You can download Alex et Zoe workbooks and textbooks for free without any registration, by direct link, in pdf format. Audio courses and lessons are available in mp3 format and you will soon be able to listen to them online. Files are not downloaded by torrent or Google Drive but directly from our server. All files are zip archives and constantly tested for viruses.
Internet freedom in the United States declined over the past year due to the repeal of net neutrality rules that had ensured that internet service providers (ISPs) treated internet traffic equally. There were also concerns about the proliferation of toxic content and disinformation on social media platforms, and the passage of legislation that threatens to undermine protections from intermediary liability.
alex et zoe 1 pdf free download
Since assuming his role as chair of the FCC, Pai has taken a number of steps toward deregulating the telecommunications industry, most notably the decision to diminish the FCC's ability to regulate internet service providers and roll back net neutrality protections. On March 1, 2017, the Commission voted to freeze the broadband privacy guidelines that the FCC had passed the previous October.[35] The guidelines would have required broadband providers to obtain opt-in consent from consumers before they could use and share information such as a user's web browsing history and app usage data, and would have given consumers the ability to opt-out of the use and sharing of other types of personally identifiable information.[36] In late March, Congress went a step further and voted to repeal the broadband privacy guidelines under the Congressional Review Act,[37] which effectively prevents the FCC from enacting similar rules in the future.[38] In February 2017, the FCC also ended its review of whether zero-rating practices, which provide free internet access under certain conditions, violate net neutrality principles and enabled the practice to continue.[39] Critics argue that zero-rating services could harm competition.[40]
During this report's coverage period, in December 2017, the FCC voted to reverse the net neutrality rules established by the 2015 Open Internet Order, which had prohibited network operators from giving preferential treatment to favored content or from blocking disfavored content on both fixed and wireless networks. The repeal went into effect outside the coverage period, on June 11, 2018,[41] allowing internet service providers to speed up, slow down, or block some websites in favor of others at will. The repeal also overturned some of the FCC's regulatory authority over broadband ISPs.[42] FCC chairman Ajit Pai argued that this decision would reinstate a light-touch regulatory model that is good for innovation and for consumers.[43] However, the decision was sharply criticized by civil society and public interest groups, who argued that the decision will harm consumers,[44] is an abandonment of the FCC's responsibility to protect freedom of expression online,[45] and will likely result in a less free and open internet.[46] Polls indicate that the majority of Americans are in favor of net neutrality.[47]
One of the most significant protections for online free expression in the United States is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1934 (CDA 230), amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which generally shields online sites and services from legal liability for the activities of their users, allowing user-generated content to flourish on a variety of platforms.[66] However, public concern over intellectual property violations, child pornography, protection of minors from harmful or indecent content, harassing or defamatory comments, publication of commercial trade secrets, gambling, financial crime, and terrorist content have presented a strong impetus for aggressive legislative and executive action, and some laws, such as SESTA/FOSTA, have threatened to undermine the broad protections for intermediaries of CDA 230.[67]
For copyright infringement claims, the removal of online content is dictated by the safe harbor provisions created in Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[72] Operating through a "notice-and-take-down" mechanism, internet companies are shielded from liability if they remove infringing content upon receipt of a DMCA notice. However, because companies have the incentive to err on the side of caution and remove any hosted content subject to a DMCA notice, there have been occasions where overly broad or fraudulent DMCA claims have resulted in the removal of content that would otherwise be excused under free expression, fair-use, or educational provisions.[73] In some cases, the immediate removal of content through DMCA requests has been used to target political campaign advertisements, since they result in content being unavailable during the campaign season and are unlikely to be challenged in court after the campaign ends.[74]
The First Amendment of the Constitution includes protections for free speech and freedom of the press. In 1997, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that online speech has the highest level of constitutional protection.[93] Lower courts have consistently struck down attempts to regulate online content.
Nonetheless, aggressive prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986 has fueled criticism of the law's scope and application. It is illegal to access a computer without authorization under CFAA, but the law fails to define the term "without authorization," leaving the provision open to interpretation in the courts.[95] In one prominent case from 2011, programmer and internet activist Aaron Swartz secretly used Massachusetts Institute of Technology servers to download millions of files from JSTOR, a service providing academic articles. Prosecutors sought harsh penalties for Swartz under CFAA, which could have resulted in up to 35 years imprisonment.[96] Swartz committed suicide in 2013 before he was tried. After his death, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced "Aaron's Law," a piece of legislation that would prevent the government from using CFAA to prosecute terms of service violations and stop prosecutors from bringing multiple redundant charges for a single crime.[97] The bill was reintroduced in 2015, but did not garner enough support to move forward.[98]
Harassment and threats online, particularly aimed at certain groups, also undermined the ability of users to exercise their rights to freedom of expression. The Pew Research Center found that one in four black Americans has faced online harassment because of their race or ethnicity.[186] A report by Amnesty International found that 33 percent of women in the United States had experienced online abuse or harassment at least once.[187]
Cyberattacks continue to threaten the security of networks and databases in the United States. In May 2017, a massive cyberattack dubbed "WannaCry" infected hundreds of thousands of computers and spread through networks around the world, freezing users' files and demanding payment to unlock them.[193] Though the impact on the United States was less severe than other countries, it did affect several corporations and health care networks.[194] In December 2017, the US government officially blamed North Korea for the attack.[195]
119 Rainey Reitman, "The New USA Freedom Act: A Step in the Right Direction, but More Must Be Done," Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 30, 2015, -usa-freedom-act-step-right-direction-more-must-be-done. 2ff7e9595c
Comentários