網絡受襲頻密 港排全球第三

網絡新世代重構傳媒生態

自由抄襲的平台

AppleDaily

Russia's virtual: the new reality?

Russia's blogosphere has until recently been largely written off as a politically blunt parallel space. The Facebook mobilisation of 50,000 protestors has challenged such assumptions, writes Julian Nocetti.

On 3-4 December, an unprecedented wave of cyber-attacks hit independent websites on the parliamentary elections days in Russia, including LiveJournal, the most popular blogging platform in the country, and “Karta Narusheniy”, a crowd-sourcing platform reporting election violations. Despite the attacks, the RuNet is full of reports and videos of election irregularities.

A fortnight earlier, on November 20, the RuNet also played a crucial role in circulating videos of the catcalls Putin received at a wrestling tournament in Moscow. The videos went viral, and were viewed almost 3 million times in just one week; many internet viewers left sarcastic comments. That very evening, the Russian state-controlled television masked the audience’s boos in broadcasts of the event. The main newspapers did not cover the event.

Both episodes are a strong signal that political debate in Russia is moving on to the Internet. Traditional media like television, radio and most of the press are tightly government-controlled or affiliated, and do not challenge the current regime. On the other hand, as of December 2011, nearly 60 million Russians use the Internet on a regular basis. In September, Russia overtook Germany as the country with the highest level of unique Internet users in Europe.

Networks and the public space

In some ways, the Internet has become a full public sphere where citizens can exchange increasingly critical ideas and implement “citizen” projects. During the Egyptian revolution in 2011, people were using blogs and microblogs such as Twitter to form networks, reassuring them that they were not alone in their views. There are certainly signs that this happening in Russia⎯— the collective action groups that sprung up during 2010 summer wildfires were perhaps the first real example of this; organisation ahead of Saturday’s demonstration would be another one. Networks such as these create a common consciousness of public affairs, eventually leading to the creation of a public voice.

'The Russian government has tried to impose its authoritarian style of governance on the horizontal space which is the Internet. This reflects their misunderstanding, not only of the emergence of a networked society, but also of the very nature of the Internet.'

Before Saturday, the “power of networks” in Russia was used mostly at a local level. Blogs were the only way to attract the attention of the authorities and make them act, when usual means do not work due to the total lack of attention of politicians to the population’s daily problems and the level of corruption. To some extent, pragmatic localism better reflects the worries of ordinary people, who place corruption, abuse of privilege and lack of accountability well above authoritarianism on the list of the country’s biggest problems.

Russian authorities are increasingly occupied by the potential for disruption that the Internet embodies.

The Internet has been first of all a factor of differentiation between Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. The “iPhone President” Medvedev has been using the Internet to promote his own modernization agenda; to a certain extent, Medvedev’s enthusiasm for the Internet is a branding exercise. Whereas Putin’s image is closely tied to industry and energy, Medvedev has used technology to distinguish himself and his image from that of his mentor. Indeed, some of the people I have interviewed in the course of my research suggest that the president used the Internet in order to bypass a system of governance in which he has no confidence. Putin, on the other hand, has insisted on the still strong dichotomy between traditional media, and new media. During the Arab Spring, the association of Web 2.0 with a TV channel like Al Jazeera created the ferment of the popular mobilization. The Prime Minister is keen to avoid such a development.

Chinese-style controls

Beyond the two leaders, the Russian government has tried to impose its authoritarian style of governance on the horizontal space which is the Internet. This reflects their misunderstanding, not only of the emergence of a networked society, but also of the very nature of the Internet.

The Minister of Internal Affairs, Rashid Nurgaliev was for a while the most prominent government minister to speak in favor of restrictions on the Internet, but just yesterday FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev echoed his calls, much to the dismay of human rights activists. Likewise, chief prosecutor General Yuri Chaika has also declared that control over social network activity was “necessary in the interest of the protection of civic liberties”. Even Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus Kirill has said that state control over the Internet should be stiffened.

'There is still a big question mark over the political maturity of the Russian population. While in the course of the last month or so, there has been a small shift to more political use, Russians generally remain profoundly indifferent towards politics⎯which is perpetuated online.'

Authorities have been very concerned about the internet communication tools over which it has no control. Earlier this year, for example, the FSB announced that Skype, Gmail and Hotmail ought to be banned in Russia simply because they were beyond the control of the secret services. The government’s reactivity is also visible on a legal level, with an abundance of tenders from state organs. In April, the government’s spokesman instructed experts to study foreign experience in Internet control. In October, the Ministry of Justice made public a tender for the acquisition of an online monitoring system that would compile reports on the information posted about the Minister, the President and the Prime Minister. Finally, Roskomnadzor, Russian Federal Service for Telecoms Supervision, announced a public tender for developing an Internet monitoring system.

These declarations and initiatives at the highest level of the state would indicate that tougher regulation of web content is already underway. That said, the authorities’ nervousness towards the Internet should possibly be read more as the expression of anxiety and misinterpretation of what the Internet is, rather than a will to establish wholesale online censorship.

The Russian spring?

Many parallels have been made between the Arab Spring revolutions and Russia’s domestic situation at election time. Personally, I would regard enthusiastic arguments about the Internet as a means for driving political change in Russia with some skepticism. The increasing polarization between TV audiences and Internet audiences tempers this idea. Most Russians who follow political reporting and debate online are part of the young urban elite, the politically engaged, and journalists who work for the independent press. On the other side, an offline mass of older, poorer and largely conservative people consume state-controlled TV. The latter segment of the population goes en masse to the ballot box. While there are individuals who have become famous through Internet activism in Russia, this is restricted to a small number, whose real political impact can be questioned. Alexey Navalny, an anti-corruption campaigner has become a cause célèbre in the West, yet before the election, only 6% of Russians know his name. However, more than 30% of those asked had heard his most famous maxim: United Russia, the party of swindlers and thieves. [data from the Levada Centre]

'It is likely that in the months ahead we will be witnessing more in the way of a counter-influence campaign online by pro-Putin cohorts and the increased use of “extremist” laws to harass critically-minded bloggers.'

There is still a big question mark over the political maturity of the Russian population. In Russia, like in most of the world, the Internet is above all used for entertainment and/or professional purposes. While in the course of the last month or so, there has been a small shift to more political use, Russians generally remain profoundly indifferent towards politics⎯which is perpetuated online. Before the elections, this indifference was cultivated by the authorities, who considered that Internet users inhabited a politically blunt “parallel universe”. Even opposition politician Vladimir Milov talked about an “apolitical Internet”. The authorities prioritized a policy of containment, restricting dissenting opinions to the Internet, first by favoring the development of new digital technologies, then by deploying proactive efforts to steer online conversations.

Anxiety over the elections seems to have triggered a change in approach, and it is certainly likely that in the months ahead we will be witnessing more in the way of a counter-influence campaign online by pro-Putin cohorts (e.g. Nashi), and the increased use of “extremist” laws to harass critically-minded bloggers. How social networks which “gave the floor” to oppositional voices on the day of voting at the parliamentary elections (LiveJournal, VKontakte) will respond to the inevitable increased pressure from FSB will also be of great interest.

Facebook Censorship 2.0 (by American Activist)

As an 8 year Veteran of Online Activism, as well as actually organizing protests (G-Summits: G7, G8, G20, crashing a Vice-Presidential Speech ”Dick Cheney”, University revolts in Paris France, Impeach Bush Protests, #Occupy World, etc…), I thought I would discuss online Censorship; especially pertaining to Facebook.

I created Anarchadia in 2010, to try and fight Mainstream Disinformation by Spin Doctors; and it worked well for a year. We were getting loads of feedback, people all over Facebook were hearing of our endeavors.

Then one day, our profile was deleted, under new Facebook Guidelines, which forced you to be an actual person, in order to have and maintain a Facebook Profile (which Facebook can change on a whim without any respect for their 800,000,000 clients. They don’t even have a Customer Service to complain, except for Law Enforcement who has a direct line on their Hotline #).There is also the fact, that many Organizations and Companies, were still creating Friend Profiles, and were not forced to delete. Everyone at the time said it was normal. I didn’t find it normal, but I decided to ignore.

Luckily, I had saved our Facebook Profile Information, before they deleted the Ask Anarchadia Profile we had. But I did think of all those people who had not. They lost precious information, maybe. Ask Anarchadia had people behind it; we used it to communicate with close Friends and acquaintances (just like the guidelines said), and everything Anarchadia did was Non-Profit, and totally Underground. So I dismissed the fact that Facebook had just targeted thousands of Activist Pages, not even crazy Religious/Fascist/Bigot Activist pages; I am talking about real censorship on Anarcho-Pacifist Organizers. Do you remember when Michael Moore said in 9/11, Homeland Security was targeting Anarcho-Pacifists.Real Censorship on intelligent action, and underground movements.

But as I said before, my first instinct was to refute any sort of paranoid thinking.

Then one of our close friends Wiki Junky got her account deleted, just for helping us spread, truthful, intelligent information, to our Friends. Wiki is now a commited volunteer (and we got a bit more credibility since our account had been directly attacked) there wasn’t only a negative side, to this story.

So I forgot that Homeland Security has over 50,000 people acting as real people, spreading distorted information. And most of America did the same; it was at a time, when most people, still thought Obama was the Real-Deal-Socialist-Selfless-Helper of the poor, he said he was. There was this sort of illusion still permeating in the air, that all of George Bush’s Policies were passé. I also couldn’t complain, because Facebook had turned my Profile into a Like Page (after deleting all of our personal/public Information; and since we only published our information on Facebook, it was a severe blow). But that was another Catch 22. There is a reason for Like Pages and Profile Pages on Facebook; and it goes far beyond, the naive thought, that Facebook is just: “trying to help”. You have to pay for a Like Page to be shared by Facebook (unless you are advertised externally; which is hard to do when you have no funds, and are only specialized in Geo-Politics, not Web Designing), with a profile page Facebook advertises your profile for free.

If you don’t have the right to make loads of activist friends, or spread the truth on Facebook, then who must these “Friend Profiles” be for?

Allow me to say this before, you consider my answer:

There is a Myth around Facebook which obscures most of the truth, just like the most expensive Public Relations Campaigns do; with such agility and finess.The idea is that Facebook is made up of complex Algorithyms, which allow us to communicate better (True). There is also the factor of being censored by your peers (True), and also forced to follow Facebook Guidelines (whatever they might become, once public opinion believes Facebook is an Angel from Heaven: just like Americans used to associate Coca Cola with Santa Claus and not Cancer). And worst of all, if Facebook is caught censoring you, they can say it was an accident, remember the “Automatic Algorithms”?

So what would stop, a Facebook Homeland Security Joint Task Force? And who would that force be truely paid to protect? Individual Rights? Or a Malevolently-Greed-Enthusiastic Corporation’s Rights? Probably the latter one, just like Obama, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Judge Napolitano, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton did… or sold out to. Could Facebook also be enforcing the CIA/World Bank/Corporate Agenda? Since the 1950′s the CIA and World Bank have been backing Right-Wing Coups, corrupting Government Officials, Terrorists, and Dictators (most of whom trained on American soil, in our infamous School of the Americas), in order to quench the insatiable thirst of 1st World Corporations.

You don’t see very many Right wing extremists being censored on Facebook, I have seen some pretty horrific things, in my time browsing the site. It seems more to me as if Facebook doesn’t censor ignorance; it censors valuable information for those who have no interests in the corrupt values/methods/ideologies our Corporatocracy employs; those people are the ones getting censored. So the War is still between the Haves and Have nots. And that can’t change as long as there are those who have, and the rest. I’m sure if you work for a Corporation you are probably furious at this article, and will paste it somewhere in the paranoid conspiracies section of your brain. But what if we were all debt slaves, being lead toward Corporate Fascism, would you still dismiss it?

Nato/ U.S Military have killed more than 30,000,000 people, since 1949. In the past 10 years, the Nato Forces have killed over 1,033,000 (only counting the Middle East), versus the 3500 Al Qaeda has killed. Over-Population? 2012 Conspiracies? You mean the current genocide, of South American Indigenous tribes? And don’t even mention the Taliban, because we know exactly who put them in Afghanistan in the first place.The gap between the rich and the poor has never been so great. And International Bankers would love you to keep believing everything happens by chance, especially when they are pulling strings, to solely satisfy their own personal greed.

So, If you don’t have the right to make loads of activist friends, or spread the truth on Facebook, then who must it be for?

The Corporations of course! Facebook is about making money (for the few), and lots of it. Just like the U.S Military, Federal Reserve, and every other Country’s Centralized/International Banker controlled/ Privatized Monetary Systems. Don’t trust Mr. Zuckerberg one second, when he boasts about being a humble and down to earth type of guy. A humble person doesn’t rob an idea from several people, to then monopolize, and censor positive Activism.

And its absolutely your decision to dismiss this article as Paranoid Conspiracy or simply as an observation.

By: John McCarthy

Further Links:

http://www.change.org/petitions/facebook-give-the-people-true-freedom-to-share

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook#Government_censorship

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Social-Network-Censorship/145984358805461

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=246493818715378&set=a.238215772876516.69311.237744256257001&type=3&theater

Julian Assange: iPhone, Blackberry and Gmail users are 'screwed' - video

WikilLeaks founder Julian Assange tells smartphone and Gmail users 'you're all screwed' by intelligence contractors who sell mass surveillance devices for such technologies in the post 9/11 world. He also announced that his whistleblowing organisation was embarking on a new 'source protection platform'

LINK

Stallman: Facebook IS Mass Surveillance

RT LINK

The father of free software philosophy spoke to RT on evil developers, spying social networks, the almost-legitimacy of Anonymous hacks and the condition under which he would take a proprietary program and a million dollars.

Stallman is the man behind the concept that every computer program must be free for users to study and modify as they want. This is the only way to ensure that by using the software users do not compromise their human rights, he says.

“Free software literally gives you freedom in the area of computing. It means that you can control your computing. It means that the users individually and collectively have control over their computing. And in particular it means they can protect themselves from the malicious features that are likely to be in proprietary software,” he told RT.

“This doesn’t automatically give you freedom in some other area of life. To get that you have to fight for it. But human rights support each other. In an age when a lot of what we do, we do with computers, if we don’t have freedom in our computing, that makes it harder for us to defend or fight for freedom in other areas. You lose one set of rights – and it’s harder for you to keep the others.”

There are many ways how people can be stripped of their freedom through the software they use. One of the latest examples is the scandal with Carrier IQ’s software, which is being accused of logging every keystroke on devices, which run it.

“This is an example of malicious features in non-free software. Those mobile phones are being run by non-free software, so it’s no surprise that they have malicious features in them. The most commonly used non-free programs do,” Stallman sadly pointed out.

Another example is Facebook’s data-mining activities, which includes massive spying on people browsing the internet.

“Facebook does massive surveillance. If there is a ‘like’ button in a page, Facebook knows who visited that page. And it can get IP address of the computer visiting the page even if the person is not a Facebook user. So you visit several pages that have ‘like’ button and Facebook knows that you visited all of those, even if it doesn’t really know who you are,” he said.

But the public awareness of the danger is rising, and they start resisting it. For instance, operations of the Anonymous hacker group are basically an online version of protest demos, Stallman says.

“The Anonymous protests for the most part work by having a lot of people send a lot of commands to a website, that it can’t handle so many requests. This is equivalent of a crowd of people going to the door of a building and having a protest on the street. It’s basically legitimate. And when people object to this, let’s look at who they are and what they do. Usually they are people who are doing much worse things,” he believes.

Another vivid example is the rise of pirate parties in Europe, which have started winning seats in elected bodies there.

“I more-or-less agree with their positions and I’m glad to see that these issues are becoming election issues. I don’t necessarily endorse pirate parties because to do that I would have to know what all the other parties are and these are not the only issues I think are important. For instance, putting a limit on global heating is extremely important. Many pirate parties don’t take a position on that. So I might choose to support a green party instead,” he said.

At the same time Stallman points out that many people endorse piracy for absolutely wrong reasons. They want to have a right to use proprietary software free of charge, while they should not to it at all.

“Why is it bad to use an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program? Because it’s proprietary! So an unauthorized copy is almost as nasty as an authorized copy of the same program. They are both nasty because they are proprietary. The users don’t have control over them. If they pay developer – that makes it worse, because they are rewarding this delinquency. That’s why the authorized copy is worse. But they are both bad because they are both proprietary software. If you want freedom, you have to get rid of them both, because they both control you,” he explained.

“I don’t use that software. If you offered me an authorized copy and you wanted to pay me a million dollars to take it, I still wouldn’t take it, unless I could throw it away immediately. Yeah – if I could take the million dollars and throw away the program, then I would say yes,” Stallman added.

The visionary says the shrinking of software development industry, should that be caused by wider introduction of free software, would be absolutely irrelevant in the face of the benefit would bring.

“Who cares? What good is a so-called industry that’s creating tools to subjugate people? I won’t use the non-free software at all! I dedicate my effort to getting away from it! So if they stop making it – that would be great! I wish they would. I hope for the day when they won’t make non-free software anymore,” he said.

Certainly, such a turn of events may damage innovative industries, but Stallman says the direction where software development heads now harms it more anyway.

“With software patents the US has become a dangerous place for software development, including innovative software development, because when a program is innovative, that means it has some new ideas in it. But it also has lots of well-known ideas in it. A large program combines thousands of ideas. So if you have some new ideas and you want to use them, in order to use them you have to combine them with a lot of other ideas that are well-known. And if you are not allowed to do that because those other ideas are patented, you can’t use your new idea,” he explained.

For answers to your questions asked via Twitter and Facebook, watch the full video version of the interview.

Also don’t miss RT’s Spotlight program on December 17, in which Richard Stallman elaborated on his convictions and activism.

鍵盤戰線對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的聲明

鍵盤戰線對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的聲明

鑑於最近兩天《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》有最新進展，政府發言人指不打算在修訂版權條例時豁免二次創作，企圖先通過修例，待明年再就豁免戲仿作品諮詢公眾。就此，本組織對此惡法作出鄭重聲明：

1. 政府強硬通過惡法，製造白色恐怖
   至今，修訂草案仍未有明確指引及對二次創作的共識便希望強硬通過修訂，版權修訂原意為保護創作人，打擊盜版，在未有最具切身關係的創作人認同前，卻以有迫切性為由企圖強迫全港市民就範，簡直本末倒置。
   版權條例諮詢立法週期往往需四、五年，於這些年間，市民想小創作也要思量一番，只能處於白色恐怖的環境中，法例不單未能保護市民的使用權與平衡創作業界的利益，更直接損害市民的創作權利，這法律只會淪為打壓異見工具，並非保護市民。
   
2. 二次創作是具有高價值的創作，亦不會侵害原作者利益
   草案委員會主席陳鑑林說得一點都沒錯，市民「有本事就自己創作」，所以才會有大批有本事的市民都積極參與二次創作。
   
   大部份惡搞都沒有賺錢，又或是與原作品處於不同市場，絕對談不上侵害到原作者權利，若以保障原作者利益為由立法，根本站不住腳。
   
   而惡搞是二次創作的一種，把某種事物賦予新的意義，並非純粹抄襲其他作品。現今國際不少知名創作品，其實都是二次創作，國際上一向認可二次創作，早前著名電影商VIACOM更在旗下網站設「惡搞專區」， 既能吸納創意，更可羅致創作專才，而且作品更可為原作品提升宣傳效益。
   
   加 上，二次創作的作品，不少已脫離原作品產生的效應，它擁有與原作品不同效應、市場、意思，原作品的版權持有人控制一個與原作截然不同作品的版權，實在不合 理。事實上，二次創作根本難以侵權，修改法例阻止一切二次創作正正與特區政府大力推動的「創意」相違背，必須豁免二次創作，強行通過修訂才再作出咨詢，是 漠視民意的行為。
   
3. 實務守則侵害網民私隱
   根據實務守則， OSP(服務提供者)須按投訴人要求移除疑似侵權內容，並提醒被投訴的用戶有權尋求獨立法律意見或直接聯絡投訴人。用戶可發出「異議通知」抗辯，但必須填寫姓名、地址及電話號碼，再由 OSP轉 交投訴人，否則異議無效。如有人有心控告，普通網民便會陷入言論自由與個人私隱的兩難，全體網民也會隨之公然受害，本組織憂慮此舉將造成寒蟬效應。當網站 接到侵權投訴時，不把貼文影音下架當然要負起連帶責任，但上載發貼人如欲抗辯，也不應被逼獻上個人私隱資料予投訴人，最起碼不是在法庭受理案件前奉上個人 資料。加上，「安全港」制度 一旦實施，配合「貶損處理」，任何有錢有勢力的人士都可對他不利的言論進行上網大清洗，大行白色恐怖，這直接令網民私隱完全沒有保障。
   
4. 不應設立刑事罪行，侵權與否只應由版權持有人判斷
   民 事罪行是由受害人控告的，只是被告與受害人中間有衝突或損害；刑事罪行則由律政司控告，被告所犯的是傷害社會的事，與社會為敵。現政府卻欲把版權條例修訂 至設立刑責，把二次創作歸為與社會為敵的事，但設立版權條例終目的應該是保護版權持有人，在過去不少領域裏，有些版權持有人明白二次創作與原創作共生互利 之道，不提出侵權起訴，例如日本漫畫與同人誌等等。二次創作不但對版權持有者沒有任何金錢或名譽上的傷害，更為原創作賦予新的意義，大家互惠互利，更不談 上傷害。版權持有者不認為二次創作或轉載作品是侵權行為時，第三者更加沒有理由提出控告，根本沒有必要設立刑事罪行，創作是否侵權只有版權持有者能作出判 斷。

就以上幾點，本組織強烈反對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》的強硬通過，並擔憂此惡法的通過會變成往後政府強行立法的案例，為香港的司法及民主道路帶來極深影響。本組織要求草委會必先理解創作的意義及獲得市民共識，強硬立法只會適得其反，令市民大力反抗。

LINK

數碼電台節目"網絡起義"談二次創作

立法會動議"捍衛新聞自由"遭否決

Censored: #occupywallstreet

link Published: 18 November, 2011, 20:28

Has Twitter acted to silence Occupy Wall Street? As a new generation of protesters relies on social media to get their message across, doubts are beginning to surface that the latest tool for popular revolution is firmly in corporate hands.

As OWS protestors gathered at intersections around Wall Street Thursday, their plans to stop traders from ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange was quickly thwarted by a heavy-handed police response.

With an estimated 400 arrested and demonstrators complaining of police brutality, the coordinated nationwide clampdown by local authorities is in full effect.

But amid the historic level of civic protest that has not been seen in the United States in a generation, many were wondering: “Why isn’t Occupy Wall Street trending on Twitter?”

­Twitter: an instrument for change?

Twitter, the online social networking service that enables users to send and read text-based posts known as “tweets,” has long been touted as a tool helping grassroots organizers foment social and political change. During the contentious 2009 Iranian presidential elections, the US State Department reportedly worked with Twitter to help expand its access in Iran. In what would ultimately be dubbed the “Twitter Revolution,” activists relied heavily on Twitter and other social networking sites as they coordinated their activities against the ruling regime.

Washington was also said to have asked Twitter to delay maintenance plans so Iranian activists could communicate with each other.

Likewise, social media advocates heralded the dawn of a new age when the use of Twitter became instrumental in organizing revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, ultimately igniting the Arab Spring in late 2010/early 2011.

Occupy Wall Street meanwhile, which started as a small spark in downtown New York on September 17, has since spread like wildfire around the world. Having been largely ignored by the mainstream media, the protestors in the square-block Zuccotti Park, located in the heart of New York’s financial district, did what protestors in Egypt’s Tahrir Square did; they relied on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook to coordinate their actions.

But what happened when the cyber utopians struck at the heart of an empire that Twitter itself is a part of? That is a calculation that many Occupy Wall Street Protestors apparently did not make.

Trending and Hash tags:

Hash tags or pound signs (#), a user created phenomenon, a user created phenomenon, are used to group conversations on Twitter. By grouping tweets together, users can create “memes”, ideas which spread from person to person within a culture.

Now, if hash tags help pool together similar ideas, trends are the ultimate expression of this, where, with the simple click of the mouse, users can access the most popular topics from the 200 million tweets sent every single day. According to Twitter’s official website, trends “are automatically generated by an algorithm that attempts to identify topics that are being talked about more right now than they were previously.”

Therefore, to trend, overall volume is not the only important factor. A massive spike of interest is also necessary to make something trend on Twitter’s homepage. For example, say #britneyspears gets 1 million tweets a day, every day, for months on end. Meanwhile, #occupywallstreet has a baseline of 10,000 tweets for the first half of September. If it then spiked to 990,000 on September 17, #Occupywallstreet should trend (assuming there are not several other larger spikes of volume) while #britneyspears would not.

Basically regular figures do not trend, while massive increases do.

­Twiter Remains Silent

Critics have argued that at the movement’s inception on September 17 and again on October 1, when some 700 OWS protestors were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge, #occupywallstreet did not appear on the Twitter trending list.

According to some activists, on both September 17 and October 1, #occupywallstreet tweets were occurring in greater frequency than other top trending topics which appeared on Twitter’s homepage. So why did it not show up as a trend?

Sean Garnett, Twitter’s vice president of communications, claimed in a statement posted on quora.com that this most likely occurred because the public “don't have access to our trends algorithm and may not have access to the full firehose of tweets.” Others have counted misspellings and other variations of phrasing that could have lead to the phenomenon.

However, using Trendistic, a statistic-based trending analytic tool around, Jonathan Albright, a PhD. Researcher at the University of Auckland, said the data seems to contradict the primary arguments about how topics trend on Twitter – their relative newness, volume, and related spikes in interest.

First, Albright compared #occupywallstreet with two other topics that trended on October 1; #whatyoushouldknowaboutme and #october. Comparing the data, Albright discovered that #october had been on Twitter for much longer than #occupywallstreet and did not experience a dramatically greater peak in activity. Meanwhile, #whatyoushouldknowaboutme, which trended nearly all day, had a less dramatic peak in overall tweets than #occupywallstreet.

Meanwhile, Emily Chambliss from Attention, a global social media marketing agency, determined in her own statistical analysis:

"In the first week, average mentions per day were an unimpressive 18.8 mentions per day. Not many people were talking about Occupy Wall Street. After the start of occupation on 9/17 and up until 9/23, average mentions per day increased by a whopping 2,004 per cent. The following week had a 97 per cent increase over the week prior, and the week after the Brooklyn Bridge arrests saw a 216 per cent increase in average mentions per day."

So #occupywallstreet was relatively new, very hot, experienced great peaks in activity, but did not trend. Whatever the reason, it raises doubts about Twitter’s claim its automatically-generated algorithm “rewards discussions that are new to Twitter."

­Twitter: a corporate tool

Many activists believe Twitter is working against Occupy Wall Street at the behest of corporate interests.

In March of 2011, Bloomberg news reported that JPMorgan Chase & Co., arguably the largest corporate bank in the world, “has invested in a fund that has bought about $400 million in Twitter Inc. shares.

With an estimated value of $4.5 billion dollars and one of the world’s major financial service providers heavily invested in it, Twitter might be a favorite tool of the “99 per cent”, but their interests obviously do not correspond with them.

In the end, Twitter might be more than happy to help the US government overthrow undesirable regimes in other parts of the world. But when it comes to giving voice to those who have decided to challenge a system of corporate greed and income inequality at home, silence might ultimately figure better into their bottom line.

© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005 - 2011. All rights reserved.

藝術工作者反對版權條例修訂 要求豁免二次創作

錄映太奇在2011年11月12日和13日，舉辦了一個二次創作實驗短片放映會，並和知識產權處代表、藝術工作者、文字創作人、版權關注團體等人士，就版權法修訂進行了一次圓桌會議。會上藝術工作者、文字創作人、版權關注團體均指出，是次修訂非但無法加強打擊盜版，更嚴重損害創作自由及言論自由，要求豁免二次創作。

主辦單位在會上放映的作品，顯示二次創作可以是嚴肅的研究、政治批判、對經典的回應、和關於生活感受等。藝術工作者、香港城市大學創意媒體學院助理教授文晶瑩指出，二次創作具有原創性和獨立性，內容與原作有很大的距離，應該視為獨立作品，不應視作侵權。

代表知識產權署的高級律師曾志深則回應說，版權條例其實相當複雜，普遍大眾對版權條例不熟悉，當中難免有誤解；他補充如得版權持有人同意、又例如只取用部分而不是全部作品，有列明出處，目的是為了評論的話，「惡搞」並不算侵權。而且即使侵權也不一定會帶來後果，政府執法也需諮詢原創者，若原創者不追究，政府不會作出檢控。但文字創作人、「字花」編輯鄧小樺反駁說，若某畫展被懷疑侵權，海關查封了展覽，研究三個月，即使最終因證據不足、不檢控，展覽卻因此被破壞，白費了藝術家的心血，其實已是一種打壓創作的手段。

二次創作權關注組代表「小狼」更指政府前後矛盾︰商務及經濟發展局副秘書長王國彬起初曾表示，香港版權法的修訂是沿襲英國的版權法，但當英國政府正計劃在版權法中豁免二次創作的同時，王國彬卻表示香港版權法的修訂未必要跟隨英國。而且二次創作不一定損害版權持有人的商業利益，但政府卻無視此情況。

二次創作權關注組的代表「靈」指出，是次修訂把「網上發表」當成「大量分發」，其實政府可以跳過版權持有人執法，而並非如曾志深所指「若原創者不追究，政府不會作出檢控」。她更指出，創作要考慮到時間性，如果每次發表作品都要經過審查，浪費時間之餘，作品亦未能及時展出，失去意義。

文晶瑩表示研究、評論等文章，引用他人文字，只要指明出處，也不用經原作者同意，同理二次創作若遵從公平使用原則又不牟利，也可以不用經原作者同意。文晶瑩和鄧小樺均指出，二次創作是一種藝術類型，有長久的歷史。錄映太奇主席鮑藹倫表示打壓這類藝術會影響文化承傳。鄧小樺指出製訂法例的知識產權署明顯不理解藝術創作生態，文化藝術知識落後。

創作人程展緯指出，政府對網絡文化知識同樣落後。政府雖然聲稱新修訂版權條例，是為了適應網絡年代，但程展緯指創作文化和網絡文化都是一種禮物經濟，有別於市場經濟，重視分享、推動、衍生。新修訂版權條例其實只是保障了商品，而不是保障創作。

二次創作權關注組的代表「小狼」更補充，法例保障的是版權持有人，但他們往往是商家不是創作人。版權法的平衡點向他們嚴重傾斜，未能保護真正的創作人。而林敏聰把自己作品放上網，卻被告侵權的事件正是一例。又表示根據現有條例92(2)(b)條:如作品經處理後受歪曲或殘缺不全，或在其他方面對作者或導演的榮譽或聲譽具損害性，則該項處理屬貶損處理。修訂後政府容易選擇性檢控，無法檢控一些真正犯法的人，卻檢控一些無辜的創作人。

曾志深稱，每次檢控須有足夠的客觀証據去顯示二次創作者對原創者構成名譽上或經濟上的損失，檢控標準其實很高，政府不會隨意作出檢控。修訂條例的其中一個目的乃希望它具有前瞻性，在科技進步的情況下，無須不斷修改條例。但與會人士反駁說雖然這條例字面屬民事性質，但如果有關案件涉及網上發表，則可能會被視為「大量分發」而遭刑事檢控。並建議修改字眼令條例更清晰。

與會人士又指出，張錦輝在接受《政府新聞網》訪問時明言「惡搞」是侵權，是「貶損性嘅處理」、「嚴肅變詼諧」以及「為版權持有人帶來精神感受之傷害」，是做了很差的社會教育。曾志深則解釋有關片段原本有一個多小時，但《政府新聞網》只截取了幾分鐘發佈，以致訊息不全面。但有與會者指知識產權署應該有修正的權利卻未運用。除政府代表外，與會者一致同意政府應刪除有問題的片段，並作更清晰的解釋。曾志深則表示會向局方反映。

有與會人士表示，政府在版權修訂上，對藝術工作者的咨詢不足。政府代表曾志深表示，條例咨詢足夠與否純粹個人感覺，咨詢由零六年十月已經開始，零八年四月已有初步的構思，必須循序漸進。但二次創作權關注組代表小狼指，他由零六年起已在留意版權條例，當年時任副署長張錦輝曾參與一個版權關注會議，而當年與會約一百人，近乎全部都表態要求政府豁免二次創作，但這聲音明顯未有反映在新修訂中，質疑政府只聽大財團聲音，漠視市民權益。鄧小樺也稱文化界已爭取了十年以上。政府推說有關建議還要諮詢，相當不合理。她表示如果再作諮詢，創作人的聲音、數量都一定不夠工商界強，政府應該有文化知識高度去看這個問題。

有與會者表示，新修訂未能打擊盜版之餘，刑事化、政府主動執法的行動只會扼殺言論和藝術自由的權利，阻礙藝術和社會創意的發展，與特區政府推動創意產業的政策背道而馳。

會上藝術創作人普遍要求要豁免二次創作，聲音相當清晰，文晶瑩說許多國家例如比利時、法國、立陶宛、盧森堡、馬爾他、荷蘭、波蘭、西班牙都有法律明文容許二次創作(caricature,parody or pastiche)，若作品遵守公平使用原則、非牟利、與原作有距離，便應得豁免。程展緯表示政府應說明豁免的原則是甚麼，若藝術創作性質如研究、評論等，便應同樣得到豁免。

有與會人士建議「格式轉換合法化」等技術性的修訂沒大爭議性，可先行通過。曾志深稱會與商務發展局反映大家的聲音。

查詢請聯絡錄映太奇：電郵info@videotage.org.hk/ 電話2573-1869。

參考資料：
- 政府新聞處，「網絡無限 締造原創奇蹟」
2011 年6 月18 日,2011 年9 月9 日。
- 王國彬，「加強保護版權，推動創意發展」香港政府新聞網，2011年06月15日，網頁2011年9月9日。
- 二手料、原創片：香港實驗短片放映會和版權法圓桌會議介紹：http://videotage.org.hk/zh/project/second-­‐
hand-­‐material-­‐original-­‐works/

錄映太奇
新聞稿
即時發佈
2011 年11 月20 日
Photo: Mary Chan

版權修例不豁免惡搞 議員憂扼殺創作

【明報專訊】廣大網民憂慮《版權條例》修訂會威脅網上惡搞改圖文化，稱有關草案為「網絡23條」，要求政府立法時豁免，但不獲政府接納。政府發言人解釋，惡搞難下清晰定義，故不打算在修訂版權條例時豁免，待明年再諮詢時才下回分解。有立法會議員憂慮不豁免惡搞扼殺二次創作，表明反對修例。

《版權（修訂）條例草案》委員會下周二開會，據商務及經濟發展局提交立法會文件，澳洲已就「戲仿」（parody）和「諷刺」（satire）作品訂定公平處理版權豁免，加拿大亦於9月提出立法，但商務局的文件指兩地都無定義何謂戲仿和諷刺，豁免戲仿作品具爭議，不宜匆匆提出。

定義不清晰 明年諮詢公眾

政府發言人表示，最快明年首季可恢復二讀，盼先通過修例，然後再就豁免戲仿作品諮詢公眾。網民近期提出豁免惡搞，政府指早在2006年已得悉英國開始討論，發言人解釋，本港諮詢時未提出讓公眾討論，是因當年未流行惡搞。

政府發言人強調，修例不是針對惡搞，現有版權條例已訂明侵權者可被民事索償，損害版權持有人的權利，或以牟利為目的，則會墮入刑網，修例後的刑責門檻不變。為釋除疑慮，修例草案已指明有關「損害」須為「經濟損害」。修例另增訂傳播權利，涵蓋不涉及複製的串流侵權行為。

《版權（修訂）條例草案》委員會委員湯家驊對不豁免惡搞感失望，憂扼殺二次創作，造成白色恐怖，並指公眾聽證會已顯示民情支持豁免，不用再諮詢，否則要等修例通過後數年才再修訂。若政府不豁免，他傾向反對修例。

美彈性公平原則 星仿效

港大計算機科學系副教授潘國雄認為，本地版權豁免狹窄，只針對教學等，不包括惡搞創作，建議港府參考美國採取具彈性的公平使用原則，讓法庭按當時社會情况作判斷，新加坡已參照美國方式立法。

立法會資訊科技界議員譚偉豪稱，政府應就豁免惡搞讓步，促政府在提供豁免前，承諾不引用刑事條文執法，否則會引起憂慮。

不過，草案委員會主席、民建聯議員陳鑑林認為，惡搞具傷害，豁免前須諮詢，「你有本事就自己創作，為何要搞人家的照片？」

資訊自由 危如累卵

每日上網8小時最快樂 港人化虛為實變網中人

當資訊極速爆棚，科技發展又一日千里，人類生活自然出現翻天覆地之轉變，其中又以跟互聯網的變化最大，令不少都市人都跟上網這習慣，建立出一種猶如不可分割的後現代相依為命感。

樹 仁大學經濟與金融系昨公布一個上網習慣調查，訪問862人，近88%人屬24歲或以下，結果發現受訪者平均日花約5小時上網，他們的快樂指數平均為 67.6，而如果一整天不能上網，快樂指數則急跌至45.2分；至於上網時間長短，亦影響快樂指數之高低，每日上網7至8小時，快樂指數便會達最高，然後 時間再長，快樂感卻反而下降。

分析原因，是調查反映年輕一代十分倚重互聯網作社交和 娛樂，老紀翻查外國研究，原來網絡世界出現的最大好處， 正是提升人的生活質素，以致令生活更為便利，似乎正是說明網絡生活已是大勢所趨。過去常以為，網絡只是虛擬空間，但因都市生活跟網絡密不可分，結果是虛擬 已成為真實。

樹仁大學於上月初進行的上網與快樂問卷調查，訪問了862人，當中758人年齡介乎18 至24歲，這批年輕受訪者，佔總受訪人 數約88%；調查發現，受訪者平均日花5.04小時上網，最多是瀏覽社交網站（2.31小時），其次是為搜尋資料（1.20小時），此外就會在上網觀賞線 上影視（0.97小時）及參與線上遊戲（0.55小時）。

調查又要求被訪者就「上網，令你有幾快樂」評分（1分最不快樂，100分最快樂），受訪者的快樂指數平均為67.6分，但如果有一整天不能上網，指數即急跌至只得45.2分的不合格上平，即令人不快樂。

調 查更發現，原來上網時間長短亦影響快樂多少，兩者關係呈倒U形曲線，上網少於1小時，快樂指數只得62.7，當上網時間增加，指數同樣上升，並在「7至8 小時」攀至71.2分最高峰，意味每日花上約三分一時間上網，將有最大滿足感；不過，上網太長也非好事，因為超過8個鐘，快樂指數就會開始下跌，當達到 13至14小時，快樂指數更跌至65.3分。

每日花5小時或8小時上網是多是少？香港在20年前才正式連結互聯網，至 2000年時，港人每 日才平均上網20分鐘，但已成為全球之冠；美國互聯網流量統計權威comScore公司最新數據就顯示，現時全球上網最多的國家是加拿大（只以國家為單 位），是全球唯一平均每月每人會在網上耗時超過2500分鐘（近42小時）的國家，然而跟今天的港人比較，加人恐怕仍有排力追。

全港逾六成人口是網民

事 實上，港人上網時間長跟香港網絡普及不無關係。老紀翻查資料，香港在電腦普及率和互聯網使用率上，一直佔世界前列位置，全港約有七成六住戶在家中擁有電腦 並接駁上互聯網，而根據統計處去年公布的數字，香港現時網民數量高達430萬人，即全港逾六成人口是網民；截至去年底，全港有213萬固網寬頻用戶，寬頻 用戶比率排名在亞太區排第二，再加上「香港政府WiFi通」計劃，當局提供數千個公共Wi-Fi熱點，令港人置身一個網絡都市，老紀更未計算港人多同時利 用手提電話上網，簡而言之，就是隨時隨地都能在生活中連結到互聯網去。

但究竟上網為何會令人快樂？研究人員就分析這快樂 感來自三方面，包括 社交網站加強與別人溝通並建立人際關係，搜尋資料可作獲得資訊的工具，而透過線上遊戲和線上影視可達娛樂用途；至於花在網上時間愈長，即要脫離現實世界愈 久，因而令邊際快樂指數自然遞減，但老紀就相信，原因未必跟脫離現實有關，反可能更似「食滯」，即因過度滿足令快樂感消失。

其實，西方也有就上網與快樂的關係作出研究，《時代雜誌》在去年5月一篇題為「Is the Internet the Secret to Happiness?」的文章，就解說雖然有數之不盡的研究稱上網會令人成癮、焦慮及不安，但不能否認網絡世界同時令人感覺歡愉。

該文章引述英國電腦學會的研究，指互聯網可改善人的生活，帶來的滿足感比單從入息計算更大，箇中原因，是網絡世界提高了人的自由及控制感，因而對幸福感帶來正面影響，而這個上網與幸福的關係也跟年齡無關，換言之，不論老幼，都會因上網而感到開心。

再 檢視港人的生活，不能否認，已全面跟網絡掛鈎，並由過去去電視機年代，正式步入網絡化年代。老紀所言絕無誇大，現時香港多間的電台、電視台及報章，都不約 而同有利用互聯網作傳播媒介，至於社交網站，更是最頻繁的資訊流通平台，而連政府及銀行，都極力推動電子化，即鼓勵使用者透過網絡來使用服務，令香港人已 要被迫成為「網民」；此外，愈來愈普及的網上購物及娛樂（例如寬頻電視）等真實的生活需要，都令港人不由自主地投入本屬虛擬的網絡世界，而當傳短訊亦已改 變成透過上網，轉用whatsapp及LINE等網上聊天工具來進行時，明顯反映上網已成為港人的生活必要。

事實上，當Web進入2.0世代，網絡世界已不再是一個虛擬空間，反而因更多的互動而真實化起來，這種由虛轉實的變化，在不知就裏間改變了港人的生活，如果仍在恐懼上網是一個會令人沉迷的活動，更似是跟生活脫節，下一步，恐怕只會被時代巨輪淘汰。

keyman@hkej.com

惡搞有罪 85%網民喊打

談判專家活用facebook救人 利用網絡 游說反鎖房內青少年

【明報專訊】

對不少巿民來說社交網絡facebook是與親友分享交流的平台，而對警方談判專家來說， facebook原來可以是救人的工具。在現實中面對企圖自殺人士，警方的談判專家除了用驚人的耐性和三寸不爛之舌游說談判對象，原來亦曾利用 facebook接觸這批拒絕對話、自行反鎖家中企圖自殺的青少年，利用網絡力量成功救人。

警隊談判小組經常要處理自殺和危急事故，甚至要 具備與恐怖分子談判的能耐。不過，在現今資訊發達的社會，溝通對談已不能只是面對面的交談，有時需要使用電腦以至社交網絡。警方談判小組主管黃廣興接受訪 問時指出，談判人員近年都要使用社交網絡facebook等，與談判對象溝通。

黃廣興指出，年多前曾有一名企圖自殺的富家子弟，因情緒不穩而反鎖在家中大宅房間內，談判人員苦無展開對談之策，想到情緒不穩青年必定利用房間電腦上網，決定採取「非傳統」方法，聯絡上富家子的友人，透過facebook與他對談。

花7小時 反鎖年輕人自願開門

「經過7小時，該年輕人最終自願開門出來。」黃警司未有透露網上對談細節，他指出，為救回企圖輕生人士，警方會採用創新和非傳統方法。

談判專家近年出勤行動數字有所上升，由年首9個月的62宗，增至今年同期的69宗，增幅達一成；平均來說，談判小組處理的80％個案均屬成功，該組今年更奪得公務員危機或突發件支援服務的金獎。

警方談判小組現有成員80人，談判工作為兼任性質，各成員本身均有固定警務工作。例如談判小組的生力軍彭頴森督察，本身任職毒品調查科，在兩年內經過重重考核成為談判專家。全隊80名談判專家分4組，在每星期各組輪流候命。

一年出勤40小時才能「續牌」

彭 督察回想，加入談判組是希望可以做到「即場」的救人工作。彭穎森曾遇過在家庭糾紛中傷害妻子的一名男子，不停在天台簷篷徘徊，企圖自殺，彭多番勸喻包括為 受傷男子遞上及收回「止血棉花」，詎料到該男子轉身便「嘭一聲」跳下。彭說，「事後一個多星期，都想起那男子在天台行來行去的身影」。

另一資深談判專家劉達強警司指出，投考談判工作的警務人員心理質素很重要，要能在壓力下不會驚惶及「遇事即亂」。在上一次遴選中，終在幾百名申請人中選出10多人；每名談判人員一年出勤時數不能少於40小時，才能獲警隊「續牌」，以確認合適有關工作。

明報記者 曾錦雯

上載個唱片段 林敏聰裁侵權

2011年10月18日-越扭越有計 #3/II 網絡發瘋鳥?

香港網絡侵權管制

2011/7/14 ATV時事追擊：網絡二十三條（版權修訂條例）

2011/7/29 「網絡自由關注組」「惡攪=侵權???」研討會 ()

2011/8/25 獨立媒體 版權持有人「大狠哂」！？

2011/9/24 i-cable 時事寬頻 惡搞犯刑事?

網上言論地雷多 留證據自保

【經濟日報專訊】網上言論地雷處處，台灣有網民在網上批評某牛肉麵店是「惡霸店家」、「有蟑螂」，被食肆告上法庭，法官認為「有蟑螂」的內容無法舉證，判網民拘役30天及罰款3萬元新台幣，被告不服仍在上訴中；事件引起香港網民熱烈討論，因而警剔自己在網上的言論。

有博客因在網上發表「油炸中聯辦」等言論，被警方以「違反公眾體統」罪被捕，最後律政司決定不起訴。

稱「油炸中聯辦」 博客獲撤控

台灣網民發表言論惹上誹謗官非，本港也不乏網上發表言論版入罪個案，博客陳牛去年11月在twitter連續發表「每天說一次炸掉中聯辦是我的目標，直到我失去自由為止」、「油炸中聯辦」等言論，今年1月，被警方以「違反公眾體統」罪拘捕。

陳牛指出，當時看到有網民在討論區揚言，要用自製汽油彈及炸藥炸毀中聯辦而被警方拘捕的新聞，想測試警方是否會以言入罪。陳牛指：「1月被捕時獲准保釋，但要沒收電腦；3月到警署報到，被告知律政司不起訴，但沒有說明原因，並歸還電腦。」

博客寫食評 有相為證免被控

陳牛獲撤銷控罪後，並沒有刪除過被指違反公眾體統的網誌，亦沒有改變網上言論的措辭和文筆，但他承認，之後寫文章會考慮多一點：「不要被捉到把柄！」

美食博客伊比，平均每星期都會在網誌、微博、或OpenRice上寫4至5篇食評，他表示，過往寫的食評有讚有彈，但未必上載配相。伊比說：「寫博客是有責任講出真實，得悉台灣的案例後，明白最重要是有照片或短片為證！」

警方表示，沒有因網上發表言論而被捕的統計數字，但發言人提醒市民，適用於現實世界的刑事法例，亦可用於虛擬世界。

如白紙黑字紀錄 可遭索償

執業律師梁永鏗提醒，網上言論同樣有機會觸及刑事和民事罪行，「侵犯版權」、「不誠實使用電腦」、「違反公德」都是刑事罪行，而個人或公司亦可以依 「誹謗罪」去控告網民；在網上發表言論都要有證據，不能隨便講，網上言論相等於白紙黑字的紀錄，毋須證明損失，已經可以提控索償。

「網上可以討論、批評政治民生政策，但誹謗是針對個人或公司的聲譽。例如講某人穿櫃桶底、講某老師鹹濕，這些字眼已可構成誹謗。如果講食肆有老鼠、曱甴，一定要影相，一旦被控告才有足夠資料辯護！」

<安全港> 真的安全嗎 ?

蘋果日報

被電子化驅逐的閱讀

Facebook 人生

Heads in the Cloud : Looking for a Silver Lining in Apple's Latest Innovation

英青年fb籲刑毀 重判4年

明報

寵物靈修 (電腦vs寵物)

微博見

Icelandic digital activist praises 'surprisingly good' online constitutional convention

DW link

In a DW interview, Smari McCarthy describes how net neutrality, government transparency, and freedom of information may soon be enshrined in Icelandic law.

Smari McCarthy said Icelanders could contribute to the discussion of the constitution online

At the end of last month, a council of 25 publicly-elected Icelandic citizens presented a draft constitution to Iceland's parliament. But what made this process unique is that the constitution was formed by online discussions. Icelanders were able to contribute and follow progress on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr. That marks the end of a process of constitutional reform that began in April of this year. The new constitution will be formally examined by a parliamentary committee in October 2011.

To learn more about Iceland's new constitutional process, Deutsche Welle turned to Smari McCarthy, a digital activist from Rejkjavik.

It seems that this is the first time when a major political document in any country has been decided through any country, on the Internet, no?

I think it's probably the first time it's been done anywhere this way. Every couple of years, there's always a new constitution being done somewhere. Just last year, there was one in Kenya, and the year before, in Bolivia. But all of these have traditionally been decided by committee or some political group. The innovation here is really that the general public is being pulled into the process, and being very, very deeply involved in everything from the broad vision to the exact wording of individual articles.

How does that work, then? Usually in these types of voting situations, there's a Digg-like ladder where people can vote items up or down. Is that how the Icelandic system worked?

In this case, it wasn't. There was some talk of doing that kind of thing originally, but what it came down to was that anybody could put forward a proposal or some comment on what's been done, and then this committee which was working for the last four and a half months, they would split the comments and recommendations into categories and would do meetings within their own committee to decide them on their relative merits. In that way, it was fairly traditional as a representative, democratic process. At the same time, I've never seen this level of direct feedback with an elected body before.

I think one of the dangers of using the Internet as a platform to discuss something as serious as a new constitution, as you know, is that often people on the Internet are silly, goofy, or nonsensical. I wonder if there was a worry that people being silly would hijack the process, and if that was a concern, did it pan out that way?

To my knowledge, it wasn't a major concern. By and large, all of the discussion was very much to the point. It was incredibly civilized throughout the entire thing. The only time when it got a bit heated was during on the subject of separation of church and state. Iceland is one of the few European countries that still hasn't separated church and state. And Gallup polling says that about 70 percent of the population is in favor of church and state. But for some reason the constitutional council didn't feel right about going for full separation. They did move towards that in the end, but didn't go as far as some people had hoped. But apart from that, the entire discussion was very civilized and was surprisingly good in all regards.

Are there any examples that have come out of this process that might not have otherwise happened had the constitution not been formulated and discussed online?

There's a few different things. One, as someone who works a lot on Internet rights, I'm very happy that net neutrality has been included on the constitutional level. A paragraph within the article concerning free speech says that the government should protect the Internet as a communications mechanism, so that's pretty impressive. Another thing is that both source and whistleblower protection and journalist protection are in the constitution. There are items like that. There's also a strong freedom of information component, where all government documents must be publicly listed, so people will at least know which documents exist, even if they're not secret.

There are also different mechanisms for public participation in the political process. One-third of parliament can push any issue into a public referendum, and there are ways for the public to put forward law proposals. The general public can propose a law, which then the parliament can look at.

Interview: Cyrus Farivar
Editor: Nathan Witkop

英国警方逮捕微博煽动骚乱者

BBC Link

社交和微博网站在伦敦和英国其它主要城市的骚乱事件中扮演了重要角色。英国警方已采取行动，逮捕了几名通过社交网站煽动骚乱者。

威尔士警方逮捕了两名通过社交网站Facebook（面书）煽动骚乱的卡迪夫居民，另有一人被口头警告。

上周末发端于伦敦的骚乱随后扩散至曼彻斯特、利物浦、伯明翰、诺丁汉等英格兰大中城市，但尚未波及威尔士。

威尔士警方敦促公民负责地使用社交网站，不要散播谣言。

星期三晚，南威尔士警方还逮捕了两名男子，这两人也涉嫌通过社交网站煽动卡迪夫城的骚乱。

警方说：“南威尔士警方将继续监控社交网站，任何试图使用它们导致骚乱的人都将被追查到底。”

黑莓手机BBM短信也成为英国议员担心的对象。

禁用BBM

与此同时，一名英国议员呼吁通过法律，禁止使用“黑莓”手机的即时短信功能BBM。

这次伦敦骚乱的首发地、托特纳姆地区议员戴维·拉米（David Lammy）在接受BBC采访时，呼吁黑莓生产商停止BBM功能。

他说，这次骚乱事件让一些很普通的犯罪分子逃脱了警方高科技的追踪，这在很大程度上与社交网站或手机通讯有关，“BBM的不同之处在于，它是加密的，警方难以获取其信息。”

黑莓生产商Research in Motion周一发表声明说，他们“与当地电信运营商、执法部门和管理部门进行合作”，不过该公司没有说明是否将用户的通讯记录提交给警方。

星期二，Research in Motion的一个内部博客遭黑客攻击，并警告该公司不要与警方合作。

BBM功能受到用户欢迎，也带来黑莓的销量增长。据悉，全球有BBM用户4500万人，其中70%的人每天都会使用这一服务。

伦敦警方的一名高官说：“警方在广泛地监控黑莓的这个短信功能，事实上，很多人将他们看到黑莓短信发送给警方。”

不过，警方并没有给出细节，也没有说明他们是如何进行监控的。

英國政府考慮騷亂時關閉社交網站

切斷電訊服務被認為是對公民自由的踐踏

BBC link

英國政府研究是否應該在騷亂發生時關閉社交網站和禁止發送手機短信。

首相卡梅倫說，情報部門和警方正在研究用這樣的手段切斷那些暴力策劃者是否「正確與可能」。

在過去一周英國發生的騷亂中，據稱手機短信曾被人利用。

BBC媒體事務記者托林·道格拉斯分析說，政府和警方的確有權力關閉通訊服務系統，但是當局目前並沒有採取這樣手段的計劃。

根據通訊法規，政府可以下令英國電信傳播監管機構要求電訊網絡暫停服務，不過一定要有充分理由證明這麼做是出於保護公眾利益和國家安全。

但是，這麼做將是對言論自由的嚴重侵犯，也可能被社交網站告上法庭。

人權活動人士也對這一提議提出批評，認為類似本周出現的騷亂經常被當局用來打擊公民自由。

他們質疑；該由誰來決定短信或者推特上的留言是在煽動騷亂。

人權活動人士說，唯一能做出這一裁決的是法庭。如果不經法庭審理，那麼這樣的權力將被私人公司和警方濫用。

英國內政部周四已經表態說，關閉社交網站和禁發手機短信並不恰當，也可能收效甚微，因為這麼做將殃及商業活動以及那些沒有犯罪的人。

英國內政大臣特雷莎·梅據信將會晤Facebook，推特以及黑莓手機生產商的代表，討論一旦發生騷亂這些公司的社會責任。

根據英國法規，個人有可能被禁止使用社交網絡，如果濫用也將面臨懲罰。

警方有權獲得通訊資料，確認那些從事犯罪活動的人。

至今已經有三人因涉嫌利用推特和黑莓手機煽動暴力被捕。

iPhone5 未亮相 山寨版先熱賣

黑客組織揚言殺掉 facebook

黑莓 Twitter 串連 暴徒籲殺警

明報

Facebook violates German law, Hamburg data protection official says

DW Link

A senior German official alleges that Facebook's new facial recognition feature runs afoul of German and EU law. The company has previously said that users can easily disable it.

Germany's federal data protection chief has been informed of Hamburg's move

The data protection commissioner for the state of Hamburg, Johannes Caspar, has come down hard against Facebook for its new face recognition and tag suggestions capability.

"We have repeatedly asked Facebook to shut down the facial recognition function and to delete the previously stored data," he said in a two-page German-language statement released on Tuesday.

The feature uses biometric facial recognition technology - including eye distance and shape - as a way to match newly uploaded photos with suggestions with names of who to tag the photos with. The feature was first made available to United States-based users in December 2010 and rolled out to many other countries, including Germany, in June 2011.

"We don't think that this kind of technology conforms with EU data protection law," Caspar told Deutsche Welle.

"A legal assessment by our office came to the conclusion that [Facebook's] face recognition violates European and German law because Facebook is providing its users with contradictory and misleading information," he added.

"A normal user doesn't know how to delete the biometric data. And besides, we have demanded that biometric data be stored with the subject's express consent. At first [any company] has to ask if the user wants their data stored or not. Facebook just gives them the possibly to opt-out. If you don't opt-out, you're not consenting."

Facebook given time to respond

Caspar also said that his office was giving Facebook two more weeks to draft a response, and that he had been in contact with his counterparts in other German states, the federal data protection commission, Peter Schaar, and the Article 29 Working Group, which enforces such laws at the EU level.

Germany has among some of the strictest data protection and privacy laws in the European Union, largely created in the wake of informational abuses perpetrated by the Nazis and the Stasi, the East German secret police.

One of the foundational concepts of German data protection law is that no data can be collected without the express consent of the user.

Various state and federal German data protection commissioners have been at the forefront of checking the rising power of companies like Google and Facebook to collect and share information of German citizens.

Caspar added that Facebook representatives previously told his office that they had cleared this feature with the Irish data protection commissioner, as Facebook's European offices are based in Dublin.

He also said that his office would wait for Facebook's response before pursuing possible legal action against the company.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly said that the Web is more 'social'

Facebook denies allegations

The California-based company did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Deutsche Welle.

Late Tuesday evening, Robert Ardelt, a spokesperson for Facebook in Germany, e-mailed Deutsche Welle to dismiss these new allegations.

"We will consider the points the Hamburg Data Protection Authority have made about the photo tag suggest feature but firmly reject any claim that we are not meeting our obligations under European Union data protection law," he wrote. "We have also found that people like the convenience of our photo tag suggest feature which makes it easier and safer for them to manage their online identities."

Previously, the company has said that users can easily disable the feature on their own.

"If for any reason someone doesn't want their name to be suggested, they can disable the feature in their Privacy Settings," an unnamed Facebook spokesman told the Agence France Presse news service in June 2011.

"We should have been more clear with people during the roll-out process when this became available to them."

Author: Cyrus Farivar
Editor: Nathan Witkop

US news group office in HK hacked for two years

South China Morning Post link

Defineding the nation? We've got an app for that

South China Morning Post link


But PLA iPhone program will only be available to users who defy Apple and 'jailbreak' their phone.

Apple has more spending power than White House

South China Morning Post

狂玩PSP致噪聲性耳聾

東方日報

廣州十五歲的陳姓青年，暑假期間獲母親贈送PSP，日夜打機聽歌。一周前他發覺耳痛、耳鳴及無法聽清對話。起初以為是熬夜打機所致，休息多日未見好轉。經醫生診斷後，證實患有噪聲性耳聾，幸及時發現，才未釀成永久傷害。醫生指出，近年接收不少同類病例。

內地假iPhone網氾濫 呃人買山寨機

東方日報

繼山寨蘋果專賣店、iPhone 5山寨手機後，內地還有大批山寨蘋果中文官網。在百度等搜尋網站輸入「iPhone」及「手機」字眼，即會顯示大量山寨蘋果中文「官網」連結。有網民花費千多元透過假官網買iPhone 4，結果買回了一部山寨手機，換來一肚氣。

內地市民汪先生上月透過網頁的彈出廣告，瀏覽一個宣稱為蘋果官網的網站，他致電網站提供的客服電話，對方堅稱所售蘋果手機為真貨，汪隨即支付一千八 百元買iPhone。但收貨時汪發現只是部假貨，且像真度不高。經翻查發現，該個所謂官網的網址為www.518iphone.net。

據悉，這類假官網在內地遍地開花，於百度輸入iPhone、手機等字眼進行搜索，推薦的網站大都有問題。這些問題網站共同特點是聲稱銷售蘋果手機，網站設計模仿蘋果官網，並直接引用大量蘋果官網上圖文。內地律師指出，這類網站違反了內地的《反不正當競爭法》，涉嫌侵權。

設計仿官網 聲稱賣正貨

內 地傳媒指出，這些網站都堅稱賣的是蘋果真貨，於撥通客服電話後，所有客服人員無一例外稱自家銷售的是「台版」或「港版」蘋果手機，又堅稱「絕對是真貨，不 是山寨的」，但手機售價僅千多元，遠較真貨便宜。其中，「518iphone」網站客服人員更於接通電話後說：「你好，蘋果手機……」

為贏取消費者信任，另一個假官網「66iphone」更在主頁下方列出「中國誠信企業協會」、「中國質量認證中心」等認證標籤，但相關機構稱標籤遭盜用。目前，518iphone、66iphone兩個假官網已關停，但類似網站仍禁之不絕。

據悉，山寨蘋果官網只是山寨機銷售渠道之一，電視購物頻道及報章等均充斥着此類陷阱，專家提醒消費者小心上當。

本報綜合報道

實務守則被指漠視私隱 團體擔憂網絡白色恐怖

政府制訂打擊網上侵權守則諮詢公眾

商業電台

政府加強打擊網上侵權活動，制訂聯線服務提供者實務守則，諮詢公眾。守則訂明服務提供者符合指定的條件，包括收到侵權投訴後，在指定時間內移除被指侵權的材料，就只須對服務平台上的侵權行為承擔有限的法律責任。

....................................................................................................................

實務守則被指漠視私隱
團體擔憂網絡白色恐怖

蘋果日報

《版權條例》修訂被網民形容「惡過廿三條」，草案衍生的業界《實務守則》昨日出爐。守則雖然容許被指侵權的網民有抗辯機會，但必須向投訴人提供住址及電話號碼等個人資料。網民團體及高登討論區總裁齊聲炮轟《實務守則》視網民私隱如無物，擔心造成網絡白色恐怖。

守則因應版權條例向線上服務提供者（ OSP）闡述如何處理用戶侵權，諮詢為期一個月。雖然守則表明業界可自行決定是否執行守則，但「確切地遵守」就可免於承擔賠償或法律責任。

守則訂明，如果投訴人有「合理理由」相信某用戶侵犯版權，即發佈內容「不曾獲版權擁有人或其獲受權代表授權」，可向 OSP發出「侵權通知」。

「成條例應該重新諮詢」

根據守則， OSP須按投訴人要求移除疑似侵權內容，並提醒被投訴的用戶有權尋求獨立法律意見或直接聯絡投訴人。用戶可發出「異議通知」抗辯，但必須填寫姓名、地址及電話號碼，再由 OSP轉交投訴人。

網民團體「鍵盤戰線」行動指揮「虎王夏天」（網名）批評，實務守則企圖在法庭尚未裁定有關內容是否侵權之前，就讓投訴人擁有用戶的私隱資料，視網民私隱如無物，「無論係侵權者、被侵權者，都冇權收集對方嘅私隱。」

虎王夏天又指，二次創作與侵權界線模糊，必須由版權人、創作人及 OSP三方取得共識，才能立法。英國曾經嘗試類似立法修訂，但諮詢期間未能就侵權界線取得共識，最終擱置，「成條例應該全部重新諮詢，如果冇共識，冇可能要人負上刑責。」

高登討論區行政總裁林祖舜促請當局就實務守則召開公聽會，並只容許被投訴的用戶把個人資料交給法庭，否則必定造成網民恐慌，打擊言論自由，「如果當事人堅持冇侵權，犧牲就係將個人資料交畀投訴人。網民最驚未必係俾人從法律途徑追討，而係唔知投訴人點用佢嘅個人資料。」

政府建議線上服務提供者 處理侵權投訴程序

1.投訴人如有合理理由相信某用戶侵權，可向 OSP發出通知

2.OSP移除疑似侵權內容，並於限期#內通知有關用戶

3.如用戶反對，可於 20個工作天內發異議通知，須填姓名、地址、電話

4.OSP把異議通知轉交投訴人

5.若投訴人十天內沒書面知會已展開法律程序， OSP會還原疑似侵權內容

＊即 OSP（ Online Service Provider），泛指網上論壇及社交網站等

#未發行或發行少於三個月被侵權作品通知限期為 1至 3個工作天，其他作品限期 7至 10個工作天

資料來源：版權條例修訂草案《實務守則》擬稿

資料又外洩 警隊武力清場教材曝光 經 FOXY流出 投考者私隱任人睇

警隊網上洩密停不了，剛被內地機構上載多份戰術訓練手冊，昨又輪到 FOXY軟件散播學警教材。網民發現約 120份警隊內部文件，從警員召妓指引、武力清場抬人方法、警區「高危地帶」，到香港三合會架構等資料，都可在 FOXY下載任睇。部份教材去年底才更新，連今年初投考警察者的資料也外洩。警方正跟進事件。

一年暴瘦數十磅 打機迷猝死

蘋果日報

英超聯球隊車路士一名年輕擁躉，沉迷打足球遊戲機致廢寢忘餐，生活無定時，導致一年暴瘦數十磅而不自知，加上近日患感冒未癒，昨午他起床欲外出時突然暈倒，家人報警將他送院，惜抵院證實不治。

20 歲死者潘明偉愛好打電腦足球遊戲機，瘋狂程度可說廢寢忘餐。他是英超球隊車路士忠實擁躉，與雙親及仍在求學的一弟一妹同住啟田邨啟仁樓一單位。家人稱，潘 明偉中七畢業，早年健康沒有問題，但過去一年突然暴瘦，由體重 130餘磅下降至現時不足 100磅，可能與他生活不規律有關；今年捐血被發現患貧血，但他不以為意。



家人指潘明偉曾當通宵便利店職員，但現時沒有工作，賦閒在家埋首打機；上周六疑因打機過度及感冒致不適嘔吐及吐血，看醫生後懷疑他感冒引發腸胃炎。較早前，他的電腦損壞，無法玩電腦足球遊戲，熱愛打機的他，前晚帶病在家通宵玩 iPhone足球遊戲至昨凌晨 4時才睡覺。

家人無力付殮葬費

昨午 4時，他起床更衣後欲外出時，突然倒地昏迷，其父大驚上前拍叫他無反應後報警。救護員到場為他進行心外壓急救，其間事主吐出一些啡色液體，送院經搶救後， 延至昨午 4時 51分不治。家人在醫院聞噩耗感到哀傷，家人稱由於無積蓄，殮葬費有困難。死者一名女親友更質疑早前為死者斷症腸胃炎的醫生有疏忽之嫌。

心臟科專科醫生何鴻光表示，猝死事主短時間暴瘦數十磅，可能甲狀腺分泌有問題，加上近日感冒及休息不足，有可能引發心肌炎猝死。此外，事主接受急救時吐出啡色液體，可能因心臟停頓，血液入肺引致肺水腫，被施救時吐出血；但其真正死因仍有待法醫官剖驗屍體後確定。

Cell Phone Addiction Test

Nowadays cell phones are widespread instruments and no one pays attention to them anymore. However just few years ago they did not exist. Their arrival completely changed our way of communicating with other human beings: in some cases they improved it, in some other cases they dehumanized and impoverished it. In fact cell phones created a totally new form of addiction which was unknown until later 90ies. Test yourself and find out how much influence cell phones apply on you. Please note that this test does not possess a diagnostic value and its result should not considered absolute. Answer all questions, or your result won't be accurate!

noanxiety link

5 Tips to Free You From The Shackles of your Phone

Dumb Little Man Link

Are you similar to many other people and a little too attached to your cellphone? Does it seem only appropriate that when your cellphone rings you should answer it the vast majority of the time regardless of who you are with or what you are doing? Are there Twitter or Facebook alerts popping up every three seconds? Is there really anything wrong with multitasking and taking the occasional call during dinner, or checking e-mail while you are in a meeting?

Believe it or not, your cellphone is possibly causing you more harm than good. The majority of us probably need to take a look and change how we manage our cellphone use. Honestly, how many people can you see right now? How many are nursing their iPhone like it's a newborn?

Don't get me wrong, I am just as attached to my cellphone as anyone. My Droid literally changed my life; e-mail and texts are an essential part of my day and I honestly don't remember how I existed without instant access to the internet.

But, have you noticed how cellphones have a tendency to just take over and constantly demand a significant part of your attention? You can go through life on autopilot jumping from one e-mail to the next, responding to voice mail messages, and not really ever paying enough attention to the experiences happening right in front of you. It is not that you are totally oblivious to what is going on, but let's face it, if you are continually being disrupted by your cellphone, you are just not nearly as engaged as you could be.

Cellphones are literally masters of distraction and they can take your attention away from just about anything instantly and consistently.

The Negatives to Being "On Demand"
The ability to instantly connect with anyone has its advantages, but it also has its costs if not managed properly. Don't underestimate the damage caused by allowing your cellphone to constantly require you to multitask.

Research has proven that workers distracted by email and phone calls suffer from many issues, even including a fall in IQ during the period of distraction. "Those who are constantly breaking away from tasks to react to email or text messages suffer similar effects on the mind equivalent to losing a night's sleep." The same study also found multitasking has a negative physical effect, prompting the release of stress hormones and adrenaline.

And, the usual justification that multitasking allows you to accomplish more also doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Another study confirmed that people who multitask actually end up being less efficient.

Stop Being Used By Your Cellphone
Stop allowing your cellphone to hold your attention and mind hostage. It is time to reclaim your attention span.

Now, this doesn't mean that every once in a while you can't make an exception and take a call or check an e-mail while you are doing something else. The problem is when switching back and forth from one task to cell phone management is your standard operating procedure. And, if we notice this is one of our bad habits, we need to start work on changing it.

5 Tips to Help Free You From Being Held Hostage By Your Cellphone:

1. Turn off the ringer from time to time.
   As scary as that may sound, there are just sometimes you shouldn't be interrupted. Reserve blocks of times to devote your complete attention to things you need to get done, your kids, your spouse, your driving! Turn your ringer off during holidays and other family or alone time so you can really engage and enjoy those experiences.
   


2. Turn off your notification light.
   Make a leap of faith and realize everything will not explode just because you don't instantly know when an e-mail or text message comes in. Yes, this may take some getting used to, but, it really is liberating and allows you to decide the best time to read e-mails and texts instead of always checking your phone every time you notice the notification light flashing.
   


3. Use your cell phone; don't let it use you.
   It's great that you can do just about everything on your cellphone, but when you pick it up to use it, decide what you are going to do, use it, and get out. If you are going to return e-mails, then don't end up surfing around the internet. Have a plan every time you pick up your cell phone and stick to it.
   


4. Screen your calls and e-mails.
   Prioritize paying attention to who you are with or what you are currently doing. Take a look at who is trying to contact you and decide if you really need to respond right away. No one really knows whether or not you are available so you can decide to not answer your cell phone unless it really is necessary.
   


5. Reserve blocks of time to check your messages and respond.
   Take periods of time to check and return all your messages. Perhaps you have a block of time you take every morning, afternoon, and evening. This way your messages don't accumulate and you can be fairly confident you are not going to miss anything really time sensitive because you are checking your messages regularly. If you are a heavy user, you may need to have more check-ins throughout the day. Figure out what works best for you, but the key is to not consistently and continually check messages throughout the day.

Manage Your Cellphone and Everything Will Improve
If you are interested in really getting the most out of all your experiences, increasing your productivity and being less stressed and overwhelmed, start paying attention to how you are using your cellphone. You will be amazed at the positive impact that managing your cellphone in the right way will have on everything you do.

Top 10 Signs of Cell Phone Addiction

Digital Trends Link

Emotionally attached to your cell phone and skipping meals to pay for it? Your cell phone addiction is out of control and it's time for an intervention.

Forget fast food, video games and reality TV. The worst plague sweeping the world these days is smartphone addiction. You’ve seen the worst affected skittering in alleyways, awake in bed at night, and in movie theaters, with the glow of backlit LCDs lighting up their maniacal faces. They’re addicts. Any you may be one of them.

Think you it may be more than a slight affinity for texting? Here are the top ten signs you’re addicted to your smartphone.

(And we’re all a little guilty.)

10. You’ve spent more on accessories than on your phone.

It started out with something harmless like a car charger, but then you stepped up to the car FM transmitter, armband, a different case for each day of the week, spare batteries, screen protectors, a stereo Bluetooth adapter, wireless speakerphone, and even a dock powered by tube amps. You realize that it’s just a phone, not a kid, right? And that none of it will work when you inevitably upgrade to the next version six months from now?

9. You have 30 different apps installed. And use them all.

We’ve all gone through app-installing binges where we’ve installed some questionable stuff on our cell phones. Two weeks later, we either figure out it’s garbage and delete it, or leave it to stagnate. But those of you still checking on your digital iPhorest trees, using car locater to find your Camry down the block every morning, and thumbing through digital copies of the U.S. Constitution during heated political debates are the real nuts.

8. You have alarms telling you when to do everything in your life.

Business meetings, doctor’s appointments, and group meetups. All valid events to put in your phone. Have an alarm for putting out the trash on Wednesday night? You’re in way too deep, buddy. When you need your phone to prod you through every step of the day, it might as well be your respirator or dialysis machine.

7. You read about your phone on your phone.

Not content to dream about your phone, fondle it in your pocket all day long, and relish every chance to use it, you actually invest time in finding out more about it, while using it. You read through the latest TUAW posts on your iPhone, or threads on the Crackberry forums from your Bold. Your phone is no longer a means to an end, it is the end.

6. You’ve cut back on necessities to afford your $100 a month cell phone bill.

OK, lunch is pretty important. But $5 a day adds up to like $150 a month, and that can totally pay your phone bill if you just switch to Jell-O and ramen noodles for a while. Or maybe you could just start hopping the turnstile instead of paying for a subway pass. Or move to a cheaper apartment. Or carry a balance on that credit card…

Does this logic sound familiar?

5. A full battery charge barely lasts the day.

After brushing your teeth and washing your face, your last ritual before bed is plugging in that smartphone. Because if you don’t, there’s no way that sucker’s lasting another full day after the workout you gave it today. We’ll admit that the battery life on some modern smartphones is pretty dismal, but if you’re downing a full charge day after day, you might need to lay off the juice.

4. You broke it, and it feels like you lost a friend.

In a moment of clumsiness, you went to remove it from your pocket for the 37th time in the last hour, slipped, and sent it pinwheeling toward pavement, where it landed with a sickening crack. Or, in a moment of carelessness, you let it slip out of your pocket on the train, waiting to be snatched up by some hawkeyed bum. Even worse, in a less-than-sober moment, you dropped it into a fountain (which is not a urinal, by the way). Whatever the circumstances, you can’t stop replaying the event in your mind, running over its irreplaceable digital contents in your mind, and kicking yourself for letting it happen. Maybe you even have dreams about a reunion with your long-lost friend. Er, phone. When the symptoms start to border post-traumatic stress disorder, it’s time to move on.

3. When you meet people with the same phone, you can only talk about the phone.

“You have an iPhone too? Oh awesome, have you tried the PDXBus app yet? Yea, this case is pretty cool, but I’m getting this metallic one soon that’s even slimmer.”

If this sounds at all like a conversation you might have upon meeting someone with the same smartphone, you should reconsider your smartphone addiction and your social life.

2. You feel a brief moment of panic when you touch your pocket (or grope to the bottom of your purse) and it’s gone.

We’re not talking about a lost phone here, just realizing you left it at home. And feeling the skipped heartbeat of sheer terror.
“What if people try to call me?”

“What if I can’t find the nearest Starbucks without asking someone?”

“What will my Twitter followers think?”

Take a deep breath before you need an iDefibrillator app and forge on without your faithful digital assistant. Life will be OK.

1. You use it in the bathroom.

This is just wrong. But not for hygienic reasons as you all suspect. If you’re using your smartphone on the can, you’ve just robbed yourself of your last refuge from interruption. You’ve tainted mankind’s last fortress of solitude by draggeing the entire equivalent of a computer into the equation. Can’t you live five minutes without e-mail? Really?

手機成癮 每十分鐘查看一次

蘋果日報