{"status":"ok","elements":"
\n
\n
\n \"#Piracy<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Piracy is now a cybersecurity threat, not just a copyright problem<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

Compelling analysis reframes online piracy as a large-scale cyber risk to ordinary households. According to research by Enders Analysis, pirate streaming apps and devices increasingly act as an entry point into home networks: over 50% of piracy apps and streaming devices are estimated to contain malware known as ResProxy, with some recent samples testing higher. This malware can enrol a household’s internet connection into a criminal residential-proxy network, where its IP address is used to mask fraud, credential theft and other illicit activity. For consumers, the consequences are direct \u2014 exposure to data theft, identity fraud, financial crime and surveillance, alongside […]<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"EU<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Digital Policy Topics in EU Election<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

Netopia turned to AI to find out what the main party groups say about digital policy topics. We fed their election manifestos into a large-language model and analysed the occurrence of digital policy terms. It turns out the Greens are big on AI and S&D like culture, but nobody seems to care about copyright. Click Image to View Analysis     Footnote: the total word count varies in the manifestos, so the direct comparison is an indication only. Renew Europe manifesto is 7 910 words. EPP manifesto is 12\u00a0893 words. S&D manifesto is 4\u00a0274 words. Greens manifesto is 20\u00a0642 words.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"Network<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Network Fees and the Creative Sector<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

The discussion on network fees has thus far mainly focused on telecoms and internet platforms. What about the European creative sector? Would those companies be impacted by network fees, what would be the consequence and would network fees do what they are meant to (increase investment in networks)? Netopia takes a look at the facts. Click Infographic image to expand.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"Big<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Big Tech Fines v Big Tech Values<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

These fines equate like being charged 10 cents for speeding violations \u2013 which if translated into the real world would create a toothless precedent to the rules of the road. Set against the fines, it is clear they do not fear fines. They fear competition. We do not regulate them. They regulate us. *click image to enlarge<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"\"<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n The Filternet<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

We are repeatably told that any attempt to make the internet fair, to close the value gap or ask large platforms to play fair will “break the internet”, because measures, or policies that limit infringement are not viable. Below is a far from complete\u00a0compilation of some filters currently active on the internet. The internet runs on filters. Without filters, the internet would break down. Here’s some of them.    <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"\"<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Deceitful Campaign towards MEPs<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

In June 2018, the European Parliament received an unprescedented number of emails, with MEPs reporting 40,000 emails in a short space of time. The net effect was many were classified as spam given the content was “cookie cutter”, and the emails sending the messages could not be reached, or verified. In the weeks that followed, an investigation has uncovered a warren of deceit and finance for the campaign against the Copyright directive that leads back to N-Square, Google and cohorts with many saying these organisations were responsible for spamming MEPs – a hack on democracy<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"\"<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 1 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Save Your Internet<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

For a hi-resolution PDF version of this Infographic – go here. Scroll down to view the Infographic.  <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"Zuckerberg<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 0 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Zuckerberg Bingo – Print out and Play!<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s first of two appearances this week,\u00a0to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is on Wednesday April 10 and is sure to contain a few of the following platitudes. In a light-hearted take on a serious issue, we invite you to to play “Zuckerberg Bingo!” We have been here before with Facebook, the company has a long history of apologising. Firstly when Zuckerberg was suspended from Harvard forun-authorised use of college photographs. Harvard accused him of: “breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individual privacy“. He apologised. Fast forward four-years to 2007. Facebook is enduring global success, and […]<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>

\n
\n
\n \"\"<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n 1 Response<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n Digital Regulation Points of View<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>","max_pages":2}