Interview: Suhrkamp hat immer Recht. Philip Roeder, tätig in der Geschäftsleitung des Suhrkamp Verlags, über die Abmahnung gegen Jörg Kantel alias Schockwellenreiter und Walsers »Tod eines Kritikers« [krit]

[Der Schockwellenreiter]
9:30:22 AM   comment [[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "commentCount" hasn't been defined.] ] 

Get serious about OS X security. An article posted on the OSXFAQ site should be of interest if you are worried about keeping your OS X installation secure: Mission Lockdown: Get smart with security tactics for Mac OS X by Kevin White.

There is more to OS X security than what is presented in this article, but it is a great start for everyday users. [Mac Net Journal]

8:39:15 AM   comment [[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "commentCount" hasn't been defined.] ] 

AppleScript updated, adds AppleScript Studio. Among other sites, MacCentral notes todya that there is an AppleScript update available, both through the Software Update panel in the OS X System Preferences application and as a separate download. Among the additional in the new version, every OS X installation updated to this version will now include AppleScript Studio. This will make it easier for developers who use AppleScript Studio to build their applications, since all OS X users who are up-to-date will have access to AppleScript Studio... [Mac Net Journal]
8:38:32 AM   comment [[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "commentCount" hasn't been defined.] ] 

AlltheWeb versus Google. Does size really matter? And what exactly is a "document?" Guest columnist Rich Wiggins investigates AlltheWeb's claim to have indexed more documents than Google. From the WebReference Update. 0621 [WebReference News]
8:22:09 AM   comment [[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "commentCount" hasn't been defined.] ] 

Britons: Who can get what info on you from your ISP. British? Online? Concerned about privacy? Danny O'Brien's compiled an excellent (and witty) guide to who can request what information from your ISP, now online on the STAND site:

To avoid this, the police and the ISPs (and indeed the phone companies and post office) use a form called a S29(3). Here is an example form (it's called a 28(3) there. Long, dull story.).

The S29(3) is one of those documents that you'll find either incredibly disturbing, or strangely reassuring. It's pretty good at ensuring that both sides cover their arses while understanding that they're about to do something fairly serious and potentially damaging to both sides. On the other hand, it shows ISPs and the police in a tacit arrangement to share customer data. (for a more detailed and sympathetic look at how ISPs handle this, have a peek at the London INternet eXchanges' Best Current Practice on User Privacy. It has a reasonably full description of the procedures, as well as much advice on how users can still preserve their privacy).

As we've said, ISP's don't have to respond to S29(3)s. If they don't, there's a good chance that the police will get Very Irritated, and may mutter something about Obstructing Justice. If they're serious, they could then go out an get a court order anyway. Police caught like this have been known to get warrants to seize whole racks of ISP servers, so from the point of view of the ISP, this is to be avoided. Most ISPs play along - but they have been known to say no if the police request is insanely disproportionate.

Link Discuss (via Oblomovka) [Boing Boing Blog]
8:20:01 AM   comment [[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "commentCount" hasn't been defined.] ]