Sony is threatening Twitter with a lawsuit unless it removes accounts and tweets that have posted screenshots or excerpts from its hacked emails, but the legal basis for such threats is limited and so far Twitter has resisted Sony’s requests
As Sony’s misery grows over a massive hacking incident, the studio is lashing out in a desperate way: it is warning news agencies to destroy any leaks they receive, or else Sony will hold them responsible for any damages.
The letter, which is signed by super lawyer David Boies, was sent to various outlets, including the New York Times, the Hollywood Reporter and security blogger Brian Krebs:
It instructs recipients to notify Sony if they receive information related to the hacking and to confirm that “destruction has been completed.” Or what? Here’s the threat:
If you do not comply with this request, and if the Stolen Information is used or disseminated by you in any manner, [Sony] will have no choice but to hold you responsible for any damage or loss … including … any loss of value of intellectual property and trade secrets.
The case in question involves a radio DJ who broadcast parts of a recording that had been obtained in an illegal fashion. As the court noted, the First Amendment protects those who publish or describe such information (provided they did not have a role in obtaining it).
As a lawyer who has pled famous constitutional cases before the Supreme Court, Boies clearly knows the threats are empty. So why is he making them? It’s hard to know for sure, but the likely explanation is that Sony is desperate for somebody to do something to respond to the embarrassing series of hacks, which have disclosed everything from racist emails about President Obama to sensitive financial figures from the studio. The hackers, who want to stop the release of an impending Seth Rogen film that mocks North Korea, have also promised a “Christmas surprise.”
Sony’s discomfort is clearly understandable. But while the “stolen” (Sony’s word) information raises ethical issues, like those described by Aaron Sorkin, the studio doesn’t have appear to have a legal leg to stand on.
ZIRX, one of the new on-demand parking apps to emerge in the last six months, has just expanded to Los Angeles. It’s following closely on the heels of its competitor Luxe, which announced its LA move last week. The parking wars are heating up.
Co-eds want a social media place to call their own, and Facebook isn’t serving that purpose anymore. eCampus Ventures is hoping to meet the need with its trifecta of apps, for finding roommates, comparing textbook costs, and meeting fellow students in your dorm.
The New York Times is offering two new subscription packages, one a stripped-down version that comes as an app and the other a “premier” offering. But it is still missing the one thing it needs most — namely, a personal relationship with readers.
Critics of Reddit point to a moderator’s repeated removal of a Glenn Greenwald story as proof that the site can’t be trusted to do journalism, but in reality the moderator’s behavior is no worse — and in some ways better — than that of a newspaper editor
The deal the European Commission reached last Wednesday on carbon emissions reductions and renewable energy targets will be remembered as an acknowledgment of the difficult economic times facing Europe as well as the policy challenges of reaching agreements that satisfy so many countries with such divergent agendas.
The deal calls for a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020 and 40 percent by 2030 versus 1990 levels. It also calls for 27 percent renewable energy generation by 2030 though it does not make this a country by country mandate, which should allow renewable energy leaders like Germany to bear the brunt of the goal even as it sets up future conflict among EU nations over how to reach that union wide mandate.
The decision not to enforce renewables mandates by country was seen by many in the renewables sector as a major blow. Many EU nations are battling rising power prices and England specifically was very opposed to renewables mandates.
The European Union’s decision to shift from renewable energy mandates towards carbon emissions limits highlights a core argument at the heart of the fight against climate change: Should we allow efficiency and carbon reduction as the primary solution to climate change?
Stephen Castle reports in The New York Times:
European nations would still agree to formulate national plans for individual targets for CO2 emission cuts, but they would not be required to hit specific objectives for renewable energy production. Instead they would have the flexibility to decide on their own path toward a lower carbon economy.
One of the core underlying issues here is the fact that some nations like France are big nuclear power investors and would like to cut their carbon emissions that way. Other nations are very concerned that their struggling industrial sector is left competing against Asian and North American competitors that are paying significantly less for their power.
Power rates in Europe are high. In 2007, the EU had even considered targeting a 30 percent reduction by 2020. But those were very different times economically. All major European governments have rolled back renewable energy subsidies as they face debt crises. The one exception here has been Germany, which has spent over 100 billion Euros to move its energy economy to solar and wind as it completely does away with nuclear.
There’s a lot of disappointment among renewable energy lobbies in Europe and a lot of finger pointing at any outside criticism, as EU regulators make the argument that if other economies (China, India, US) would cut their CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030, we’d all be in better shape.
The reality is that estimates are that the EU has already reduced carbon emissions by about 18 percent from 1990 so has basically already met the 20 percent reduction by 2020 target. It’s currently on pace to cut carbon emissions by 32 percent by 2030 so it’ll need some acceleration of reduction in carbon emissions to reach the 40 percent by 2030 target.
It remains tempting to invest in efficiency measures as well as nuclear power as the quickest and least difficult means to reduce carbon emissions, the measures most likely not to affect retail electricity rates. Harvard’s director of its Environmental Economics Program noted to Bloomberg that the scrapping of renewables targets was “good news” for the economy and the environment because it lower the cost of achieving the EU’s pollutions caps.
And that’s the economic argument. That the means don’t matter, as long as emissions come down. Which incidentally how the UN is looking like it’s going to approach the issue as it seeks a global treaty limiting emissions when it meets in 2015.
None of this will satisfy those who felt that we needed a 60 percent reduction target and a 45 percent renewables target to make a real dent in climate change. Nor will renewable energy producers be happy. In the end we will eventually need a robust and price competitive renewables sector to bring down the cost of clean power. Until then, we’ll have to leave it up to European countries as to how they’ll reduce their carbon footprint.
Yes, Twitter is becoming filled with more noise and possibly less signal, as Jenna Wortham argues in the New York Times — but it’s also true that much of that experience is a result of how we choose to use the service
After his offer of a co-ownership deal was rebuffed, Wonkblog founder Ezra Klein is leaving the Washington Post for his own venture — a departure that reminds more than one media watcher of how the Post lost what would eventually become Politico.
Open source router software, different encryption tools, legislative, judicial and media pressure are all necessary to pushback on backdoors access to technology and networks that help with surveillance state, says PGP inventor Phil Zimmermann in a conversation. He has a thoughtful take on recent encryption revelations.