele Social-Media-Nutzer würden sie deshalb als „Betrügerin“ und „Schlangenölverkäuferin“ bezeichnen.

No word from Gwyneth!

… hat bislang der kanadische Gesundheitswissenschaftler Timothy Caulfield gehört, der schon 2015 das Buch

Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? When Celebrity Culture and Science Clash

veröffentlichte (wir berichteten hier). Außer einer allgemeinen Breitseite voller „Ad-hominem-Attacken und kahlköpfiger Heuchelei“ gegen ihre Kritiker hält die schauspielende Unternehmerin sich öffentlich zurück, seit sie 145 000 Dollar wegen falscher Heilsversprechen zahlen musste.

Dem Skeptical Inquirer sagte Caulfield vor zwei Jahren:

Ich würde mich gerne hinsetzen und mit Gwyneth über kritisches Denken sprechen, vielleicht bei einem Kräutertee. Glaubt sie das wirklich? Natürlich dreht sich das meiste nur um den Aufbau ihrer Marke und leider funktioniert es. Goop hat jetzt einen Wert von 250 Millionen US-Dollar.

Vermutlich kein schlechter Ansatz, denn in den USA wird gerade darüber diskutiert, ob nicht auch die massive Kritik an „Goop Lab“ letztendlich Werbung für Paltrows haarsträubenden Unsinn wie „Vaginaleier“ aus Jade und Quarzstein oder Elixiere wie „Psychic Vampire Repellent“ ist. Und wie man am besten dagegen argumentiert.

Im Prinzip ist Caulfield zuversichtlich:

There’s a growing recognition about the harm misinformation can do.

Schließlich sei auch seine eigene aufklärerische TV-Serie „A User’s Guide to Cheating Death“ beliebt und erfolgreich.

Unter anderem bei Netflix.

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Gwyneth Paltrow kommt zu Netflix – und die Nutzer kündigen, Welt+ am 14. Januar 2020
  • Gwyneth Paltrow verkauft eine Kerze, die nach ihrer Vagina riechen soll, jetzt am 12. Januar 2020
  • Vor Start der Netflix-Serie „The Goop Lab“: Paltrows Vaginal-Kommerz unter der Lupe, derStandard am 14. Januar 2020
  • GOOP, Netflix and Motion Sickness, Skeptical Inquirer am 24. Juli 2018
  • Is Gwyneth Paltrow’s Entire Business One Giant Scam? CheatSheet am 14. Januar 2020
  • Promi-Kultur à la Gwyneth Paltrow: Hort der Pseudowissenschaft, GWUP-Blog am 1. April 2015
  • Der Promi-Gesundheitskult: Timothy Caulfield im Interview, GWUP-Blog am 21. Juni 2015
  • „Information antibodies“ zu Gwyneth Paltrow und Co.: die „Science Moms“ bei Youtube, GWUP-Blog am 2. August 2018
  • Anne Hathaway prankt Show- Publikum: „Nicht alles machen, was Promis euch sagen“, GWUP-Blog am 25. Januar 2019
  • Glaube, Paltrow, Hoffnung, Spiegel-Online am 16. September 2018
Reposted byfinkregh finkregh
17:00
BazelCon 2019
09:25
Kim Dotcom Wins Back K.im Domain After Dispute & $100K Sell-Back Offer

January 15 2020

20:50
Jetflicks Piracy Trial Delayed After Canada Hands Over Masses of Discovery Data
19:40

Moving Forward from Chrome Apps

The web platform has made substantial progress since the launch of Chrome Apps in 2013. As community members, we continue to work with other browsers and invest to bring rich new capabilities to the platform, as seen in the announcements made at the Chrome Developer Summit last November.

The progress of modern browsers puts the Web in a good position to answer the vast majority of use cases - evident in the success of companies like Figma and our own products like Google Earth. We are confident that the Web can deliver first class experiences on an open platform.

With this continued progress, we are expanding upon our earlier announcement and will begin phasing out support for Chrome Apps across all operating systems as follows:

  • March 2020: Chrome Web Store will stop accepting new Chrome Apps. Developers will be able to update existing Chrome Apps through June 2022.
  • June 2020: End support for Chrome Apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Customers who have Chrome Enterprise and Chrome Education Upgrade will have access to a policy to extend support through December 2020.
  • December 2020: End support for Chrome Apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
  • June 2021: End support for NaCl, PNaCl, and PPAPI APIs.
  • June 2021: End support for Chrome Apps on Chrome OS. Customers who have Chrome Enterprise and Chrome Education Upgrade will have access to a policy to extend support through June 2022.
  • June 2022: End support for Chrome Apps on Chrome OS for all customers.

This change does not impact support for Chrome Extensions. Google will continue to support and invest in Chrome Extensions on all existing platforms. Fostering a robust ecosystem of extensions is critical to Chrome's mission and we are committed to providing a useful extension platform for customizing the browsing experience for all users.

For additional details (e.g., timelines, recommendations, a FAQ, etc.) please visit our Chrome Apps migration site. This page will be kept up to date as we progress together through this process.

On behalf of the Chrome team, we thank the community of developers for building great experiences using Chrome Apps and look forward to seeing similar experiences that leverage open Web standards (e.g., PWAs) across all modern browsers.

Posted by Anthony Laforge, Technical Director, Chrome Platform Team

11:17
Operator of Popcorn Time Info Site is Liable for Piracy, Supreme Court Rules

January 14 2020

20:22
Number of Pirated Screener Leaks Already Higher Than Last Year
20:00
Google Summer of Code 2020 is now open for mentor organization applications!
17:00
Securing open source: How Google supports the new Kubernetes bug bounty
16:00

Building a more private web: A path towards making third party cookies obsolete

In August, we announced a new initiative (known as Privacy Sandbox) to develop a set of open standards to fundamentally enhance privacy on the web. Our goal for this open source initiative is to make the web more private and secure for users, while also supporting publishers. Today, we’d like to give you an update on our plans and ask for your help in increasing the privacy of web browsing.

After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with continued iteration and feedback, privacy-preserving and open-standard mechanisms like the Privacy Sandbox can sustain a healthy, ad-supported web in a way that will render third-party cookies obsolete. Once these approaches have addressed the needs of users, publishers, and advertisers, and we have developed the tools to mitigate workarounds, we plan to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome. Our intention is to do this within two years. But we cannot get there alone, and that’s why we need the ecosystem to engage on these proposals. We plan to start the first origin trials by the end of this year, starting with conversion measurement and following with personalization.

Users are demanding greater privacy--including transparency, choice and control over how their data is used--and it’s clear the web ecosystem needs to evolve to meet these increasing demands. Some browsers have reacted to these concerns by blocking third-party cookies, but we believe this has unintended consequences that can negatively impact both users and the web ecosystem. By undermining the business model of many ad-supported websites, blunt approaches to cookies encourage the use of opaque techniques such as fingerprinting (an invasive workaround to replace cookies), which can actually reduce user privacy and control. We believe that we as a community can, and must, do better.

Fortunately, we have received positive feedback in forums like the W3C that the mechanisms underlying the Privacy Sandbox represent key use-cases and go in the right direction. This feedback, and related proposals from other standards participants, gives us confidence that solutions in this space can work. And our experience working with the standards community to create alternatives and phase out Flash and NPAPI has proven that we can come together to solve complex challenges.

We’ll also continue our work to make current web technologies more secure and private. As we previously announced, Chrome will limit insecure cross-site tracking starting in February, by treating cookies that don’t include a SameSite label as first-party only, and require cookies labeled for third-party use to be accessed over HTTPS. This will make third-party cookies more secure and give users more precise browser cookie controls. At the same time, we’re developing techniques to detect and mitigate covert tracking and workarounds by launching new anti-fingerprinting measures to discourage these kinds of deceptive and intrusive techniques, and we hope to launch these measures later this year.

We are working actively across the ecosystem so that browsers, publishers, developers, and advertisers have the opportunity to experiment with these new mechanisms, test whether they work well in various situations, and develop supporting implementations, including ad selection and measurement, denial of service (DoS) prevention, anti-spam/fraud, and federated authentication.

We are looking to build a more trustworthy and sustainable web together, and to do that we need your continued engagement. We encourage you to give feedback on the web standards community proposals via GitHub and make sure they address your needs. And if they don’t, file issues through GitHub or email the W3C group. If you rely on the web for your business, please ensure your technology vendors engage in this process and share your feedback with the trade groups that represent your interests.

We will continue to keep everyone posted on the progress of efforts to increase the privacy of web browsing.

Posted by Justin Schuh - Director, Chrome Engineering

14:31

Grüne und Homöopathie: Die „Kommission“ ist abgesagt, jetzt soll der Vorstand ran

Gerade geht es durch die Medien:

Der Bundesvorstand der Partei sei „einstimmig zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, dass eine vertrauensvolle und erfolgreiche Arbeit dieser Kommission nicht möglich ist“.

Als Grund wird angegeben, dass Informationen aus einem internen Vorgespräch an Zeitungen durchgestochen worden seien, schreibt die taz. Stattdessen soll jetzt wieder der Partei-Vorstand selbst ran:

Der Vorstand zieht die Beschlussfassung zur Homöopathie nun an sich. Der Parteitag habe den Vorstand beauftragt, eine Positionierung zu einem wissenschaftsbasierten und ethischen Gesundheitssystems zu erarbeiten. Auch solle eine Haltung zu den grundsätzlichen Voraussetzungen für die Erstattungsfähigkeit durch die gesetzlichen Krankenkassen vorgelegt werden.

Im Beschluss heißt es weiter: „Der Auftrag kann nur erfüllt werden, indem der Bundesvorstand die erforderliche programmatische Arbeit selbst verantwortet und mit dem Entwurf des Grundsatzprogrammes vorlegt.“

Die grüne Homöopathie-Kritikerin Paula Piechotta begrüßt auf Twitter die Entscheidung des Bundesvorstands:

Wir freuen uns auf die nun offene Debatte mit der ganzen Partei.

Ob es dabei viel Grund zur Freude gibt, wird sich zeigen.

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Grüne und Homöopathie: Parteispitze sagt Kommission ab, taz am 14. Januar 2020
  • Grünen-Vorstand sagt Kommission zum Homöopathie-Streit ab, FAZ am 14. Januar 2020
  • Globuli wirken toxisch, taz am 14. Januar 2020
  • Gescheiterter Stuhlkreis, taz am 14. Januar 2020
  • Wenn zwei anthroposophische Ärzte ein „pro Homöopathie“- Gutachten schreiben, GWUP-Blog am 17. Dezember 2019
  • Video: Die heute-show zum Homöopathie-Streit beim Grünen-Parteitag, GWUP-Blog am 23. November 2019
  • Die grüne Homöopathie-Debatte im gmp-Podcast mit der Politikerin Paula Piechotta, GWUP-Blog am 4. Dezember 2019
  • Die Grünen und die Globuli: Es ist noch lange nicht vorbei, GWUP-Blog am 15. November 2019
13:51

BR-Video: Dr. Nikil Mukerji zur Siemens-Entscheidung in Sachen australische Kohlemine

Gestern Abend in der „Rundschau“ des Bayerischen Fernsehens:

Der Philosoph und Wirtschaftsethiker Dr. Nikil Mukerji (auch Mitglied im GWUP-Wissenschaftsrat) zu der Siemens-Entscheidung, trotz Protesten von Klimaschützern Technik für ein Kohlebergwerk in Australien zu liefern – genauer gesagt Signaltechnik für die etwa 200 Kilometer lange Bahnstrecke, auf der die Kohle von der Mine Carmichael in Queensland zum Hafen Abbot Point gebracht und nach Indien verschifft wird.

Hier geht’s zum Video (zirka vier Minuten).

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Siemens: Redet weiter mit den Mächtigen! Zeit-Campus am 13. Januar 2020
  • Wir haben mit Menschen gesprochen, die unter Klima-Angst leiden, Vice am 13. Januar 2020
  • „Die globale Erwärmung ist real, und es wird schlimmer“, Welt-Online am 14. Januar 2020
  • Luisa Neubauer wendet sich mit Warnung an alle CEOs, Welt-Online am 14. Januar 2020
  • Was hat der Klimawandel mit den australischen Buschfeuern zu tun? Und betrifft das Thema auch uns? Klimafakten am 13. Januar 2020
12:08
TV Channel Owner Arrested For Airing ‘Pirate’ Movie Days After Theatrical Release
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl