One of the nice things about Twitter is that firms on the site often share titbits of information about what they are up to, to help keep customers, partners and other 'interested parties' updated on their comings and goings.

It was with interest, then, that V3 spied a tweet by Intel UK that showed several employees, including its chief technology officer Justin Rattner, posing outside Number 10 Downing Street this morning.

Interested to know what Intel was doing at such a venue, V3 contacted the firm and, after a couple of hours, was sent a fairly vague statement claiming there was nothing unusual about the meeting, but that all discussions held were strictly off limits.

"With regards to Justin Rattner's visit to Number 10 this morning, as with all major companies, Intel has regular catch-ups with Downing St," Intel said.

"The subject of these conversations is always confidential; we will obviously announce anything significant as and when appropriate."

V3 wondered why, if you were so chummy with the folks at Number 10, would you post a picture advertising your presence there. That's when things got really interesting: on returning to Twitter to look at the picture once more, we noticed that, shock, it was gone.

Sadly, not expecting Intel to pull a fast one in this manner, none of the team in the V3 office had managed to grab a screenshot of the Intel folk outside Number 10.

So the firm is happy to admit the meeting took place, but leaving a picture on Twitter showing staff outside the venue was deemed too much?

This suggests the picture should never have been put online and was removed when questions from the press raised the alarm – creating yet more intrigue into what the meeting with the government was about.

Hopefully Intel will come clean in the future and explain what it was doing inside that illustrious residency – perhaps, as one colleague quipped, they were busy implanting a new chip inside Cameron.

The decision by the High Court on Monday to allow Julian Assange's legal team to ask the Supreme Court to consider whether the Swedish state prosecutor has the right to order his extradition, has been welcomed by a top QC involved with the case.

Helen Kennedy, a barrister who has worked with Assange's legal team throughout the case, explained to V3 that the development has implications far beyond the case of the WikiLeaks founder, and raises fundamental questions about the authority of judges and state prosecutors.

"There has to be a judicial authority, acting independently of the state, that's able to contain any inappropriate uses of power by nation states," she said.

"Otherwise prosecutors in any nation, acting on behalf of the state, would be able to order extraditions without independent approval. The decision today recognises that this case raises issues central to the lives of all citizens."

Kennedy explained that the decision by the court on Monday does not alter the ruling that Assange is to be extradited, but means that the Supreme Court will consider the argument and could possibly reverse the decision.

"The Supreme Court will either dismiss the issue without hearing any more evidence, or ask to hear more on the argument, but then still dismiss it, or they could agree with the argument and overturn the decision," she said.

Whatever the upshot of the Supreme Court's decision, this is unlikely to be the last chapter in a case which has rumbled on for almost a year since Assange was first placed under house arrest.

Whether threatening governments by releasing reams of confidential information, or forcing legal systems to consider fundamental questions on their authority, Assange looks set to remain a thorn in the side of those in power for some time yet.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has never had an easy existence, many criticising it as a toothless watchdog before it had the power to fine organisations, and then complaining that it has failed to use this power correctly since it was introduced.

The ICO's reputation took another hit on Wednesday when a former deputy commissioner, Alexander Owens, gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry about his work in investigating newspapers in 2003.

Owens explained that soon after starting the Operation Motorman case he was quickly told by none other than his boss, Richard Thomas, to ignore any links between the emerging hacking allegations and the press.

"Within weeks of commencing our work [we] were informed that we were not to make contact with any of the newspapers identified and we were not to speak to, let alone interview, any journalists," he said in his witness statement.

"Despite our protests we were told this was the decision of Richard Thomas and that
he would deal with the press involvement by way of the Press Complaints Council."

Equally as damning are Owens' comments relating to current deputy information commissioner David Smith, who appeared on Panorama in April to discuss the phone hacking scandal and the ICO's earlier work on the allegations.

"In this programme he made a statement that no journalist was ever prosecuted 'because we didn't have the evidence that those journalists knew beyond all reasonable doubt that the information had been obtained illegally'," said Owens.

"This I knew was not only inaccurate but deliberately misleading. What David Smith had omitted to tell the public was there was overwhelming evidence to establish numerous cases against journalists."

However, while it's easy to find fault with the ICO, the organisation was clearly one of countless groups, businesses and individuals that dared not incur the wrath of the Murdoch media empire, even if they were operating on behalf of the government.

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to pass into law in the last few years and continues to generate headlines as key opponents challenge the legislation on a number of grounds.

Throughout its creation many criticised the government for being fed information by rights holders and blindly accepting what they were told without properly consulting with other stakeholders or conducting its own research.

This criticism has now proved to be well founded after a Business, Innovation and Skills Committee meeting provided damning evidence the government merely accepted data provided by rights holder as its only source of evidence for the Act.

Responding to questions from Labour MP Anne McKechin, the head of the DEA implementation team, Adrian Brazier, admitted the Open Rights Group (ORG), one of the most outspoken critics of the Act, was correct to have had concerns.

"It would be reasonable to acknowledge the ORG have something of a point about the evidence used around the DEA. It was somewhat opaque. The impact assessment was not based on new evidence or new research. We had no independent source of information," he said.

"It is probably also fair to say that the evidence we had been offered by the rights-holders [...] they were unwilling to lift the bonnet and let us see the engines, if you like, the workings and methodology."

Brazier went on to say that despite content owners refusing to divulge more information on its data, the government used the information regardless, and Brazier merely offered the excuse that at least the government never claimed it was its data.

"Essentially we were left with trying to make the best brick we could with what straw we could find," he said.

"We never claimed they were government figures. We were clear these were figures that were provided by the rights holders."

The exchange reveals what a shoddy and shameful job the last Labour government did of consulting on a piece of legislation that is going to have a considerable impact on the UK's technology landscape for years to come.

It seems staggeringly inept that those in power not only willingly accepted data provided by firms that would obviously have an agenda but even worse did nothing to source their own data to help create the best possible law for all stakeholders.

In history, it will probably be appraised in politics A-level lessons as a classic example of the arrogance with which a corrupt governing party bereft of any ideas tries to force through legislation completely out of touch with reality, as it staggers towards the end of its final term.

The only thing even more shameful is that the present coalition has done nothing to suggest that this ill thought-out piece of legislation will be repealed.

The endless debates around web site blocking and piracy continues to rumble on, with no consensus on the best ways to approach the issue, as internet service providers (ISPs) and right holders continue to clash.

At a Westminster Forum event on Thursday, which brought together numerous stakeholders to discuss the issue, many said that blocking web sites was not the right answer to the problem, and that what is needed is a change in internet users' attitudes.

Consumer Focus senior policy advocate, Saskia Walzel, highlighted the pointlessness of site blocking, arguing most people just find ways to circumvent the blocks, a point backed up by BT Group head of internet policy Mita Mitra.

"We often assume this takes a lot of technical knowledge but actually an awful lot of people will find solutions to the blocks," she said.

"Instead of talking about whether blocking web sites will be effective, maybe we should instead think about how people want to consume content and how to respond to this."

PRS for Music regulatory and corporate affairs director, Francis Lowe, made a simple but sensible suggestion based on research by the organisation that more than half of consumers find pirated material through search engines but many do not know the difference between legal and illegal sites.

As such, she proposed a "traffic light" system that could be implemented by search engines to alert consumers to illegal content. Legitimate results would be flagged with a green dot, while illegal sits would have a red dot.

However, a Google spokeswoman in the audience piped up to say that such a system may not work as search engines would not be able to tag start-ups and new businesses fast enough.

Despite this, Google has previously said it will work to reduce copyright infringement in its search results, and the firm has taken the word "torrent" out of its predictive text for searches, so it clearly has the ability to help where it can.

Ultimately, though, it's just another day of debate and conjecture with those involved no closer to a system they are happy (enough) to work together on in order to tackle piracy.

Dissatisfaction with the state of copyright and digital rights laws across Europe has been growing for some time, and self-proclaimed pirate parties have cropped up in several countries to confront what they see as unfair and heavy-handed legislation.

The UK arm even stood for election, with little success, but was given cause for optimism over the weekend after exit polls from state elections in Berlin indicated that the German pirate party had secured an amazing 8.9 per cent of the vote.

This entitled the Piraten Partei to 14 seats in the regional parliament, giving it the chance to vote on all sorts of future laws and regulations, including those relating to digital media and copyright.

The UK Pirate Party welcomed the historic news. Education spokesperson Tim Dobson, in attendance in Berlin, argued that it underlined demand across Europe for a new type of politician who understands the web.

"This result shows that the desire for a new politics and digital rights fit for the 21st century continues to grow throughout Europe. Equally, the people of Berlin have realised that it is about time their politicians understand the internet better," he said.

"Pirate Party UK is inspired by the hard work of all the activists that made this result possible, and sends its warmest congratulations. We will be following our German partner's success with new candidates and a more comprehensive policy platform."

Whether the UK public will follow the Germans is debatable given the group's poor showing at the polls in 2010, but the success of the Piraten Partei indicates an underlying frustration at how politicians deal with the new era of technology.

And with more young people growing up in a world where use of the internet and other technologies is second nature, there will be nowhere to hide for those in power who don't understand or embrace the rapid changes.

The fact that today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day is just the icing on the cake, me hearties.

The importance of communications has never been more fundamental. Every day, networks carry vast amounts of data that help businesses function, governments rule and families and friends stay in touch.

When natural disasters or conflicts arise, communication is one of the first utilities that must be restored to help nations get their businesses running and people to let one another know they're safe.

With this in mind, V3.co.uk was invited by AT&T to see some of the equipment it can deploy across the globe at a moment's notice to get networks back online and help governments respond to everything from an earthquake to war.

AT&T also showcased its work with Telecoms Sans Frontièrs, a non-government organisation that brings communications to people in the toughest conditions to help humanitarian workers communicate and loved ones get in touch. Below are some pictures from the event.

AT&T has some 320 'mobile assets' that can be shipped around the world by sea or air to ensure that its network is fully operational and that people in affected regions are back online as quickly as possible with web, voice and data connections.

As major incidents unfold, AT&T cannot be a burden on those in the area, so the company brings its own power supplies in the form of generators that power the equipment and air-conditioning units for its mobile nodes.

The inside of the trucks resembles a traditional point of presence on the AT&T network, run by equipment from the likes of Juniper Networks and Cisco, so networks are up and running quickly and securely. The 2010 earthquake in Chile was a major incident that AT&T attended with its equipment to help restore network services in Santiago.

 
Other vehicles host key services, such as this command-and-control room that contains access to the internet, television services, UHF radios and a place for personnel to plan strategies and share information.

Satellite connections can be one of the first services to get an area back online, and Telecoms Sans Frontièrs use a connection from satellite broadband provider Tooway on the KA-Sat seen by V3.co.uk last year, to offer speeds of up to 4Mbit/s on the ground.

This equipment is often provided free by vendors, with donations made to the Telecoms Sans Frontièrs cause. AT&T is one of several vendors that offers its support in the form of equipment and donations, pledging a further $150,000 at the Twickenham event.

This work means that Telecoms Sans Frontièrs can get on the ground at major incidents such as in Misrata in Libya, helping local civilians connect with loved ones from refugee camps, and NGOs to co-ordinate with each other.

The hip young power couple of the Royal Family, Wills and Kate, are to use their winning smiles and dashing good looks to charm former colonial subjects into investing their wealth in the tech start-up hub of Old Street in London.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will big-up the Tech City initiative and London itself as a great investment location at a panel debate on Friday in Beverley Hills to discuss how the UK can emulate the success of Silicon Valley.

Trade and investment minister Lord Green said he is pleased that such a famous and awe-inspiring couple will talk about the region, as it is vital that the UK's technology sector thrives.

"I am delighted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are giving their very public support to Tech City and to British business. Tech City is key to Britain's high-tech future," he said.

"The government is committed to bringing innovative investment to east London and to every part of the UK. It is Europe's fastest growing technology hub and so far over 300 organisations have set up there."

It's great that everyone's favourite royal couple is doing its bit for Blighty and encouraging investment but, while Wills and Kate could persuade investors to look at London, it doesn't strike V3.co.uk as enough to convince hard-nosed Silicon Valley venture capital managers.

After all, would you embrace London and its rain and dull grey skies as a better location to set up shop than the endless blue skies and confidence-inspiring warmth of the Californian climate?

No, didn't think so.