Monday, 9 December 2013

Twitter, Facebook and more demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws

Tech comp
AOL, Twitter, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple and LinkedIn say: 'The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual'
The world's leading technology companies have united to demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws, urging an international ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public's “trust in the internet”.
In their most concerted response yet to disclosures by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL have published an open letter to Barack Obama and Congress on Monday, throwing their weight behind radical reforms already proposed by Washington politicians.
“The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual – rights that are enshrined in our constitution,” urges the letter signed by the eight US-based internet giants. “This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for change.”
Several of the companies claim the revelations have shaken public faith in the internet and blamed spy agencies for the resulting threat to their business interests. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” said Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel. “Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.”
The chief executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, said: “Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world."
Silicon Valley was initially sceptical of some allegations about NSA practices made by Snowden but as more documentary evidence hasemerged in the Guardian and other newspapers detailing the extent of western surveillance capabilities, its eight leading players – collectively valued at $1.4tn – have been stung into action amid fears of commercial damage.
“We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens,” they say in the letter. “But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.”
A separate list of five “reform principles” signed by the normally fiercely competitive group echoes measures to rein in the NSA contained in bipartisan legislation proposed by the Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, and the Republican author of the Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner.
Crucially, Silicon Valley and these key reformers in Congress now agree the NSA should no longer be allowed to indiscriminately gather vast quantities of data from individuals it does not have cause to suspect of terrorism in order to detect patterns or in case it is needed in future.
“Governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of internet communications,” says the companies' new list of principles.
They also argue that requests for companies to hand over individual data should be limited by new rules that balance the “need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the internet”.
This places them in direct conflict with Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who is sponsoring a rival bill that would enshrine the right of security agencies to collect bulk data.
Feinstein, who represents California, has been accused by critics of being a cheerleader for Washington's intelligence committee but now faces opposition from her state's largest industry.
The companies also repeat a previous demand that they should be allowed to disclose how often surveillance requests are made but this is the first time they have come together with such wide-ranging criticism of the underlying policy.
The industry's lobbying power has been growing in Washington and could prove a tipping point in the congressional reform process, which has been delayed by the autumn budget deadlock but is likely to return as a central issue in the new year.
The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests.
The eight technology companies also hint at new fears, particularly that competing national responses to the Snowden revelations will not only damage their commercial interests but also lead to a balkanisation of the web as governments try to prevent internet companies from escaping overseas.
“The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust, 21st century, global economy,” the companies argue in the list of reform principles. “Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.”
And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal disputes and damage to international trade otherwise.
“In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty – or “MLAT” – processes,” say the companies. “Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.”
Official responses to the Snowden revelations have been angriest in countries subject to US surveillance such as Germany and Brazil, but more muted in countries such as Britain and Australia, whose governments are close partners of the NSA.
Martha Lane Fox, who recently resigned as the British government's digital champion, responded to the new letter by expressing concern at the lack of understanding of both the scale and complexity of the surveillance story within Britain's government.
"We do have an issue in this country among the corporate world, the political establishment and the general population where we have a shortage of skills and understanding for the digital age," she told the Guardian. "There is an absence of a clear, coherent debate around this subject in this country and it's a very big issue that will only become more frequent the more technologically dependent we become."
She pointed to comments made by the former Conservative home office minister Lord Blencathra and the Labour peer Lord Soley, who both expressed concern at the scope of surveillance by the security services.
"[The government] needs to listen to people, to examine whether their policies are fit for the digital age. It's not that people aren't used to their data being collected, but what it is being collected for, and there needs to be a distinction between the average person and a security threat."
The eight internet companies behind the new letter also acknowledge that business also has a responsibility to protect privacy.
“For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure, deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorised surveillance on our networks, and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope,” they conclude.
“We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.”
Google, Twitter, Yahoo and last week Microsoft have all responded to public concerns over surveillance by increasing the security of their products, introducing “perfect forward secrecy” encryption to protect information travelling on their internal systems.
"The security of users' data is critical, which is why we've invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information,” said Google's chief executive, Larry Page.
“This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It's time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” 

Jurors who search web during cases could be jailed under new proposals

Proposals for reforming court regulations also suggest judges should get power to remove jurors' internet-enabled devices
Person using mobile phone
The imposition of strict criminal liabilities on jurors, the Law Commission argues, has become necessary due to the advent of the internet and the immediate availability online of information published and stored on sites across the world. Photograph: Michael Melia/Alamy
Jurors should face up to two years in prison if they search the internet for information about cases beyond what is revealed in court, the Law Commission has recommended.
Judges should also be given powers to remove jurors' mobile phones, and all internet-enabled devices must be confiscated during jury room deliberations, according to the commission's proposals for reformingcontempt of court regulations.
The attorney general, the report suggests, ought to take on responsibility for ordering the media to remove previously published stories from websites if they are deemed to jeopardise a fair trial.
The imposition of strict criminal liabilities on jurors, the Law Commission argues, has become necessary owing to the advent of the internet and the immediate availability online of information published and stored on sites across the world.
Launching the report, Professor David Ormerod QC, the commissioner leading the review, explained that he was trying to balance defendants' right to a fair trial, the interests of jurors and public confidence in the administration of justice.
The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, who has been active in enforcing contempt proceedings, had asked for the work to be expedited. The legal initiative will require the support of a government department to transform the proposals into a draft bill for parliament.
Many of the powers already exist within contempt of court procedures. Ormerod said: "Putting this prohibition on a statutory setting would bring greater clarity and certainty for both courts and juries.
"Members of the jury would know the rules, the wrongdoing could be prosecuted in the same way as other crimes and jurors accused of contempt would benefit from the normal protections of the criminal process."
There have been a series of recent incidents involving jurors who carried out online research about the case they were trying and then informed the other jurors. In July, a juror who told colleagues at Kingston crown court details about a fraud trial that had not been revealed in court was sentenced to two months in jail; the case collapsed and a new trial had to be held.
Internet-enabled devices should not be automatically taken away from jurors when they enter a court building, the Law Commission proposes, but they should be removed during the period when the jury is deliberating at the end of a trial.
Judges should nonetheless have the power to order confiscation at any time, for example when jurors visit the scene of a crime.
The Law Commission believes its proposals on removing stories from websites will not require media organisations to monitor every trial in the country to ensure that archived stories, still available online, pose a risk to a fair trial.
By requiring the attorney general to make a formal approach to the media when it is feared there is a significant risk that previously published material could undermine justice, the commission intends that interventions will be rare.
Responding to the recommendations, Grieve said: "Juror contempt is a serious risk to justice but people are often not aware of the consequences. The Law Commission's proposal to make it an offence for jurors to search for information about their case on the internet or by other means would make the position absolutely clear and would, I hope, reduce the need for future prosecutions.
"[The law Commission has] attempted to strike a very careful balance between freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. I will now need to discuss the recommendations carefully with my government colleagues before we respond formally."

Why smashing statues can be the sweetest revenge

Link to video: Kiev protesters pull down statue of Lenin
The best thing about statues is smashing them. This is true at least for crowds desperate to get some revenge on a figurehead of authority. All over the world and throughout recorded time, attacking statues has proved an eloquent political gesture.
In the 21st century, this ancient anti-art is alive and well. This weekend, crowds in Kiev who want closer links between Ukraine and the EU pulled down a statue of Lenin and attacked it with mallets. They could scarcely have picked a better symbol of the Russian overlords they fear – not least because so many statues of Lenin, Stalin and Marx across central and eastern Europe were demolished when Communism fell. The very survival of Lenin's public statue in Kiev, up to now, seems a bit of a tell about the Ukraine government's desire to keep Russia happy at all costs.
Iraqi civilians rush to tear down statue of Iraqi President Saddam HusseinIraqi civilians rush to tear down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 2003. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex
Now this Lenin has belatedly joined all the other fallen Communist statues, not to mention statues of the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi that all came crashing down when the power they symbolised fell away.
There is a fatal attraction that draws angry crowds to bronze and marble figures of rulers. Most of the time, in the modern world, such statues go not only unmolested but unnoticed – no one pays much attention, destructive or otherwise, to the Queen Victorias that can be found in most British cities. Yet the moment authority starts to crumble, statues offer themselves to be attacked. They are so symbolic, and yet so still and passive. They are sitting ducks.
Libyan rebel fighters stamp on a part of a statue of Moammar GaddafiLibyan rebel fighters stamp on a broken statue of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Photograph: Sergey Ponomarev/AP
This goes to the very heart of what a statue is. No other kind of art is directly associated with power in quite the same way. The first public statues were set up in early towns in the prehistoric Levant and represented ancestors. Maybe even then they were more feared than loved. By the time of the first great civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt there was an unequivocal connection between statues and power. Colossal statues of rulers including Rameses the Great and, later, Constantine were put up to awe the people. To be a king was to be sculpted.
Because statues are power, they cry out for acts of lèse-majesté. Even ancient Egyptian statues got vandalised, while Roman emperors often had their marble faces broken by Christians. Artistic excellence is no defence. In 16th-century Bologna a crowd pulled down a statue of the hated Pope Julius II and melted it down to make a cannon – no one cared that it happened to be a masterpiece by Michelangelo.
Spaniards destroy Mexican idols, following the Spanish conquest, Circa 1525.Spaniards destroy Mexican idols, following the Spanish conquest, circa 1525. Photograph: Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Kiev's Lenin has joined a great tradition of statues that became icons of misrule. The only problem is that future protests may not be so lucky in their targets. In democratic societies and in an age of conceptual art, monumental figures of rulers are erected less and less. What will the revolutions of the future be able to trash that matches the eloquence of a tumbling Lenin?

Lee Rigby murder: Adebolajo tells court soldier killed in 'military attack'

Michael Adebolajo (left) and Michael Adebowale (right), accused of the murder of Lee Rigby
Court artist's sketch of Michael Adebolajo (left) and Michael Adebowale (right), accused of the murder of Lee Rigby. Photograph: Elizabeth Cook/PA
One of the men accused of murdering Lee Rigby has said in court for the first time that he killed the fusilier, telling the jury that he was "obeying the command of Allah".
Michael Adebolajo described himself as a "soldier of Allah" and said he killed Rigby on 22 May outside Woolwich military barracks in south London.
Asked by prosecutor Richard Whittam QC whether he planned to kill Rigby on that date, Adebolajo answered: "Yes."
Giving evidence from the witness box of the Old Bailey, Adebolajo said: "I am a soldier of Allah and as I've explained part of fighting jihad sometimes it tells killing the enemy soldier."
He added: "As I said we planned a military attack which obviously involved – sadly, it's not something enjoyable – the death of a soldier."
When asked whether the killing was political, he told the jury: "Jihad by its very nature is political."
Giving evidence from a witness box in front of the soldier's family, Adebolajo told the jury he was "a soldier of Allah" and that he had had "no choice" in attacking Rigby outside Woolwich barracks in May this year.
"Allah commands that I fight those militaries that attack the Muslims," he said. "I don't feel that I have any choice. I obey Allah and I commit my affairs into his hands. This is all I can do."
Amid strict security, Adebolajo, wearing a black zipped top, was surrounded by five security guards while giving evidence in the witness box.
His co-accused, Michael Adebowale, watched from the dock, also surrounded by prison guards.
Both men deny murder, though Adebolajo, who addressed passersby filming him with camera phones immediately after the killing, openly admitted attacking Rigby in his evidence.
Asked by his barrister, David Gottlieb: "What is your defence to the charge of murder?", he said: "I am a soldier. I am a soldier. I am a soldier of Allah. I understand that some people might not recognise this because we do not wear fatigues and we do not go to the Brecon Beacons to train.
"But we are still soldiers in the sight of Allah and to me this is all that matters. If Allah considers me a soldier then I am a soldier."
Asked about his feelings towards Rigby's family, the 28-year-old, who referred to himself in the witness box as Mujaahid Abu Hamza, said he had "no animosity or bad feeling towards them, because every soldier has family, and his family love him just like me. My family did not stop loving me the moment I became a soldier so I don't blame them.
"I killed somebody who they love and who is dear to them. At the same time, people who I love who are dear to me are killed as well. We are not the only ones who feel pain in this country. Muslims feel pain too. We love people too."
Asked about earlier comments that his actions had been part of an "ongoing war", Adebolajo said: "Basically it's a war between Islam and those militaries that invade Muslim lands. One of them just happens to be British military and therefore the war continues even to this day."
The 28-year-old mumbled frequently during his evidence and had to be told to speak directly into his microphone, but nodded when Gottlieb led him through the procedures of the court. Told not to speak when Mr Justice Sweeney, referred to as "his lordship", was speaking, he said: "I agree. I don't believe he is a lord, but I agree."
The barrister, who had warned him he would be stopped if he tried to embark on "political speeches", interrupted his answers a number of times. "I'm going off a bit, forgive me," Adebolajo said at one point.
Asked by his barrister to outline his views on British foreign policy since 1997, the accused said: "I am wholeheartedly against it … When I speak to the average non-Muslim, even they don't agree with foreign policy and their government since 1997, so I don't believe I am the only one."
Describing himself as a "mujahid" or jihadist fighter, Adebolajo said he blamed Tony Blair for the death of a schoolfriend who had been killed in the Iraq war.
Adebolajo told jurors that he was "wholeheartedly against" British foreign policy and that he was "disgusted" by television coverage of the US-led shock and awe operation in Iraq in 2003.
"The Iraq war probably grated on me the most when I was in college. I remember watching the news, watching Trevor McDonald, I remember I saw Operation Shock and Awe unfold on the news. I was disgusted.
"They were reporting it as if it was something praiseworthy … the might of the west. It disgusted me. I wasn't Muslim at the time but it disgusted me."
Gottlieb asked what he believed should happen to him after the trial, whether he is found guilty or innocent of the charge, he said: "As an enemy soldier I believe either I should be ransomed to my Mujihadeen brothers … either ransomed back to the Mujihadeen or I should be set free or I should be killed."
Killed by whom, asked Gottlieb. "I don't know how it typically works, but from what I have read from previous wars, maybe the military, maybe a court."
He was asked why, in the moments after the killing, he had assured horrified pedestrians who had witnessed the attack that they were not in danger.
"Because at the best of times people can be afraid of black men," he said. In addition to these "unfortunate stereotypes", he acknowledged, there was "the fact that I had blood on my hands and face, that I had bloodied weapons".
He paid tribute, however, to the firearms officers who gave him and Adebowale first aid after disarming them, saying: "With regards to the firearms officers, you can have nothing but admiration for somebody who has the kindness to attempt to preserve the lives of two men who on the surface he must have thought I was going to kill them. So for him to perform first aid, I respect that."
As for the medical team that had treated his injuries, he said: "I believe that this country perhaps going by what I experienced at King's College hospital, perhaps we have the best nurses on the planet. They were so kind … I told my family that anyone who heard of these people … should bring them chocolates and flowers. I respect them very much indeed."
Adebolajo also said that he considered al-Qaida his "brothers in Islam" and that he was radicalised in part by television coverage of the Iraq invasion.
Asked by his Gottlieb how he could be certain that Rigby was a soldier before the attack, Adebolajo told the court: "Well, I don't believe there is a way to know 100% he was a soldier. However, there was some steps we took before we set out on the day.
"I stayed up worshipping Allah, begging him that he make the mission a success, that we strike a soldier and a soldier only.
"As well as that, while we were waiting we continued to beg Allah to ensure that we did not target anyone outside the permissibility of Islam. I saw the soldier, he was carrying this type of bag they all carry in Woolwich.
"Then we waited to ensure he was going towards the entrance of the barracks. These things combined made me certain that he was a soldier."
Asked the same question by Whittam, Adebolajo said: "The truth is we targeted a soldier and we killed a soldier. He was not a medic, he was a professional soldier."
Adebolajo, who appeared to have some of his front teeth missing, described how he was raised by Christian parents and would attend church every Sunday.
He said he converted to Islam in his first year at the University of Greenwich and that it was his "everything".
"My religion is everything," he said. "When I came to Islam I realised that … real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax."
Asked for his opinion on al-Qaida, Adebolajo said: "al-Qaida I consider them a mujahid group. I love them. They are my brothers. I never met them but I love them. I consider them my brothers in Islam."
He later told jurors that he realised he might end up killing a soldier when he converted to Islam.
"I never, obviously growing up I never thought about killing a man. It's not the type of thing the young child thinks about," he said.
"But when the soldier joins the army he knows he will likely kill a man in his tour of duty … When I became a Muslim I realised I might end up killing a soldier."
Adebolajo said it was "childish" to ask how he believes his own views compare with those of the average British Muslim.
"I love every Muslim," he said. "Allah said it's my duty to protect them even if they hate my guts right now because of my actions. That's not my concern. My concern is does Allah love me."
He said he believed that the British people have become "so arrogant" that they believed that "only our lives are valuable".
"The love for my mother is not greater than an Afghanistan man for his mother," he said. "Why is that greater than an Afghanistan man for his mother? I don't believe this."
Adebolajo told the court that he tried to go to Somalia in 2010 because he wanted to live in accordance with sharia law, but was detained by Kenyan police.
The 28-year-old, who grew up in Romford in London, said he was arrested unjustly on two counts of assault against police officers after attending a demonstration. It was while being held in the police cells after his arrest, he said, that he began to see political protest as "impotent rage".
"It allows you to let off steam. The reality is no demonstration will make a difference. Even the 1 million people [who] marched against the Iraq war it did not change a single thing."

How the PlayStation and Xbox controllers have evolved

(Credit: Gadget Love)
Tech portal Gadget Love has just released two cool animated images to mark the recent launch of the Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox One. They are used to illustrate how the DualShock and Xbox game controllers have evolved over the years since the PS1 and the original Xbox.
Looking at the animated gif, you can clearly can see that Sony has largely retained the overall form factor throughout the revisions, while adding analog sticks and a touch pad to the subsequent models. Placement of the D-pad and face buttons hasn't changed much, too.
(Credit: Gadget Love)
Meanwhile, Microsoft has been introducing more drastic physical changes between each iteration of its Xbox controller. Most notable is the iconic "X" guide button, which has been resized and repositioned.

How to backup and restore your Android smartphone

If you're upgrading the the Samsung Galaxy S4 from an older device, read on to find out how to transfer your data.
(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)
Congratulations on your new smartphone. Now that you're a proud owner of a new device, you may be wondering how to get the data from your old handset over to the new one. Unlike Apple's iOS, which easily allows you to backup your data on iTunes and then restore it to your new handset, it's a little tadmore complicated when it comes to Android.
While Google is able to re-download certain apps from the Google App store, the data from these app may not restored, even if it uses Google's Android Backup API. Google even mentions it at the Android developer Web site, stating that the "Android Backup Service does not guarantee that it will always back up data using this service from Google".
However, all is not lost. Manufacturers such as Samsung and HTC provide software that lets you transfer data from your old handset to the new one, but there are caveats.
For one, Samsung's Smart Switch works best with its Galaxy handsets as well as for transferring data from Apple iPhones and BlackBerry devices. It doesn't seem to be able to transfer data from another Android smartphone. HTC's Sync Manager is similar, mainly targeted at former iPhone users and those upgrading from older HTC handsets. Sony's Xperia Transfer lets you port your iPhone data over, while only letting you transfer contacts from other devices.
So if you really want to make sure you move all your stuff over, you will need to put in a little bit more effort. Here's what you have to do.
*Note: restoring data from apps requires root access*

Download this app first

(Credit: Screenshot by Aloysius Low/CNET)
Super Backup (free) lets you backup your SMS, call history, bookmarks, calendars as well as app data, though the latter requires that the phone is rooted. Note that rooting your phone will wipe out your data -- so it's best to root it before you need to back up your app data.
Once installed, you can specify scheduled backups as well as upload the files to your Gmail. The app can also be used to restore your SMS, call history, bookmarks and calendars, but if you want to restore your app data, you'll need to root your phone first.
Google Restore
Google's Android operating system has the option to backup some sections of your phone, as well as automatically restoring these parts when your phone is reset. However, as mentioned earlier, that's no guarantee that it will always backup your data.
Contacts
(Credit: Screenshot by Aloysius Low/CNET)
If you're signed in to your Google account on your Android smartphone, your contacts are usually synced with your Gmail account. In the event that it isn't synced, head over to Settings > Accounts > Google > Your Google Account and make sure the Contacts field is checked.
Photos
If you're using Dropbox, you can easily sync your photos to your Dropbox folder as a backup, or you can use Google+. For DropBox, make sure Camera Upload is activated, and for Google+, turn on Auto Backup. This will automatically upload photos and videos taken by your smartphone to a private album on Google+. Until you choose to share them, the pictures and videos will remain private.
Music and Videos
This one's slightly tricky. Your songs and video clips are located on your phone, so you will have to manually copy them out if you want to save them. They can usually be found in the Music or Video folder. You'll have to then copy them back in to the new device. Ideally, you should already have your music and video clips on your PC, so you can skip this step and just manually copy them back into your new phone.

Now that I'm backed up, what next?

If you're performing a factory reset, or setting up a new smartphone, Google should prompt you if you want to restore your apps once you sign in. After you do that, reinstall Super Backup. Get your SMS backup from where you last saved it and use Super Backup to restore the files.
Your contacts should automatically be syncing once you sign in to your Gmail account, and if you stored your photos on Google+, you will be able to see them once you sign to Google+ on your PC's Web browser. You can then download them and copy them over to your phone. It's slightly tedious, since you can't actually download directly them through the app.
On DropBox, this is much easier, as you can select the pictures you want and download them straight to your phone.
Lastly, for your music and videos, just copy them over to the Music and Video folders from your PC and you're all set to go.

Bonus (WhatsApp)

Backing up your WhatsApp chats. If you are using this messaging app, head over to WhatsApp's support page where detailed instructions are provided. You may need to download a file explorer app such as Astro File Manager to get everything to work.

How to set up an HDTV [update]

(Credit: Geoffrey Morrison)
Wondering how to set up an HDTV? It may seem like a daunting task, with pages and pages of settings and a pile of cables. But since you took all that time finding the right TV for you, and you've driven/carried/dragged it home, it's worth it to spend a little extra time making sure it's correctly set up. Otherwise, it won't look its best.
After you follow the instructions for getting the TV on its stand (if it isn't already), the real setup begins. There are countless settings, options, and potential issues between box and beautiful picture. This how-to guide should help you navigate the waters of TV technology.

Cables

If this is your first HDTV, you'll find that the cables have changed a lot since the last time you hooked up a TV (it also might be worth checking out our HDTV 101 Guide). Even if you're replacing an older HDTV, it's important to understand the HDTV cable of choice: HDMI.
An HDMI cable
(Credit: HDMI.org)
HDMI cables carry high-resolution images and sound over one small cable. If you bought your HDTV at a store, you were likely pushed into buying expensive HDMI cables to go with your TV.
Expensive HDMI cables offer no benefit to the average consumer. If you paid more than US$20 for your HDMI cables, you should consider returning them. Check out my article on why all HDMI cables are the same for more information. Then there's the follow-up Why all HDMI cables are the same, part 2, and the follow-up to the follow-up, Still more reasons why all HDMI cable are the same.
HDMI cables are, however, vital to the overall performance of your television. There are only two ways to get an HD signal from your cable or satellite box to your TV: HDMI and component. Component cables are three attached cables identified with the colors red, green, and blue. Most are also labeled Y, Pb, and Pr. These only carry video. You'll need to add more cables for audio, most commonly a matched pair of analog audio cables.
The single yellow cable with white and red audio cables that comes with most products is not HD. Only VHS and the Wii can be hooked up with a yellow "composite" cable. DVD, Blu-ray, or cable or satellite boxes hooked up with a yellow cable will be significantly hampered in their performance.
If you haven't upgraded your other gear along with your new TV, component video is very common. If you've bought a new Blu-ray player or streaming media box (like Apple TV), HDMI is your only option.
Which brings us to...

Sources

If you haven't upgraded your other gear, make sure your DVD player is ready for your new TV. Go into its setup menus and make sure it's set to output a 16x9 image. If it's an older player, it could be set to a 4x3 aspect ratio (like old TVs). Matching this aspect ratio to your new TV will greatly improve its performance.
The same is true for your cable or satellite box. Make sure you switch this to 16x9. If it's capable of HD, take this moment to set it to output 1080i. For most people, 1080i works best, and is the same resolution as 1080p. In some cases, there are other resolutions are better. Check out Settop box setup: Which resolution is best? for more info.
Just because the cable box is capable of HD doesn't mean you're getting HD. You need to pay your provider for HD channels (unless they're included in your current package) and you need to tune to the specific HD channels.
As I discuss in my article on whether to upgrade your home theater gear, if you have a new HDTV, you owe it to yourself to get a Blu-ray player. Nothing offers the picture quality of Blu-ray. Even if you have an older HDTV, you won't believe how good it can look when you watch Blu-ray.

Settings

Once you have everything plugged in (see the slideshow above for images of typical inputs and outputs), take a moment to check your TV's settings. Most modern TVs will ask you upon initial start-up if the TV is being used in a home or a store. Pick home.
I go into more detail in my article on HDTV settings, but here's the CliffsNotes version. The TV will be its most accurate (in other words, most realistic) in its Movie or Cinema picture mode. It will appear brighter in its Sports or Vivid mode. The Contrast control adjusts how bright the bright parts of the image are, and Brightness controls how dark the dark parts of the image are. Also check out CNET's HDTV setup tips andFive tips for a better HDTV picture.
The initial settings for modern TVs are largely quite good, but none are perfect. Some fine tweaking, eitherby eye or using one of the great setup Blu-ray discs, will be worth the time spent.
If you want to get every possible amount of performance out of your TV, consider having it calibrated. I describe this process in my What is HDTV calibration? article.
Flat panel TVs are also more susceptible to reflections than CRTs, so if you're having an issue with light washing out the picture, check out How to rid your HDTV of reflections.
Lastly, if you've bought a plasma TV, there is no need to "break it in," as some websites and stores claim.