An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University, has used genetic engineering on human sperm and a pre-embryo. The group says is doing basic research to figure out if new forms of genetic engineering might be able to prevent or repair terrible hereditary diseases. Congress has banned federal funding for genetic engineering of sperm, eggs, pre-embryos or embryos. That means everything goes on in the private or philanthropic world here or overseas, without much guidance. It should be determined who should own the techniques for genetic engineering. Important patent fights are underway among the technology’s inventors. Which means lots of money. is at stake. And that means it is time to talk about who gets to own what and charge what. Finally, human genetic engineering needs to be monitored closely: all experiments registered, all data reported on a public database and all outcomes — good and bad — made available to all scientists and anyone else tracking this area of research. Secrecy is the worst enemy that human genetic engineering could possibly have. Today we need to focus on who will own genetic engineering technology, how we can oversee what is being done with it and how safe it needs to be before it is used to try to prevent or fix a disease. Plenty to worry about.
Posts tagged ‘Legal’
There’s unsurety as to what the Government is doing with the images. They say, Facial-recognition systems may indeed speed up the boarding process, however, the real reason they are cropping up in U.S. airports is that the government wants to keep better track of who is leaving the country, by scanning travelers’ faces and verifying those scans against photos it already has on file. The idea is that this will catch fake passports and make sure people aren’t overstaying their visas. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has partnered with airlines including JetBlue and Delta to introduce such recognition systems at New York’s JFK International Airport, Washington’s Dulles International, and airports in Atlanta, Boston, and Houston, among others. It plans to add more this summer.
“As It Searches for Suspects, the FBI May Be Looking at You”). Privacy advocates also point out that research has shown the technology to be less accurate with older photos and with images of women, African-Americans, and children (see “Is Facial Recognition Accurate? Depends on Your Race”).
Researchers have created a unique atomic-scale identifications based on the irregularities found in 2D materials like graphene, making it possible to fingerprint them in simple electronic devices and optical tags. Because of the materials used, the small tags could be edible and coated onto medicines.
The counterfeit industry is a huge market with imports of counterfeited or fake agoods costing nearly $500 billion in lost revenue around the world annually, with counterfeit medicines accounting for nearly $200 billion alone.
The team is also showcasing the new technology through a smartphone app that allows people to check on their own the authenticity of a product by reading whether a product is real or fake.
The customer can scan the optical tag with the app that matches the 2D tag with the manufacturer’s database.
The researchers expect the patented technology and smartphone app to be available publicly in 2018.
When light is shone on graphene, tiny imperfections shine causing the material to emit light that can be measured as a signal, unique only to that small section of material. The signal can be turned into a digital fingerprint with a number sequence.
The study was published in 2D Materials.
On the other hand in another report by the European Union, says this
The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation paid $900,000 to hack the San Bernardino gunman’s iPhone, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) said this week. n 2016, the FBI contracted an unnamed third-party security firm to unlock the password-protected iPhone 5c of San Bernardino, California shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife killed 14 people in an attack in December 2015.
The Associated Press, Vice Media, and USA Today took the FBI to court over the agency’s nondisclosure, arguing that it had lacked “adequate justification.” FBI director James Comey hinted that the agency paid “more money than he would earn in his remaining seven years on the job” — or roughly least $1.3 million.
A German court has ruled on a 2011 copyright infringement case and the verdict has disturbing consequences for parents. The ruling found that parents must name their child as the one responsible for downloading a torrent or they will be held responsible for the violation.
A series of recent cases have been defining how Germany’s legal system will handle parents who claim their innocence in illegal file-sharing but are being pursued by copyright claimants. The most recent involve a claim brought by Universal Music Group regarding the illegal downloading of Rihanna’s 2011 album Loud. The parents received a notice from Universal demanding payment. The parents said they weren’t really fans of Ri-Ri but one of their three children was responsible. They had no intention of snitching on their own kid and took their case to court.
In October 2016, the same court had to review a similar case in which a man denied pirating files and named his wife as a co-user of the household broadband connection. He refused to provide details his wife’s browsing habits and successfully argued that under German law citizens are protected from violating the privacy of their family.
However, this week’s verdict turned out with a different twist. The parents were found liable for the child’s torrenting and ordered to pay €3,879.80 ($4,137.61) in fines. The court chairman, Wolfgang Büscher, argued that this case “is not comparable” to the one from October because the child had admitted everything to their parents. Since the parents had admitted that they knew which child was responsible but refused to give a name they will have to “bear the corresponding disadvantages.”
This a blow to the parents of torrent-happy children across Germany and follows on the heels of a similar case from earlier in March. In those proceedings, a father claimed that his 11-year-old son had downloaded a book that was the subject of a copyright complaint. He explained that he had warned his son not to “download random things or do anything dangerous,” The judge ruled that the father would have to be held responsible.
Germany is considered one the best countries in the world for internet freedom and the protection of privacy, but very strict when it comes to the enforcement of copyright
It’s a blow to the parents of torrent-happy children across Germany and follows on the heels of a similar case from earlier in March. In those proceedings, a father claimed that his 11-year-old son had downloaded a book that was the subject of a copyright complaint. He explained that he had warned his son not to “download random things or do anything dangerous,” according to Torrent Freak. A judge ruled that the father is responsible for the download because he is required to “instruct a child on the illegality of participating in illegal file-sharing exchanges, and to explicitly prohibit this behavior.”