# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ever wonder about the origins of the hacking movement? How were hackers born? If you're old enough, do you even remember when the word "hacker" was first coined?

Hacking's Origins

Hacking came from "phreaking" (hacking phone systems), out of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Breaking into networks was called "cracking." The prototype hackers were interested in getting into phone systems.

And then personal computers were invented.

More and more people, and businesses and governments adopted PCs, and a whole new world of technology beckoned the hackers. They had a field day playing around in this new techy realm, and along the way, discovered weaknesses in the networks.

Hacking soon after became illegal, but that didn't stop these criminals. At first, a lot of hacking was done for the adrenaline surge-the computer equivalent of illegal base jumping or scaling a skyscraper. Hackers wanted to be a star in their community.

But over time, these cyber thrill seekers realized that they could make money off of their e-quests. Why destroy a file, corrupt a program and play cat-and-mouse with the IT team when you can rip off all the suckers out there and make a killing?

Hacking, essentially, is burglary. Hackers steal peoples identity, such as getting ahold of login information to the victim's bank and then making withdrawals.

When a cyber crime is committed on a larger scale, like to a giant retailer, the damages skyrocket into the tens of millions for a single business.

One who hacks isn't necessarily bad. Hacking is a particular act, and it's bad when done by bad people for financial gain or to tarnish the recipient's reputation.

All hackers are pretty smart, and we techy-challenged folk sometimes like to convince ourselves that all hackers are crooked, maybe as consolation for not being as smart as them.

How to Hack

Hackers use hardware and software to test how easily a computer network can be penetrated. Areas of weakness are called vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities can be found at any one of a number of points, such as the Internet connection itself, the browser or the operating system of the user's computer.

A decade ago, hackers crashed computers-making the user instantly know they were hacked. These days, hackers have figured out ways to commit crimes without the user knowing it. How could they get your banking information if your computer is crashed?

Instead, they infect your computer with a Trojan that waits quietly, undetected, then spring into action when you begin online banking -sending information to the hacker.

Beware of Viruses

Your smoothly-running computer right now could have a virus lying in the shadows, waiting to be triggered by some action on your part-kind of like a mugger waiting in the shadows for the right victim to walk on by, then leaping into action.

The trigger might be, as mentioned, logging onto a bank.

Or it could be visiting a malicious website (after being lured there) or clicking on an attachment or a link inside an e-mail. It could be from being duped into downloading a malicious program. These actions unleash a virus that infects your computer. And they're not the only actions, either, but they're the most common.

There are no signs that the rate of viral infections is slowing down. It's actually boomed over the past few years. That's because hackers have been advancing at a more rapid pace than that of the "white hat" hackers who specialize in figuring out how the bad "black hat" hackers plan their attacks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn How Hacking Has Evolved with Technological Advances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever wonder about the origins of the hacking movement? How were hackers born? If you're old enough, do you even remember when the word "hacker" was first coined? Hacking came from "phreaking" (hacking phone systems), out of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Breaking into networks was called "cracking."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims that if Facebook was starting out now, sharing with everybody - rather than with a small group of friends - would be the starting point.

Is this more about reflecting social norms or changing them to help Facebook compete with Twitter?

The statement, made during a livestream of the Crunchies awards, hits on a hot button issue for Facebook: It recently notified users of privacy changes via a pop-up notification. While the message claimed that Facebook was displaying the message to give users more privacy controls, blindly clicking "next" was a way to make much of your data public. And in fact, some data like the Friends List has become more public without any settings changes by users.

Zuckerberg: Sharing is the "Social Norm"

Zuckerberg's statement to interviewer Michael Arrington avoids any major "gotcha" quotes, subtly implying that Facebook's move is a reaction to societal changes but carefully avoiding any mention of Twitter's role in those changes. The full quote, picked up in a very well-written post by Marshall Kirkpatrick this weekend, emphasizes "social norms" and "evolution":

When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was 'why would I want to put any information on the Internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?'

And then in the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way and all these different services that have people sharing all this information. People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.

We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.

A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they've built, doing a privacy change - doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

Change Was Inevitable

Critics of Facebook's move will probably find support: Facebook's userbase is notoriously resistive to change, and yet nearly every major change, with the exception of the failed Beacon project, has seen a huge surge in popularity for the company. Facebook users were certainly opposed to its expansion beyond colleges, but it's hard to argue that the service has become less useful as a result.

So now Facebook is becoming a catalyst of social change, a transition that's likely to be somewhat painful for all of us. Twitter dramatically lowered the barriers to content creation, and thus sharing our day-to-day lives became effortless. But it was Facebook that took the trend mainstream, affecting 300 million+ people worldwide.

My take: Zuck is right; the change was inevitable. If Facebook hadn't pushed this forward, Google would have inevitably made our lives more public in its quest to make all the world's information accessible (Yes, that includes information about individuals). And if not Google, then Twitter. The trend started there and Twitter's growth would have gradually defined the standard in sharing.

Public sharing as the default was unavoidable, but Facebook has pushed the trend forward faster than any of us might have expected. It's a concept that will take some getting used to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook Founder on Privacy: Public Is the New "Social Norm"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims that if Facebook was starting out now, sharing with everybody - rather than with a small group of friends - would be the starting point. Is this more about reflecting social norms or changing them to help Facebook compete with Twitter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Snowden Speaks: A Vanity Fair Special Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
V.F.'s investigative team follows the twists and turns that propelled a 29-year-old computer whiz into the pages of history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New surveillance powers will be given to the police and security services, allowing them to access records tracking every UK citizen's use of the internet without any judicial check, under the provisions of the draft investigatory powers bill unveiled by Theresa May.

It includes new powers requiring internet and phone companies to keep "internet connection records" - tracking every website visited but not every page - for a maximum of 12 months but will not require a warrant for the police, security services or other bodies to access the data. Local authorities will be banned from accessing internet records.

The proposed legislation will also introduce a "double-lock" on the ministerial approval of interception warrants with a new panel of seven judicial commissioners - probably retired judges - given a veto before they can come into force.

But the details of the bill make clear that this new safeguard for the most intrusive powers to spy on the content of people's conversations and messages will not apply in "urgent cases" - defined as up to five days - where judicial approval is not possible.

The draft investigatory powers bill published on Wednesday by the home secretary aims to provide a "comprehensive and comprehensible" overhaul of Britain's fragmented surveillance laws. It comes two-and-a-half years after the disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden of the scale of secret mass surveillance of the global traffic in confidential personal data carried out by Britain's GCHQ and the US's National Security Agency (NSA).

It will replace the current system of three separate commissioners with a senior judge as a single investigatory powers commissioner.

May told MPs that the introduction of the most controversial power - the storage of everyone's internet connection records tracking the websites they have visited, which is banned as too intrusive in the US and every European country including Britain - was "simply the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".

Snowden, however, took a different view:

Edward Snowden (@Snowden)
By my read, #SnoopersCharter legitimizes mass surveillance. It is the most intrusive and least accountable surveillance regime in the West.

Edward Snowden (@Snowden)
#SnoopersCharter does not require individualized judicial authorization in advance of *interception*. Such a dragnet is mass surveillance.

May's recommendations were broadly welcomed by the shadow home secretary, Andy Burnham, but received a more cautious welcome from the former Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis, the former shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and Nick Clegg, the former deputy prime minister.

Some former ministers pressed May on the nature of the double-lock, whereby a warrant could be issued first by the home secretary and then endorsed by a specially appointed judge. They also asked whether some warrants could be issued by the home secretary outside this dual-lock process.

Burnham said it was important to stress the proposals were "neither a snooper's charter nor a plan for mass surveillance". The Labour frontbencher said the UK's laws were outdated given that changes in technology had made the jobs of the security services and police much harder.

Burnham said: "In a world where the threats we face internationally and domestically are growing, parliament cannot sit on its hands and leave blind spots where the authorities can't see."

He said strong powers must be balanced by strong protections for the public, adding: "What the home secretary has said today, it seems clear to me both she and the government have been listening carefully to the concerns that were expressed about the original legislation presented in the last parliament."

Burnham added: "I think it would help the future conduct of this important public debate if this House sent out a unified message today that this is neither a snooper's charter nor a plan for mass surveillance."

Parliament cannot sit on its hands and leave blind spots where the authorities can't see

Andy Burnham

Davis questioned whether the new warrant process would cover all the current mechanisms for the intercept and use of communications data. He also questioned the independence of the judiciary, asking if they would be appointed by the prime minister or by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Clegg, who in government blocked previous attempts to give spies sweeping new powers, was cautious, saying the proposals were much improved compared with the snooper's charter. But he warned: "I have a feeling under the bonnet it still retains some of the flaws of its predecessor."

The Lib Dem MP suggested it might be simpler and faster to provide for direct judicial authorisation, rather than retaining a role for ministers. He also queried why it was necessary to hold so much internet browsing data.

The draft bill explicitly includes in statute for the first time powers for the bulk collection of large volumes of communications and other personal data by MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and for their use of "equipment interference powers" - the ability to hack computers and phones around the world - for purposes of national security, serious crime and economic wellbeing.

UK has secretly collected data in bulk since 2001

In her statement, May also revealed for the first time that successive governments since 2001 have issued secret directions to internet and phone companies to hand over the communications data of British citizens in bulk to the security services.

She said these secret "directions" had allowed the security services to thwart a number of attacks in Britain, including the plot to attack the London Stock Exchange in 2010.

May revealed that the use of these powers - which show that GCHQ was also engaged in mass surveillance programmes on British citizens using their communications data - under the 1984 Telecommunications Act will be put on a more explicit footing in the new legislation and be subject to the same safeguards as other bulk powers.

Home Office estimates put the extra costs of storing internet connection records and the new judicial oversight regime at £245m to £250m over 10 years after the legislation comes into force in December next year. This includes £175m for the cost of storing everyone's internet records and £60m for the extra judicial oversight.

Welcoming the bill as a decisive moment in updating Britain's surveillance laws, May said: "There should be no area of cyberspace which is a haven for those who seek to harm us to plot, poison minds and peddle hatred under the radar.

"But I am also clear that the exercise and scope of investigatory powers should be clearly set out and subject to stringent safeguards and robust oversight, including 'double-lock' authorisation for the most intrusive capabilities. This bill will establish world-leading oversight to govern an investigatory powers regime which is more open and transparent than anywhere else in the world."

She said it could not be used to determine whether somebody had visited a mental health website or even a news website but only for the purpose of finding out whether they had visited a communications website, such as WhatsApp, an illegal website or to link their device to a specific website as part of a specific investigation.

But the detail of the bill makes clear that the authorisation arrangements for internet connection records will remain exactly the same as the current 517,000 requests for communications data made last year. These requests are made without any kind of warrant and signed off by either a police inspector or superintendent depending on the kind of data.

Jim Killock, the executive director of the privacy campaigning body Open Rights Group, sees the draft bill as an attempt to secure even more intrusive powers. "At first glance, it appears that this bill is an attempt to grab even more intrusive surveillance powers and does not do enough to restrain the bulk collection of our personal data by the secret services," he said.

"It proposes an increase in the blanket retention of our personal communications data, giving the police the power to access web logs. It also gives the state intrusive hacking powers that can carry risks for everyone's internet security."

A Microsoft spokesperson tentatively welcomed the bill while adding caveats about private data and protection for customers, saying: "We appreciate the government's willingness to engage in an open debate about these important issues, and as this process unfolds, we will work to ensure that legislation respects these principles and protects the privacy of our customers."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theresa May unveils UK surveillance measures in wake of Snowden claims

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New surveillance powers will be given to the police and security services, allowing them to access records tracking every UK citizen's use of the internet without any judicial check, under the provisions of the draft investigatory powers bill unveiled by Theresa May.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Selfie" is not just word of the year, but also the mainstay of postings on social media sites such as Instagram. With the prevalence of camera-equipped smartphones the posting of selfies has reached epidemic levels - even the funerals of national leaders aren't exempt. But is there a psychological fall-out?

A new study by Florida State University academics Jessica Ridgway and Russell Clayton found that people who were more satisfied with their body image posted more selfies to Instagram - confidently showing off, you might say. But in turn, they reported experiencing more conflict with their romantic partner - such as jealous arguments about attention others had paid their photos online - and poorer relationship quality. So does this mean that Instagram selfies are bad for relationships?

The study's authors speculate that when one partner frequently posts attractive selfies, the other partner may feel jealous or threatened. This may lead to excessive monitoring of the other's Instagram feed, which means they see even more of the attention the photos receive from followers, potentially winding them up still further. This could potentially lead to greater conflict, cheating, or a break-up.

While the study didn't directly measure this sort of monitoring behaviour, other research has revealed how social media surveillance of a romantic partner is associated with greater jealousy, insecurity, and dissatisfaction in relationships.

Another way to account for the potentially relationship-damaging effects of posting selfies is that they may simply alienate other people. There is a tendency for people to report less intimacy and emotional support in their relationships with people who are selfie-posting addicts. One reason why people may withdraw from these relationships is because they perceive the excessive selfie-posting as indicative of a narcissistic streak.

Now, the correlational design of Ridgway and Clayton's study means that we cannot say for sure whether the posting of Instagram selfies actually caused the other romantic partner to feel insecure or alienated, thus instigating a downward relationship spiral. Rather, it could be that an underlying personality trait - such as narcissism - caused some people not only to be more satisfied with their body image and to post more selfies, but also to have poorer-quality relationships.

Signs of a narcissist

Narcissism is characterised by grandiose self-regard, a need for attention and admiration, vanity, a sense of entitlement and an exploitative attitude towards others. Narcissists' preoccupation with their body image and craving to be admired could be one reason why they are more addicted to social media and post more selfies.

Along these lines, one study found that narcissistic men posted more selfies and were also more likely to use photo-editing software or filters to make themselves look better. Other studies have found a link between narcissism and selfie-obsession in both men and women. Narcissists don't just post more selfies, they also post more Facebook status updates about their diet or exercise routine, consistent with their preoccupation with their physical appearance.

But alongside their vain and attention-seeking behaviour, narcissists also tend to experience poorer-quality relationships. A recent study found that couples reported a greater decline in relationship quality over the first four years of their marriage when the wife was a narcissist (interestingly the same result was not found when the husband was a narcissist).

These couples had not reported a decline in their relationship within the first six months of marriage; in fact, narcissists are often viewed positively by partners at the beginning of a relationship - and narcissists themselves may view a new relationship as an opportunity for ego validation. Over time, however, the narcissist's low commitment, self-centredness and antagonism may chip away at relationship satisfaction.

Similarly, a narcissist's selfie-posting may be viewed as attractive or endearing in the early stages of a relationship, but may become increasingly irritating as the relationship progresses.

So it's not yet possible to conclusively establish whether posting selfies in itself damages relationships or whether selfie-posting and problems in relationships are symptomatic of an underlying trait such as narcissism. Further research may prove the link, but until then, you might want to consider not just the message your obsessive posting of selfies give to others, but also the potential damage it could cause to your love life.

Tara Marshall, Lecturer in Psychology, Brunel University London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
The Independent's Millennial Love group is the best place to discuss to the highs and lows of modern dating and relationships. Join the conversation here.​
Reuse content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How selfies could ruin your relationship, according to an expert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Selfie" is not just word of the year, but also the mainstay of postings on social media sites such as Instagram. With the prevalence of camera-equipped smartphones the posting of selfies has reached epidemic levels - even the funerals of national leaders aren't exempt. But is there a psychological fall-out?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Social Identity
The social identity theory suggests that 'individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self esteem; they strive for a positive self concept' (Tajifel and Turner,1979)

In previous generations who were without the internet, would have to prove that they achieved something by actually doing it to receive the recognition and gratification.

The introduction of online social networking in the 21st century has added a new dimension to the theory of social identity as people are given a chance to effectively portray themselves, what they do, what they care about and even how old they are inaccurately in order to receive recognition, gratification or acceptance.

Online Media, Culture & Networks Effect on Identity
Social media has caused people to move away from their real self-identities due to negative messages diplayed by the media and other social forces. Dobson (2002) suggests that self-identity is a 'global understanding someone has of themselves (and) is composed of relatively permanent self-assessments.'

In previous generations social forces and media messages influencing people's self-identities were a lot more positive and far outweighed the negative (Taylor, 2011). Popular culture has also had a massive impact on identity and has created 'portraits of who it wants us to be' (Taylor, 2011). This leads to people shielding certain information that they think will not be accepted by what their peers or other groups of people might think of them

This behavior can be related to the networking theory or the social networking theory as people and groups who surround or are close to each other 'share the same characteristics, values and social statuses' (Kadushin, 2012).
The Idea of Having a 'Second Self'

With the growing popularity of online social networks, they have brought with them developments in identity construction in the form of users creating an avatar or 'second self.'

Having an online 'self' or avatar enables people's identities to be 'entirely generated by what can be typed or posted in images and text.' (Jones & Holmes,2011)

This enables online users the power to create themselves as someone who does not mirror who they are in reality.

Friendster
Friendster (2002) was the first modern social networking website to gain mass popularity, after only 3 months it had 3 million users.

It was also the first popular, non-dating social networking website to contain personalized profiles with an array of customizable information that was visible to other members of the site.
The Introduction of Social Media and its impact on Identity Construction.
By Patrick White
Image from
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/56695083@N00/4464828517/>
The inception of online social networking has been a revolutionary stepping stone in the history of communication.

It has changed the way we construct our identities and how we portray ourselves to other people through digital mediums.

This is an insight into how people become different through online social networking.

The Introduction of Modern Online Social Networking Websites: The Beginning to Now...

From Friendster to Facebook
Facebook
Facebook currently is now at the forefront of social networking websites and this is due to their easy-to-use interface and the continuous innovation of their features and layout.

Facebook lets users customize nearly every aspect of their profile with personal and impersonal information which is used to create an online or 'second' identity.

Image from
<http://www.bubblews.com/news/898319-do-you-remember-friendster>
Image from <https://www.facebook.com/>
Images from <http://comicalconcept.com/illustrations/the-facebook-you> <http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/photos/facebook-you-vs-real-you>
Identity: Are you the Same Person Online & Offline?
Henry's Story: Creating Online Identities
Image from <http://allfacebook.com/chase-contest-fraud_b10256>
Image from <http://lensaunders.com/habit/peerpressure.html>
I Like You In Real Life (But Not on the Internet)
References
Chapman,C, 2009, 'The History and Evolution of Social Media, blog post,' Webdesignerdepot, 7 October, viewed 11 October 2013, <http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/10/the-history-and-evolution-of-social-media/>

Dobson, A, 2002, 'Who am I? - Building Personal Character,' blog post, Mindfit Hypnosis, Viewed on 11 October 2013, < http://www.mindfithypnosis.com/who-am-i-self-identity>

Holmes, D & Jones, P 2011, Key concepts in media and communications, Sage, London.

Kadushin, C, 2012, Understanding Social Networks, Google Books, Oxford University Press, New York.

Lindley, E, 2013, 'Is Social Networking Redefining Identity?', blog post, RSA, January 24, Viewed on 14 October 2013, < http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/socialbrain/social-networking-redefining-identity/>

Tajifel, H, Turner, J, 1979, Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Academic Press, London.

Taylor, J, 2011, 'Technology: Is Technology Stealing our (Self) Identities,' blog post, Dr. Jim Taylor, 27 July, Viewed on 12 October 2013, <http://drjimtaylor.com/2.0/technology/technology-is-technology-stealing-our-self-identities/>

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Online Media , Culture & Networks Effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Impact of Social Media on Identity Construction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social IdentityThe social identity theory suggests that 'individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self esteem; they strive for a positive self concept' (Tajifel and Turner,1979) In previous generations who were without the internet, would have to prove that they achieved something by actually doing it to receive the recognition and gratification.

# data[].attributes.body
Greenpeace Tweet that clicktivism is working towards helping there cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Clicktivism works! Email-generated protests bombard major mining projects http://t.co/RGEVxrnahQ pic.twitter.com/DZXOBFhtej
— Greenpeace International (@Greenpeace) August 25, 2015

# data[].attributes.body
An example of why some popular trends make no real difference to the overall situation. The girls are still missing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conflicting agendas with technology companies and surveillence bill. 16

# data[].attributes.subject
Conflicting agendas with technology companies and surveillence bill. 16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In joint written evidence submitted to a UK parliamentary committee that is tasked with scrutinising the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo! warned that the new laws could force overseas communication service providers (CSPs) to grapple with competing legislation.

"Unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction will create conflicting legal obligations for overseas providers who are subject to legal obligations elsewhere," the companies said. "Conflicts of laws create an increasingly chaotic legal environment for providers, restricting the free flow of information and leaving private companies to decide whose laws to violate. These decisions should be made by governments, grounded in fundamental rights of privacy, freedom of expression, and other human rights."

"If the UK legislation retains authority to reach extraterritorially, the Bill should consistently and explicitly state that no company is required to comply with any notice/warrant, which in doing so would contravene its legal obligations in other jurisdictions. Enforcement obligations should also take this into account," it said.

The companies said that the way the Bill is currently drafted does not reflect what the UK government has stated about the extent of the extraterritorial effect of the proposed laws in a side document to the Bill.

"Notwithstanding our position, currently there is confusion: the context section of the Bill overview document states, 'enforcement of obligations against overseas CSPs will be limited to interception and targeted CD (communications data) acquisition powers'," the companies said. "This is not what the Bill itself says."

The technology businesses also said that CSPs should not be forced to "generate and retain data" that they do not "ordinarily generate in the course of [their] business". Some of the biggest UK internet service providers and mobile network operators have said that they will need to create 'internet connection records' so as to retain that data as part of their obligations under the Investigatory Powers Bill.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo! also raised concern about provisions in the Bill which it said could force them to remove encryption so that data and communications can be analysed by intelligence agencies.

"We reject any proposals that would require companies to deliberately weaken the security of their products via backdoors, forced decryption, or any other means," the companies said. "We therefore have concerns that the Bill includes 'obligations relating to the removal of electronic protection applied by a relevant operator to any communication or data' and that these are explicitly intended to apply extraterritorially with limited protections for overseas providers."

"We appreciate the statements in the Bill and by the home secretary that the Bill is not intended to weaken the use of encryption, and suggest that the Bill expressly state that nothing in the Bill should be construed to require a company to weaken or defeat its security measures," they said.

The technology companies identified six principles that it said should be observed to shape new surveillance laws.

"We believe the best way for countries to promote the security and privacy interests of their citizens, while also respecting the sovereignty of other nations, is to ensure that surveillance is targeted, lawful, proportionate, necessary, jurisdictionally bounded, and transparent," they said. "These principles reflect the perspective of global companies that offer borderless technologies to billions of people around the globe."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tech giants call on UK government to ensure new surveillance laws are 'jurisdictionally bounded'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In joint written evidence submitted to a UK parliamentary committee that is tasked with scrutinising the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo! warned that the new laws could force overseas communication service providers (CSPs) to grapple with competing legislation.

# data[].attributes.body
A way of thinking about surveillance

# data[].attributes.headline
UK 's Bill to Tighten Surveillance Laws. 14

# data[].attributes.subject
UK 's Bill to Tighten Surveillance Laws. 14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May is facing calls from senior Tories and the opposition to improve the investigatory powers bill to allay concerns about privacy.

In a debate for the second reading of the bill, Ken Clarke, the Conservative former home secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general, suggested there could be improvements to the new laws that overhaul the state's surveillance powers.

The bill passed easily with 281 for and just 15 against, mostly comprising Liberal Democrats, while Labour and the SNP abstained. However, almost 50 Conservatives were absent, suggesting many may not be happy with the legislation as it currently stands. If the SNP and Labour had voted with the Lib Dems, it would have been comprehensively defeated.

Labour and the SNP abstained as they remain unconvinced about whether privacy is adequately protected, while the Liberal Democrats are going one step further and voting against the bill, which has been nicknamed "snooper's charter".

It will hand law enforcement agencies more access to people's internet connection records but also make sure judges oversee the granting of warrants for interception.

The home secretary said privacy was "hard-wired" into new controversial surveillance powers and they would not give security services generalised access to people's web browsing histories.

But Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, said he wanted to see a general presumption in favour of privacy along with at least six other improvements before the party could be persuaded to back the bill.

Clarke twice pressed May on whether judges should be given stronger powers to oversee interception of communications warrants.

As the bill is currently drafted, judges will be able to disagree with the home secretary's granting of a warrant on matters of process but not substance. "Questions of judgment and proportionality are the most important of all, that worry me most," Clarke said.

He said it was necessary to be "vigilant against some future administration abusing" the powers and pointed out that "all kinds of curious public bodies" would be able to get access to huge amounts of extra information. "I doubt the wisdom of that," he added.

Clarke said he was troubled that use of the powers could be justified on the wide-ranging grounds of "economic wellbeing" and "national security".

Grieve said he supported the bill as it was necessary but hoped ministers would accept it was "capable of further improvement" and he trusted that "during its passage, it performs the equally important role of being seen as an upholder of freedom and liberty".

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Theresa May is facing calls to improve the investigatory powers bill. Photograph: Mark Thomas/Rex/Shutterstock

Another to raise concerns was Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, who said there was a "challenge in separating out contact and content" when people's internet connection records were tracked. "It's not the same as a phone record when you look at somebody's internet correspondence," she said.

However, May insisted there would be no access to people's web browsing histories and the bill would only allow tracing of their connections to the internet.

"It is absolutely possible, and we've been talking at length with the companies, to be able to separate in internet connection records (ICRs) for example, the device or website that a particular device has accessed and not then go into the content of whatever it is that has been looked at in relation to that," she said.

"It's very important that I make that clear because when it comes on to ICRs, we are not talking about looking at people's web browsing history, we are simply looking at that initial point of contact."

Before the debate,concerns about the legislation were raised by a number of groups including the internet provider industry body and a group of 200 lawyers.

The Internet Services Providers' Association said: Our members have significant concerns about the ambitious timetable of the bill. The prime minister himself argued at prime minister's questions that the investigatory powers bill is one of the most important bills this House will discuss.

"We recognise that three parliamentary committees have investigated the bill and made 123 recommendations. However, even our members are not yet fully clear about what the bill will mean for them. It is vital that parliament is provided with a sufficient amount of time to scrutinise the bill."

Renate Samson, chief executive of the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, has said the drive to get the bill on the statute books by the end of the year was "too fast".

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Michael Mansfield QC is among 200 senior lawyers who signed a letter to the Guardian saying the bill is flawed. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

Senior lawyers raised concerns in a letter to the Guardian, saying it was fundamentally flawed because it destroyed privacy.

Among those who have signed the letter are the chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, Kirsty Brimelow QC, Tom de la Mare QC, who has been a special advocate in security cases, Sir Stephen Sedley, who is a former court of appeal judge, Prof Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, Hugh Southey QC, Michael Mansfield QC and Philippe Sands QC. Among academic lawyers, there are representatives of nearly 40 law schools in the UK.

Earlier, the Lib Dems called on Labour to do more to kill off the new surveillance laws, calling the decision to abstain from voting on the bill "gutless".

Burnham made it clear that Labour was prepared to vote down the legislation at a later stage and force the government to extend its transitional arrangements unless there were a string of changes.

But he said he was persuaded that the police and security services were losing the ability to catch criminals because of advances in technology and that the law needed to be updated to give a "clear legal framework" for access to some internet records.

The changes suggested by Labour include:

A guarantee that the political activities of campaigners for justice, trade unionists and bereaved families will not be spied on using the new legislation.

A clear definition of protecting "national security" and "economic wellbeing", which are the current conditions that justify the use of the new powers.

A proportionate list of crimes that would justify allowing police and security services to access someone's internet connection record.

Restrictions on the number of law enforcement agencies that would be allowed to use the legislation.

Better protections for the confidential communications of "sensitive professions", such as MPs with constituents, lawyers with clients and journalists with sources.

Approval for interception to be granted by judges on the basis of the evidence rather than merely whether the right process has been followed.

Burnham said: "The bill cannot be supported in its current form, but nor should we just oppose it because there is a deadline where the country needs new legislation.

"What I am saying very clearly to Theresa May is: here are very specific concerns that we have and unless you meet them we will not cooperate with getting this bill on the statute book by the end of the year. That is quite a significant statement."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Snooper's charter': Theresa May faces calls to improve bill to protect privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May is facing calls from senior Tories and the opposition to improve the investigatory powers bill to allay concerns about privacy. In a debate for the second reading of the bill, Ken Clarke, the Conservative former home secretary, and Dominic Grieve, the Tory former attorney general, suggested there could be improvements to the new laws that overhaul the state's surveillance powers.

# data[].attributes.body
This Ted Talk explains what might happen to our online profiles/personalities when we die.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adam Ostrow: After your final status update

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of us have a social media presence -- a virtual personality made up of status updates, tweets and connections, stored in the cloud. Adam Ostrow asks a big question: What happens to that personality after you've died? Could it ... live on?

# data[].attributes.body
This is an anti- surveillance activist Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join the Don't Spy on Us campaign against authoritarian surveillance powers in the UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new law setting out what powers the UK state will have to monitor communications between citizens has been unveiled. What are the key elements of the Investigatory Powers Bill?

What does this bill do?

The Investigatory Powers Bill aims to completely overhaul the laws governing how the state, police and spies can gather private communications or other forms of data to combat crime, terrorism and other threats to national security and the UK's economic wellbeing.

Both security chiefs and privacy campaigners agree the current rules are completely out of date and last year a massive review of powers by an independent watchdog called for a complete rethink.

How do agencies collect data at the moment?

There are two basic types of information they collect:

Communications data - this is information about the manner in which a communication has happened, including a record of a phone call or the sending of an email.

The content of those communications - what the person actually said or sent - such as the conversation of the phone call or words in an email.

Existing law is complicated, buried in different Acts and ambiguous. Very few people outside of the intelligence agencies properly understand it - and most of it was written in the pre-internet era. For instance, the public did not know until the publication of this bill that MI5 not only has permission to scoop up and analyse "bulk data" from the internet - but that permission comes under legislation passed before the invention of the world wide web.

What new powers are being proposed?

Communications firms - such as your broadband or mobile phone providers - will be compelled to hold a year's worth of your communications data. This new information will be details of services, websites and data sources you connect to when you go online and is called your " Internet Connection Record". For instance, it could be your visit to the BBC website from a mobile phone at breakfast and then how you used an online chat service at lunch. It does not include the detail of what you then did within each service. There is no comparable legal duty to retain these records in the rest of Europe, the USA, Canada or Australia - this appears to be a world first.

In simple terms, police say they want to be able to get at these records, going back a year, so that if they get a lead on a suspect, they can establish more about their network or conspiracy.

Under existing law, agencies can already ask firms to start collecting this data - but they can't access historic information because companies don't keep it. Police argue that this means many investigations into crime with an online element go cold because they can't link activity to specific people or devices.

How do these powers compare to those that already exist?

Police or other agencies can already access communications data such as historic phone bills - but there is a ban on them asking firms to hold and hand over information detailing which online services have been used.

What other powers are covered by the bill?

The bill brings together all other investigatory powers which involve intrusion into communications or private lives, including:

The interception and reading of communications - this can only be carried out if approved in person by the Home Secretary.

"Interference" with computers - including hacking - to acquire information or for some other investigative reason.

A legal obligation on companies to assist in these officially sanctioned hacking operations.

The collection of massive amounts of internet or phone data so that it can be later sifted looking for leads and patterns of criminality.

Does the bill outlaw encryption?

No. The legislation includes an existing power to compel a company in the UK to hand over an encryption key so that scrambled messages can be read - where there is a legal reason for the police or other agencies to access that message. This could include, for example, asking a company to help unscramble chat messages which may reveal where a missing person - or their kidnapper - can be found.

However, this legal duty cannot be imposed on overseas companies, such as Apple, that use a form of encryption which they say they cannot themselves breach.

What safeguards will there be against abuses?

Ministers are proposing a new " investigatory powers commission" led by senior judges.

They will act as a "double lock" on interception warrants. When a minister signs off an application to monitor communications, the operation won't begin until the commissioners have also agreed. Critics say this is insufficient - but the government says it's an unprecedented level of oversight seen nowhere else in the world.

The commission will take over inspecting the secret workings of MI5 and other agencies.

Finally, the IPC will be expected to be public and explain how powers are used.

If the new commission finds a serious error in how powers have been used, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a special semi-secret court, could then rule that the targeted individual has the right to know.

While councils can request some communications data, they will be banned from accessing internet connection records. A new offence of unlawfully accessing internet data will be created - and it will also be a crime for someone who works for a communications firm to reveal data has been sought.

DECRYPTING SPOOKS: A SIMPLE GUIDE TO THE LANGUAGE USED BY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

Communications Data

Any message or information transmitted over the net is contained inside a wrapper that says who sent it, to whom, when, how and so on. Communications data is the wrapper - a bit like an envelope, but with more information.

Content of communications

The actual words or information transmitted - such as the contents of your email, text message or old-fashioned letter in the envelope.

Communication Service Providers

The people that connect you to the modern world - including your mobile phone provider and home broadband company.

Communications Platforms

The companies you use to go about your business once you've been connected to the modern world by the CSPs - for instance Facebook and Google.

Bulk Data and TEMPORA

All the raw data that can be gathered from the internet's key connections as it flows in and out of the UK. If you send it down a pipe overseas, it can in theory be captured. The Edward Snowden leaks revealed the UK bulk data programme is called TEMPORA

PRISM

Another Snowden leak. PRISM is the American programme under which its National Security Agency collects information sent by foreigners via US-based online services

Intelligence sharing

When two agencies, such as those in the UK and USA, share intelligence each has gathered. This can be a legally grey area if an agency receives information relating to one of its country's citizens which it would not be able to access without a warrant.

Interception warrants

When the UK's intelligence and security agencies want to intercept, read or listen in to a target's communications - over and above collecting basic communications data, they ask the Home Secretary to sign a warrant giving them legal permission to do so.

Computer Network Exploitation

Hacking - by whatever means.

Internet Connection Records

Intelligence community jargon for browsing history

Collateral Intrusion

When an agency targets a suspect, they can end up collecting lots of information about entirely innocent people around them. This is collateral intrusion and it is a legally grey area if steps have not been taken to protect legitimately private information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new law setting out what powers the UK state will have to monitor communications between citizens has been unveiled. What are the key elements of the Investigatory Powers Bill?

# data[].attributes.headline
Government Surveillance - This is Just the Beginning. 12

# data[].attributes.subject
Government Surveillance - This is Just the Beginning. 12

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christopher Soghoian: Government surveillance - this is just the beginning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian sees the landscape of government surveillance shifting beneath our feet, as an industry grows to support monitoring programs. Through private companies, he says, governments are buying technology with the capacity to break into computers, steal documents and monitor activity - without detection.

# data[].attributes.body
Ted talk about surveillance society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glenn Greenwald was one of the first reporters to see -- and write about -- the Edward Snowden files, with their revelations about the United States' extensive surveillance of private citizens. In this searing talk, Greenwald makes the case for why you need to care about privacy, even if you're "not doing anything you need to hide."

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Internet changed the Music Industry. 4 

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Internet changed the Music Industry. 4 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No one would dispute the fact that the Internet has changed the music industry drastically over the past couple of decades. In fact, things continue to change at a rapid rate, and the music business is still struggling to keep up. From early issues like illegal downloading and music sharing sites (like the now-defunct Napster) to current disputes over music streaming services and how much the artists/labels should be paid in royalties, the Internet still seems to be raising more questions than it is answering.

That being said, not all the news is bad. While the Internet has made music more accessible to the public (and made it more difficult for artists to make money), it also happens to be an incredible tool that enables independent musicians to find a global audience without the help and backing of a major label. In short, the Internet has changed the music industry in both positive and negative ways. Let's take a look at both sides.

THE BAD
While huge segments of the public are hailing the Internet era for making music easier and cheaper to obtain (or steal), the down side is that the business side of music is struggling to generate enough revenue because of the new technology. Most of the people who are part of making a record are paid in royalties, and anytime music changes hands without money being involved, those royalties can't be paid-which is why so much has been done in recent years to try and reduce music piracy. Some progress has been made to curb this trend by offering easy, cheap downloads through outlets like iTunes and Amazon; this has helped because consumers can now purchase and download specific songs they like, rather than buy the whole album for just one song. A more recent development has been the emergence of Internet radio and streaming services like Spotify and Pandora, who offer either ad-based or paid subscription streaming of their music libraries. However, this new solution is currently still disputed by artists and labels because the current pay structures are still far less than if a consumer buys the music outright. These issues are far from being resolved.

The upshot is that in many ways the Internet has made it more difficult for artists (and their labels, when applicable) to make a decent amount of money from music sales. Many artists have resorted to playing live to subsidize their loss of income. While one day these problems may be resolved, a lot of questions still remain.

THE GOOD
Almost paradoxically, the same Internet that has caused all the problems mentioned above can also be an artist's best friend, particularly in the case of independent artists who aren't part of the current "industry machine." How is this possible? Simply put, the Internet allows people to connect with others all around the world. This enables certain smart musicians who are otherwise unknown to find their own audience without the aid or backing of a major label, virtually eliminating the need to be "discovered" by talent scouts or A&R reps. In some cases, this can result in attention from the labels themselves (many current worldwide recording artists today got their start putting their own stuff up on YouTube). In other cases, it simply means they can market and sell their own music to their audience without the need for label or radio promotion. The audience might not be as large as it would be otherwise-but neither does the artist have to share profits with the labels. The result is that music fans now have access to a lot of music they'd never hear otherwise, and many forward-thinking musicians have leveraged the Internet to carve out nice incomes for themselves without ever courting a record label.

So while the Internet has changed the music industry greatly in recent years, there are both positive and negative side effects. One thing is for certain: the Internet isn't going away anytime soon, so the music industry will have to find a way to adapt to it, rather than to fight it. If history is any indicator, eventually the current issues will work themselves out. Time may soon reveal that the Internet has been more friend than foe to the music business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No one would dispute the fact that the Internet has changed the music industry drastically over the past couple of decades. In fact, things continue to change at a rapid rate, and the music business is still struggling to keep up.

# data[].attributes.headline
Swift Vs Apple - Battle for Royalties. 5

# data[].attributes.subject
Swift Vs Apple - Battle for Royalties. 5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple Music has reversed its payment policy, a day after the singer Taylor Swift said she was refusing to allow the company to stream her album 1989.

In an open letter to Apple, Swift said she was withholding the record as she was unhappy with the three-month free trial offered to subscribers.

Now Apple says it will pay artists for music streamed during trial periods.

" We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple," tweeted executive Eddy @Cue.

Swift had said the plan was "unfair", arguing Apple had the money to cover the cost.

"I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company," the 25-year-old said, describing Apple as one of her "best partners in selling music".

"Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing.

"We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

Apple Music launches on 30 June. It will cost $9.99 (£6.30) per month in the US for one person or $14.99 for families.

After hearing news of the company's decision on Sunday night Swift tweeted: "I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.''

Mr Cue said he did not know if the Shake It Off singer would now make her album available on Apple Music - but he praised her for taking a stand.

"When I woke up this morning and I saw Taylor's note that she had written, it really solidified that we needed to make a change," he told Associated Press.

The music industry has generally supported the company bringing its vast music library to paid streaming, and the firm said it would pay 73% of the music subscription revenue to music owners.

Speaking to Billboard magazine Cue said they had already been been hearing "a lot of concern from indie artists about not getting paid during the three-month trial period" before Swift spoke out. But he said "we never looked at it as not paying them".

"We had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time", he said.

They will now pay artists during the trial period and "also keep the royalty rate at the higher rate."

He said he spoke to Swift himself to let her know they were making the changes and "she was thrilled and very thankful".

Calvin Harris, the Scottish DJ understood to be Swift's current boyfriend, has also commented on Apple's decision.

"I just played a gig inside a giant owl and my girl just changed the entire music industry," he tweeted. "What a day."

Others who have commented include Radio 3's Clemency Burton-Hill, who said Apple's volte face was " good for all musicians".

" Well done @taylorswift13 for standing up for artists - and well done Apple for listening," tweeted Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin empire.

Swift's apparent sway with the tech giant has also generated a slew of light-hearted responses, with many asking the singer to use her clout to have various Apple-related oversights rectified.

The Incorporated Society of Musicians, the musicians' professional body, welcomed the news. But Deborah Annetts, its chief executive, said more needed to be done for musicians.

"It is great news that Apple has reversed its payment policy and will now pay artists for music streamed during trial periods; huge congratulations to Taylor Swift, for quite rightly defending her rights as an artist," she said.

"With the launch of Apple Music it is wonderful that more people have access to an ever expanding catalogue of music.

"But the fact remains that this service is not giving musicians, many of whom are session artists or non-featured artists, any new rights. And worse still, it will pay them virtually nothing."

'Unfair experiment'

It is not the first time Swift has spoken out against streaming music - she pulled her entire catalogue from Spotify last November and had refused to offer 1989 on streaming services, saying the business had "shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically".

She explained to Yahoo Music why she pulled her music from Spotify: "I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music."

If you find a Swift song now on Spotify it will only be from a compilation album.

1989 went on to become one of the biggest-selling albums of 2014 and has sold more than 4.9 million copies in the US alone.

Last week, UK-based independent record label Beggars echoed Swift's comments, saying it struggled "to see why rights owners and artists should bear this aspect of Apple's customer acquisition costs".

It said it did not have an agreement with Apple that would allow it to participate in the new service but hoped the "obstacles to agreement can be removed" in the coming days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple Music has reversed its payment policy, a day after the singer Taylor Swift said she was refusing to allow the company to stream her album 1989. In an open letter to Apple, Swift said she was withholding the record as she was unhappy with the three-month free trial offered to subscribers.

# data[].attributes.body
The definition of internet 'flaming'. Often apparent on social media platforms. A Cyberbullying technique.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between persons over the Internet, often involving the use of profanity. It can also be the swapping of insults back and forth or with many people teaming up on a single victim.

# data[].attributes.headline
Internet Addiction. Have we become too reliant on Digital culture ?.6

# data[].attributes.subject
Internet Addiction. Have we become too reliant on Digital culture ?.6

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about chinese parents sending there children to bootcamps to overcome their addiction to technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Internet addiction leads to problems in the brain similar to those derived from heroin consumption,' Tao says in his office at the centre's headquarters, a new building added in 2013 to increase patient capacity to 130. 'But, generally, it is even more damaging. It destroys relationships and deteriorates the body without the person knowing. All of them have eyesight and back problems and suffer from eating disorders. In addition, we have discovered that their brain capacity is reduced by eight per cent, and the psychological afflictions are serious. If someone is spending six hours or more on the internet, we consider that to be an addiction.'

A patient at the internet-addiction treatment centre in Daxing is wired up for EEG scans to measure brain activity. PHOTO: Fernando Moleres

According to Tao, who began specialising in addiction treatment in 1991, 90 per cent of patients suffer from severe depression and 58 per cent have attacked their parents. 'According to official statistics, 67 per cent of juvenile misdemeanours are committed by internet addicts that idolise the mafia and have difficulty differentiating between reality and fiction,' he says. 'I fear the trend will increase, because the problem is especially grave in China.'

China has the greatest number of internet users in the world - 632 million as of July 2014 - and the government believes that 10 per cent of its internet-surfing minors (24 million) are addicted.

A mother says goodbye to her 13-year-old after checking him into the addiction treatment centre. PHOTO: Fernando Moleres

A Chinese anti-videogame activist and university lecturer, Dr Tao Hongkai, has led the opposition to Daxing's practices. Another doctor, New Zealander Trent Bax, wrote his PhD about Daxing and considers Tao Ran's methods a form of torture. They both contest Tao's assertion that internet addiction is comparable with drug addiction as the withdrawal symptoms are not linked to the taking of substances. They believe internet addiction should be considered a social deviation, and not a medically 'curable' condition.

The day starts with a shrill whistle at 6.30am. The patients hurriedly line up in the hallway, dressed in camouflage T-shirts. A monitor bellows out each of their names, a routine that is repeated a further five times a day. They have 20 minutes to wash and arrive at the exercise ground for their first set of military training.

Feelings can run high among the patients on the controversial programme devised by Tao Ran. PHOTO: Fernando Moreles

'They are very arrogant when they arrive but in bad physical shape,' Ma Liqiang, a former soldier and now the centre's behaviour instructor, explains. 'They fall apart when they have to run or do push-ups. This puts them in their place.' I spot several red-faced, panting boys stop jogging and slow to a walk. The centre's seven girls run by, laughing at them. Embarrassed, the boys unsuccessfully attempt to pick up the pace. 'They must learn to respect authority, get into shape, and create a very orderly routine,' Ma says. 'In the beginning it is difficult, but after a few months, the results are apparent.'

Tao Ran intends his treatment to become standard practice for internet addiction. He claims a success rate of 75 per cent since 2008, though there is no way of accurately substantiating this. But there are already about 300 clinics in China that incorporate elements of his model - mainly the military discipline. His manifesto has been published in 22 languages. 'It was the Sars epidemic of 2003 that appears to have been a critical moment,' he says. 'The majority of students had to remain at home at the same time the internet was taking off. Without supervision, many started to play excessively. Soon after, a number of parents asked me for help.'

A nurse checks a 14-year-old patient has taken his medication, which may include sedatives and antidepressants. PHOTO: Fernando Moreles

Tao first treated 17 adolescents, but failed in every case. In 2005 he started to admit patients to the military hospital where he worked for a 30-day period. 'The success rate was only 30 per cent but this first step helped me to understand how the disorder functions,' he says. 'In 2007 I got permission to bring in the kids for three months, and a year later we started to involve the parents in the treatment. Their participation has been key to the method's success.'

Wang Shupei, a construction worker, is one of the parents who understands their role. 'Our son came to the centre for the first time in March last year and stayed for eight months,' he says. 'But soon after leaving, he began to play online again.' So three months ago they returned to Daxing. They have spent 170,000 yuan (about £17,500) so far, a fortune for rural families.

Military discipline features heavily in the teenagers' treatment. PHOTO: Fernando Moreles

Tao Ran says that a month of therapy costs 'a reasonable' 9,300 yuan, but several parents tell me this does not include meals, medical tests or medication - courses of drugs including antidepressants and sedatives are individually prescribed.

Most consider it a necessary financial sacrifice. There is a follow-up 'after-care' schedule, and parents are briefed on how best to supervise their child's gradual reintegration to the web. Tao considers a patient cured if they are able to use the internet for less than six hours a day six months after leaving the centre. Despite - perhaps because of - this relatively low 'success' benchmark, there are plenty of familiar faces at Daxing. Twenty-two-year-old Li Wenchao is a repeat patient, and although the specialists have discharged him he has decided to stay on. 'I am afraid to go back to a normal life,' he says. 'I fear I will become addicted again. That is why I have asked to stay longer, until I develop enough confidence to deal with life.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the Chinese boot camp treating Internet addiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are 632 million internet users in China - and 24 million of its children are thought to be hooked. The Telegraph visits a controversial military-style boot camp where desperate parents send their offspring in the hope of weaning them off the web.

# data[].attributes.body
This an attempt by Kim Kardashian to 'Break the Internet". It was based on the fact that everyone would go crazy over her photoshoot and this hi lights the fact that the inherent has the power to make things go viral - this means that social media blew up over the controversy of the shoot - this meant that people created memes, reinactments, discussions, viideos - everyone was talking about Kim Kardashian

# data[].attributes.body
This meme shows that although we have access to a weather information - most people just use it for idle purposes to amuse ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
I normally take selfies for my instagram when I'm travelling.  I only post selfies that show me doing something kind of interesting.