OpenStack 10/31/2017 (a.m.)

• What are the system requirements for installing the Kaspersky Antivirus product

  In most cases, manufacturers clearly and accurately indicate the conditions of the object for proper operation. Also, these specifications serve companies as disclaimers and help consumers to purchase the item that best suits their needs. The same thing happens with antivirus. To save money and time, we must consult the #Kaspersky_support_Number before buying the software

  Tags: support, number, kaspersky, customer, Service, technical, contact

  • - By emileybrown89

Posted from Diigo. The rest of Open Web group favorite links are here.

OpenStack 10/24/2017 (p.m.)

• Kaspersky Antivirus Make Every Computer A Wonder Computer

  Kaspersky Antivirus Software helps to guard Computer or laptop from dangerous virus like Trojans, spyware and additional. We tend to produce distinctive software that helps to get rid of viruses from the device swimmingly while not inflicting the other risks to your computer/laptop.

  Tags: customer, Service, phone, number, Kaspersky, Support, technical, toll, free

  • - By emileybrown89

Posted from Diigo. The rest of Open Web group favorite links are here.

OpenStack 10/07/2017 (p.m.)

• It's A-OK for FBI agents to silence web giants, says appeals court • The Register

  Tags: surveillance state, FBI, NSLs, prior-restraint, 1st Amendment, litigation

  • Gagging orders in the FBI's National Security Letters are all above board and constitutional, a California court has ruled.

    These security letters are typically sent to internet giants demanding information on whoever is behind a username or email address. Crucially, these requests include clauses that prevent the organizations from warning specific subscribers that they are under surveillance by the Feds.

    Cloudflare and Credo Mobile aren't happy with that, and – with the help of rights warriors at the EFF – challenged the gagging orders. Despite earlier successes in their legal battle, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled [PDF] on Monday that the gagging orders do not trample on First Amendment rights.

  • The FBI dishes out thousands of National Security Letters (NSLs) every year; they can simply be issued by a special agent in charge in a bureau field office, and don’t require judicial review. They allow the Feds to obtain the name, address, and records of any services used – but not the contents of conversations – plus billing records of a person, and forbid the hosting company from telling the subject, meaning those under investigation can’t challenge the decision.

    It used to be the case that companies couldn’t even mention the existence of the NSL system for fear of prosecution. However, in 2013 a US district court in San Francisco ruled that such extreme gagging violated the First Amendment. That decision came after Google, and later others, started publishing the number of NSL orders that had been received, in defiance of the law.

    In 2015 the Obama administration amended the law to allow companies limited rights to disclose NSL orders, and to set a three-year limit for the gagging order. It also set up a framework for companies to challenge the legitimacy of NSL subpoenas, and it was these changes that caused the appeals court verdict in favor of the government.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of Open Web group favorite links are here.

OpenStack 10/06/2017 (a.m.)

• Challenge to data transfer tool used by Facebook will go to Europe’s top court | TechCrunch

  Tags: surveillance state, NSA, Irish_High_Court, EU, data-privacy, litigation, ECJ

  • The five-week court hearing in what is a complex case delving into detail on US surveillance operations took place in February. The court issued its ruling today.

    The 153-page ruling starts by noting “this is an unusual case”, before going into a detailed discussion of the arguments and concluding that the DPC’s concerns about the validity of SCCs should be referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

    Schrems is also the man responsible for bringing, in 2013, a legal challenge that ultimately struck down Safe Harbor — the legal mechanism that had oiled the pipe for EU-US personal data flows for fifteen years before the ECJ ruled it to be invalid in October 2015.

    Schrems’ argument had centered on U.S. government mass surveillance programs, as disclosed via the Snowden leaks, being incompatible with fundamental European privacy rights. After the ECJ struck down Safe Harbor he then sought to apply the same arguments against Facebook’s use of SCCs — returning to Ireland to make the complaint as that’s where the company has its European HQ.

    It’s worth noting that the European Commission has since replaced Safe Harbor with a new (and it claims more robust) data transfer mechanism, called the EU-US Privacy Shield — whi

  • In a written statement on the ruling Schrems added: “I welcome the judgement by the Irish High Court. It is important that a neutral Court outside of the US has summarized the facts on US surveillance in a judgement, after diving through more than 45,000 pages of documents in a five week hearing.
  • Making a video statement outside court in Dublin today, Schrems said the Irish court had dismissed Facebook’s argument that the US government does not undertake any surveillance.

  • Schrems’ Safe Harbor challenge also started in the Irish Court before being ultimately referred to the ECJ. So there’s more than a little legal deja vu here, especially given the latest development in the case.

    In its ruling on the SCC issue, the Irish Court noted that a US ombudsperson position created under Privacy Shield to handle EU citizens complaints about companies’ handling of their data is not enough to overcome what it described as “well founded concerns” raised by the DPC regarding the adequacy of the protections for EU citizens data.

  • On Facebook, he also said: “In simple terms, US law requires Facebook to help the NSA with mass surveillance and EU law prohibits just that. As Facebook is subject to both jurisdictions, they got themselves in a legal dilemma that they cannot possibly solve in the long run.”
  • While Schrems’ original complaint pertained to Facebook, the Irish DPC’s position means many more companies that use the mechanism could face disruption if SCCs are ultimately invalidated as a result of the legal challenge to their validity.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of Open Web group favorite links are here.