We are aware that the decision to place Google at the bottom of the ranking is likely to be controversial, but throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations. While a number of companies share some of these negative elements, none comes close to achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy.

Google's increasing ability to deep-drill into the minutiae of a user's life and lifestyle choices must in our view be coupled with well defined and mature user controls and an equally mature privacy outlook. Neither of these elements has been demonstrated. Rather, we have witnessed an attitude to privacy within Google that at its most blatant is hostile, and at its most benign is ambivalent. These dynamics do not pervade other major players such as Microsoft or eBay, both of which have made notable improvements to the corporate ethos on privacy issues.

In the closing days of our research we received a copy of supplemental material relating to a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the pending merger between Google and DoubleClick. This material, submitted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and coupled with a submission to the FTC from the New York State Consumer Protection Board, provided additional weight for our assessment that Google has created the most onerous privacy environment on the Internet.

Artists and record bosses believe that the best album is the loudest one. Sound levels are being artificially enhanced so that the music punches through when it competes against background noise in pubs or cars. 'Geoff Emerick, engineer on the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album, said: "A lot of what is released today is basically a scrunched-up mess. Whole layers of sound are missing. It is because record companies don't trust the listener to decide themselves if they want to turn the volume up." Downloading has exacerbated the effect. Songs are compressed once again into digital files before being sold on iTunes and similar sites. The reduction in quality is so marked that EMI has introduced higher-quality digital tracks, albeit at a premium price, in response to consumer demand.'

The world's tigers face "ecological extinction" due to a combination of "increased poaching, habitat destruction, and poor conservation efforts by governments", Reuters reports.

In India, isolated populations now occupy just seven per cent of the territory they enjoyed a century ago. The country, in common with others, was "inadequately implementing conservation policies and mismanaging funds set aside for the survival of the big cats", the report notes.

The biggest threat to the world's tigers may be China's appetite for exotic cat, the report states. The country plans to lift its 1993 ban on the domestic trade of tiger parts, a move "sure to re-ignite interest among more than a billion consumers in emerging economies".

We already know that Webcasters small and large are outraged at the prospect of having to pay higher royalty fees to the music industry, particularly when compared with what is required of their satellite and terrestrial radio counterparts.

In letters distributed to various Capitol Hill offices on Thursday morning, the four companies' CEOs argue that the music industry will also be forcing collection of more than $1 billion per year from three services alone--Yahoo, RealNetworks and Pandora--in the name of covering so-called administrative costs.

Here's how they say they derived that figure: When the CRB decided earlier this year to change the rules for Internet broadcasters, it also decided to levy a $500 minimum annual fee per Internet radio "channel." SoundExchange, the non-profit music industry entity that collects the royalty and other fees on behalf of record labels, says that minimum payment is supposed to cover administrative costs.

Such an amount would far outpace the $20 million in total royalty fees collected by SoundExchange from the Internet radio industry last year, the CEOs note in their letter. And besides, it's not even clear that those payments would go to artists, as royalty payments do, the companies argue.

While network admins will complain about the volume of spam that clogs up and drains resources, for the average Joe, this is not such a problem.

What no one ever points out, however, is that there is another form of spam, a much older form of spam, that is alive and well. And it is a much bigger drain on resources. It’s what I think of as 'paper spam'.

Think about it for a moment. What goes into the production of 'paper spam'? Trees. Printing with poisonous inks and dyes. Trucks to distribute it. Warehouses to hold it. People paid a pittance to shuffle about, sticking it in out letterboxes. And if, as inevitably happens, we don't want it, how much of it ends up not being recycled, possibly thrown onto the street, and washed down into our sewers. Which leads to where? Our oceans, rivers and seas.

Yet no one seems half as concerned with 'paper spam' as they do with electronic spam, despite the production costs involved. Where are the environmental reports? Where are the corporate social responsibility acts? And how often, really, does anyone ever pick one of those catalogues up and think "Ooh, I'm going to go to Best Buy now and buy the USB Toaster in that catalogue."

Security researcher Robert Hansen, aka RSnake, has published details of a new attack on Google Desktop. Basically, Hansen found a man-in-the-middle attack, this time placing an attacker between Google and someone launching a desktop search query. From this position, the attacker is able to manipulate the search results and possibly take control of other programs on the desktop.

Hansen writes: "This should drive home the point that deep integration between the desktop and the Web is not a good idea" since Google's site is unencrypted and therefore can be subverted by an attacker. But Hansen notes there are two caveats here: one, you need to have Google Desktop installed, and two, the attacker must be sophisticated enough to launch a man-in-the-middle attack upon you.

University of Utah physicists developed small devices that turn heat into sound and then into electricity. The technology holds promise for changing waste heat into electricity, harnessing solar energy and cooling computers and radars.

Using sound to convert heat into electricity has two key steps. Symko and colleagues developed various new heat engines (technically called "thermoacoustic prime movers") to accomplish the first step: convert heat into sound.

When heat is applied – with matches, a blowtorch or a heating element – the heat builds to a threshold. Then the hot, moving air produces sound at a single frequency, similar to air blown into a flute.

Then the sound waves squeeze the piezoelectric device, producing an electrical voltage. Symko says it's similar to what happens if you hit a nerve in your elbow, producing a painful electrical nerve impulse.

Symko says the devices won't create noise pollution. First, as smaller devices are developed, they will convert heat to ultrasonic frequencies people cannot hear. Second, sound volume goes down as it is converted to electricity. Finally, "it's easy to contain the noise by putting a sound absorber around the device," he says.

The launch of music tracks free of digital locks on iTunes has been overshadowed by the discovery that they contain data about who bought them.

News site Ars Technica was among the first to discover that downloaded tracks free of Fairplay have embedded within them the full name and account information, including e-mail address, of who bought them.

It suggested that this information could be an anti-piracy measure as it could help work out who was putting downloads on file-sharing sites.

But it also added that the user information was found on all the tracks that people buy on iTunes whether free of DRM or not.

It was not clear, said Ars Technica, whether the data was part of Apple's administration system for iTunes or something else. It said because the data was easy to spoof Apple needed to explain why the data was present.

Other websites said it was only a matter of time before a utility program was produced which could strip out the identifying information.

When you voted the RIAA the worst company in America you gave us an assignment. But how can we improve the customer service of a recording industry trade group? It's not an easy task.

One of the ways the RIAA operates is by donating money to politicians who then enact favorable legislation on their behalf. Don't let the optimist in you believe that this doesn't work. It does.

But wait, aren't these representatives supposed to work for you? Sure. That's why we've compiled a list of 50 congresspeople who took campaign contributions from the RIAA in the last election cycle. We've linked their contact information so that you, as their constituents, can inform them that they're taking money from the "Worst Company in America," and that's going to cost them your vote.

The ongoing war between content producers and hackers over the AACS copy protection used in HD DVD and Blu-ray discs produced yet another skirmish last week, and as has been the case as of late, the hackers came out on top.

The hacker "BtCB" posted the new decryption key for AACS on the Freedom to Tinker web site, just one day after the AACS Licensing Authority (AACS LA) issued the key. In true tongue-in-cheek hacker fashion, the site posted the 128-bit key as a method of decrypting a small haiku that they placed on the same page, noting that it just might accidentally (wink, wink) be the same key that will decrypt new high-definition discs as well.

The AACS LA is not happy about these Processing Keys being released. When previous keys were leaked, the organization vowed that it would remove the keys from the Internet with cease-and-desist orders. Predictably, this only encouraged people to post them more. The whole series of affairs evokes memories of when DVD decryption was all the rage, and the DeCSS code wound up being printed on t-shirts to express the futility of trying to sue anyone who used or even knew about it. The decryption code for AACS cannot fit easily on a t-shirt, but the 128-bit Processing Keys can, and it's clear that no matter how many times the AACS LA revokes old keys, the new ones are going to be found and released.