Google 的切換計畫是會逐步增加 HSTS 的 max-age，確保中間出問題時造成的衝擊。一開始只會設一天，然後會逐步增加，最後增加到一年：
In the immediate term, we’re focused on increasing the duration that the header is active (‘max-age’). We've initially set the header’s max-age to one day; the short duration helps mitigate the risk of any potential problems with this roll-out. By increasing the max-age, however, we reduce the likelihood that an initial request to www.google.com happens over HTTP. Over the next few months, we will ramp up the max-age of the header to at least one year.
As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem.
而專利蟑螂會挑選對原告最有利的地區來提出控告，也就是美國德克薩斯東區聯邦地區法院 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas)，這對被告方很不利：
According to the Mercatus Center and George Mason University, nearly half of all patent cases are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That’s more than 70 times the average number of patent cases heard in other federal judicial districts.
Respected academics have identified evidence that procedures in the Eastern District of Texas unnecessarily favor plaintiffs and impose significant, unnecessary costs on companies and individuals accused of infringement, however questionable the patents and demands may be.
這段字串是由 John Gilmore 當時在 Sun 開發時所放入的，John Gilmore 同時也是後來 EFF 創辦人之一，不過當初放入這段字串的目的是為了抓到盜版：
Yes. Vinod Khosla, first President of Sun, came to me at one point and said to put something hidden, triggered in an unexpected way, into the ROM Monitor, so that if somebody cloned the Sun Workstation (violating our software’s copyright), we could do that unexpected thing to the competitor’s demo workstation at a trade show and thereby prove that they had cloned it.
過了三十年後 John Gilmore 被挖出來問的回應也是蠻有趣的... (可以參考原文附上的信件)
而這句話現在回頭看也很經典，尤其是最近各國政府想要在 crypto system 裡面放後門的各種反應。
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet.
Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy " which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends.
In late June 2007, Lenz sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.
而環球直接挑明不在意 fair use：
In September 2007, Prince released statements that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet." In October 2007, Universal released a statement amounting to the fact that Prince and Universal intended to remove all user-generated content involving Prince from the internet as a matter of principle.
The district court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the district court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, and declined to dismiss Lenz's misrepresentation claim as a matter of law.
同時認為環球濫用 DMCA takedown notification：
The district court believed that Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in an important part of the balance in the DMCA.
The panel held that the DMCA requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.
EFF 推出新的延伸套件 (有 Firefox 與 Google Chrome 版)，透過演算法阻擋嘗試追蹤你的單位：「Privacy Badger」。
在官網上有比較技術面的說明：
At a more technical level, Privacy Badger keeps note of the "third party" domains that embed images, scripts and advertising in the pages you visit. If a third party server appears to be tracking you without permission, by using uniquely identifying cookies to collect a record of the pages you visit across multiple sites, Privacy Badger will automatically disallow content from that third party tracker. In some cases a third-party domain provides some important aspect of a page's functionality, such as embedded maps, images, or fonts. In those cases Privacy Badger will allow connections to the third party but will screen out its tracking cookies.
技術上的作法是分析 third party domain 的行為，用演算法阻擋可能的追蹤。與 Ghostery 這類工具使用人力建立清單的方法不太一樣。
