In Lake v. Phoenix, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the metadata of public documents need not be released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. The plaintiff had filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Act claim stemming from his job as a police officer, and requested copies of his evaluations from his superiors. After he recieved the records, he suspected they were newly made and backdated in response to his requests. He made a new request for the creation and access dates and times for the files. The state rejected his demand by saying that they were not part of the public record. The majority ruled that under any of Arizona’s definitions of public records, Metadata wasn’t included. A paper printout of a digital record would suffice to meet the demand.

President Barack Obama is notorious for being attached to his Blackberry. However, the device is not secure, and rumor had it that the device would be forbidden for security reasons after the inauguration. Currently, Obama possesses a Sectera Edge,a $3000 secure smart phone built to NSA standards, for secure messages, and retains his Blackberry for personal use.

For example, using publically available service in the US presents little problems, but what about, say, a state visit to China or Russia? In a foreign country, the services are accountable to that state- including its requests for access and information. It’s possible that the next wave of espionage might be trying to read the communications of the president at the service level- intercepting the transmission as it passes through the local infrastructure, instead of trying to crack the device.

A CNet Articlesuggests that aside from a digital security risk, there exists a personal security risk as well. Each Blackberry broadcasts an unique IMEI serial number, similar to the MAC Address of a computer- a unique code per phone. If the President’s IMEI number is determined and located, then people could track this number- and with it, the President’s location. If an unmarked car in a motorcade is carrying the President for security reasons, the jig may be up through the use of some wireless software and a big reciever dish.

Still, it was apparently equivalent of pulling teeth to try and reach the current level of compromise between security and the President’s digital access. As time goes on, future presidents and government officials will only be growing more and more tech-savvy. Figuring out how to maintian security for people of such massive political importance is critical.

The New York Times reports that college students, tired of paying top dollar for required textbooks, have begun to scan and upload their textbooks to file sharing networks. For years, textbook manufacturers have held somewhat of a unique monopoly over students, charging hundreds of dollars for books required by professors.

One student has scanned his $210 Organic Chemistry textbook in to PDF format and uploaded it to the file sharing website Piratebay.org. Organized chapter by chapter, peers are able to download each section needed and print out copies of assigned readings whenever they wish. What’s interesting is that the student did not do all of this to make a profit, but rather to avenge himself and other students who are tired of being “ripped off” by the textbook industry.

Experts are concerned that textbooks may go the way of the compact disc:  subsumed by file sharing technology. Not only are college students typically technically capable of downloading textbooks online, but they are also the population segment mainly associated with downloading infringing content.

Publishers often issue new editions of their texts every year or so, and compensate professors who choose to offer their texts with free copies or other teaching materials. This often leaves students with hundreds of dollars worth of textbook expenses each semester.  Students typically can only sell back their textbooks for only a fraction of the price paid just a few months earlier.

Intellectual property theorists often describe college textbooks as one of the last heavily protected mediums to succumb to digitalization. Monopolistic protection of texts also remains strong due the collegiate culture involving textbooks. Students are rarely given an option when it comes to choosing which textbooks to use. Since professors are not burdened by the cost of an expensive text, students are left to foot the bill.

Textbook publishers are beginning to respond to the trend, often publishing additional supplemental material online and making it only available to legitimate purchasers who register their texts. Aspen Publishing, one of the leading publishers of legal casebooks, is now beginning to offer digital editions of its books available for purchase on its website. While mainly limited to supplemental materials like “Emanuel Law Outlines,” the digital editions often cost just as much as the printed editions sold in bookstores. This pricing structure gives users little incentive to choose a digital format, especially when the digital editions cannot be sold after the end of a course.

While students who upload their scanned textbooks may feel like modern-day Robin Hoods, little hope seems to be on the horizon for students wishing to pay less for books each semester.  Not only has the publishing industry been slow in adopting digital formats, it also is increasing surveillance of file sharing networks, and has begun taking legal action against infringers. Until Steve Jobs decides to open up the iTunes Textbook store, college students will have to continue to have to pay top dollar for textbooks.

Did the SWORDS unmanned fighter began shooting uncontrollably in Iraq?  This incident, coupled with the latest talks over Israeli drones, poses important questions about the ethics of using machines to fight our wars for us and the legal implications of automated warfare. The Geneva Convention protocols and other other more recent aerial weapons treaties limit the use of weapons that can cause an excess of collateral damage. Existing procedures ask about human agency when a decision is made to employ weapons on a target. The human soldier who fired and his organization are held responsible. Will the same be true with unmanned fighters?

The US military has been using Predator drones to shoot Hellfire missiles for the the past seven years, but SWORDS is one of the first armed ground robots. While it has been primarily used for peace-keeping/guard functions, the question whether to implement it in close-quarter firefights has sparked debate. While these robots can detect targets and assess the battlefield, often the question is asked: who (or what) pulls the trigger?