First off is a simple list of 5 SEO tips over at Mashable. These are simple and quick-to-implement strategies for small to medium-sized businesses and range from things like making use of WordPress and doing a little research on how to use keywords with it - to making effective use of your Google Places listing. Even though they might seem rather simple, these quick tips can make a world of difference for small businesses currently lacking any sort of SEO strategy. Moreover, crucially, they're all very cheap to implement not just from a financial perspective but also in terms of the employee time required to maintain them.

The second post is over at Soshable, an excellent blog covering various SEO and social media related matters, and discusses the SEO rationale in buying Facebook likes (and indeed other social network fans/followers). The argument for this is essentially that no matter what Google's frequent ranking algorithm changes involve, they are very unlikely to involve downgrading the massive importance placed on what people are discussing on social media. This is because people on social networks generally talk freely and openly and, if someone is enthusing about some product or other, it's worth giving more prominence to than spam which also promotes the same product.

Hence the thinking goes that targeting Facebook likes is a viable SEO strategy for businesses. If you have lots of Facebook likes, you're less vulnerable to some other change in the Google algorithm which could knock down your ranking drastically by the time you figure out how to rectify it - it's a sort of SEO insurance policy. However, as the Soshable post points out, it's not so easy to 'buy' Facebook likes as doing so in a very open and direct way will be sniffed out by the search engines. The trick is therefore to invest in boosting the number of genuine 'likes' for your business - which is why services such as Boostlikes are springing up (although note that while Boostlikes offers genuine account likes - they are not from active users).

Finally, the third post worth a look is over at Marketing Profs blog and covers 12 very annoying website features to avoid at all costs. These range from little gimmicks such as featuring music, flash intros, or pop-ups to simple layout mistakes like unhelpful background colours and tiny text. Then there's things like contact pages that lead to default mail programs that many don't actually use, hidden or absent search boxes, and poorly thought out social media integration (i.e. a Facebook button that doesn't lead to your Facebook brand page - but instead offers to share your brand 'about' page to my Facebook friends). All this is essential to take note of for businesses wishing to reduce their website bounce rate (i.e. the number of people who only glance at your homepage and then leave).

So, there you have it - this week's top SEO related reading - feel free to share any gems you've come across yourself in the comments below!

So, with that in mind, I thought it'd be useful to offer a little overview of what a few of the major players currently offer - and what advantages and disadvantages might affect your choice of service. Without further ado then, here's a rundown of my top 5 cloud back-up/sharing options.

(N.B. My focus is on free services as I assume most individual users, like myself, will be adequately catered for without having to pay monthly fees. Business users with more specific requirements over space and/or security might want to look into the paid options, which are usually offered by the same providers as those giving the free accounts listed below).

1. SugarSync. My personal favourite. 5GB free storage (with lots of free 0.5GB add-ons for doing things like referring friends etc). Apps for every mobile platform you can think of (unlike most of the competition) and a load of back-up options that others don't offer (back-up any folder on your computer, sync via email etc). The only problem I've ever had is that the hotmail contacts back-up feature won't work on my account - even though it should.

2. Google Drive. New product from 'big G'. The closest to matching SugarSync's great features and also coming with 5GB free storage. In all likelihood this one will develop very quickly and, more importantly, integrates very nicely with Google Docs and the rest of the Google product range. Even for users of other services, this one is probably the best bet as a 2nd option - at least for Google Docs related back-up (although, having said that, Docs is already cloud-based so there's not as many reasons to want to link it with another cloud storage service).

3. Dropbox. Probably currently one of the most successful cloud-based storage services. Established and secure, but their free account is limited to only 2GB (although, with enough referrals, you can boost this to 18GB). Good range of paid services for business users.

4. Box. Decent, 5GB free and extensive mobile apps - but not as many sync options as SugarSync.

5. iCloud. Apple's storage service. 5GB free storage for iOS users and a few interesting and unique features including 'find my iPhone' - which does pretty much what you'd expect it to. Decent option for Mac users, though I'd combine it with one of the others above, mainly for the reason that iCloud doesn't really match Google Drive, and especially SugarSync, in terms of multiple computer back-up and syncing.

There are also a few others (such as Mozy and Carbonite) but they have more limited features (good for back-up but not sharing and with limited apps and storage space). The big question will be what the free accounts of the current leaders look like in a year or two if their current growth continues (how sustainable is the 5GB free account if you have tens of millions of users?). I hope that they aren't scaled back but we shall have to wait a little longer for the details on that to emerge - in any case, for now at least, you're spoilt for choice when it comes to decent cloud-based storage options. Enjoy!

As I've discussed previously, this is the long-term goal - to have companies which are currently relatively hidden from consumers' view by virtue of being further up the supply chain adopt exactly the same level of accountability as the more 'frontline' companies whose names we know, whose logos we recognise, and whom we sometimes assume are 100% solely responsible for the goods we purchase.

Those who have read the previous articles in the series will know that I keep focusing on Apple as an example to discuss some of the problems we still currently face (the reasons for this are explained in earlier posts). Hence it seems appropriate that we should continue in this vein with the proposed action below - after all, why not start with the biggest fish in the pond?

Anyway, this is something you can do from the comfort of your computer of phone in only a matter of minutes. If enough people invest 10 minutes on it, I fell pretty confident we'd start to see some results (and if you're in doubt about what this kind of piecemeal effort can achieve - simply have a quick glance at projects like Wikipedia for inspiration).

So, what can you do? Well the idea is to demand clear information on business practices ranging from environmental impact, employee safety and conditions, sustainability, and also supply chain management (i.e. making sure your trade partners also commit to the same standards as you do - so that it becomes harder to simply outsource the dirty jobs to someone else while still continuing to benefit from such practices). So here's a simple 3-step plan:

1. Head over to the Apple page. Open up their supplier list. This is a list of the 150 or so companies from whom Apple buys parts and services.

2. Select a company from the list at random and then Google them to find their home page. Then examine this page for information on the above criteria on ethical business practice.

3. If it feels in any way insubstantial, tokenistic, etc, send them an email. Write a blog post about it. Tweet your views - whatever you prefer; the simple goal is to raise awareness and attention throughout the entire tech goods supply chain.

Judging by the five or six companies I've done this for so far, the main thing which you'll notice is missing is any kind of supply chain info. Otherwise the relevant info ranges from a few paragraphs of positive spin - right through to only a couple of sentences of bad English about what a nice bunch they all are.

At the better end of the spectrum are clear statements about 'conflict free minerals' which some companies are offering - though from what I can see, they are sadly a minority at the moment. The other problem is that it is not easy to distinguish between a statement of nice intentions and actual business practice - especially as external regulation seems to be on the whole a rare phenomenon.

And that's it. It seems like not very much at all - but  enough people showing an interest (don't forget that these companies will be aware even of the simple fact that page requests are increasing for their sustainability/ethics etc pages) will send a pretty clear message.

In my view, this is one of the major ethical challenges faced by the tech industry at the hardware side of things (meanwhile, privacy and security are # 1 ethical challenges for programmers, at least if you ask me). Like all big challenges, they are best overcome if lots of people all each do a little bit - rather than a few people trying to do an impossibly big bit...

Well, I've since decided that this is an issue well worth covering on a regular basis simply because it is only by raising awareness that we create demand for ethically produced products - and influencing demand for products (i.e. $$) is pretty much the quickest way to induce changes in business practice whatever the industry sector.

As of a couple of weeks ago for example, Apple is now offering monthly updates to its Supplier Responsibility website to go along with a full list of companies from which it directly sources components and services. A step in the right direction for sure, but this only marks the beginning of getting a much greater level of transparency and information into the whole supply chain - not just one link 'down' from Apple - but all the way to the raw materials extraction with which the lengthy supply chain often begins. So while that is the ultimate goal, we should welcome each small positive development - but also scrutinise it for substance (as opposed to PR hot air) and continue to press for this incremental progress towards a 100% transparent and ethical supply chain.

In this follow-up to my first piece, I'd like to provide an example of exactly why I believe this is a goal worth striving for - but first a little caveat on why Apple seems (perhaps unfairly) to be the focal point for this sort of campaigning, when it as a company actually treats its employees and customers pretty well and has some very positive policies on managing its immediate environmental impact. There are two reasons why we should nonetheless continue to apply pressure on Apple (but crucially, not only Apple):

1. Apple is so, so powerful. Along with some energy companies (oil, gas etc) Apple is the biggest and richest company in the world. It has greater cash reserves than most world governments, the highest total worth (on and off depending on slight fluctuations of share price) and commands a staggering level of media attention - in which it is completely singular even when compared with other large companies, even in the tech sector - though admittedly this sector on the whole does get above-average coverage generally, at least here in the UK (tech can sometimes be a bit sci-fi - and that can capture the imagination). So, the bottom line is that Apple arguably has more financial and media influence than almost any other company in the world.

2. It is rare in today's world for a company with such power to be so directly accessible to the consumer (i.e. completely at the 'consumer-end' of the supply chain). This means that it is more visible to consumers than companies further down the supply chain - and also the one which must be most attentive to changes in their needs and desires in order to continue to succeed. Companies further down the supply chain need only concern themselves with their immediate clients' changing needs and wishes. In order to succeed, everyone must respond to what the 'client' (i.e. the one who is at one step up the supply chain) wants - and for Apple, this person is you.

So that's it basically, Apple is both extremely powerful as a company (winning supply contracts with them is obviously very lucrative) - and, also, highly responsive to consumers' needs and wishes (because in satisfying this, they make $billions). So while Apple does not directly employ any child labourers, they are still in a unique position to act in such a way that this practice can be eradicated from the entire supply chain, which also means it'd be eradicated from the supply chain of many other products also. That, in short, is why I keep banging on about Apple.

Now however, I'd like to turn your attention to a very different company in many ways - although one that is also seriously economically significant. It is a company, called Glencore, that most people won't already know unless they follow business news. And yet last year Glencore became the biggest ever float on the London Stock Exchange (total worth $36bn) - not surprising when you consider that it trades 10% of the world's wheat, 25% of its barley - and a staggering 50% of the total copper that comes to the global market. It is also based in Switzerland and Jersey (which should give you an idea of its attitudes towards paying taxes) and was originally founded in the 1970's by a man who fled to Switzerland to avoid facing tax evasion, fraud, and racketeering charges in the US.

So, odds are that since Glencore trades half of the total copper produced in the world, it's likely to have traded some of the copper in your phone wires, household plumbing, and roofing - as well as in making alloys that go into a wide range of other everyday objects (coins, musical instruments etc). Glencore also owns Zinc, Aluminium, Lead, and Cobalt operations all around the world which are very likely to be part of the supply chain for some of the everyday items you own - including tech gadgets (Cobalt for example is very useful in making batteries).

This is why a recent BBC Panorama investigation into the ethics of Glencore operations (watch it on iPlayer before it is taken down) around the world is causing such controversy - and also why it illustrates the current excessive complexity and lack of regulation in product supply chains - that ultimately benefits those seeking to profit from practices that they can only get away with if hidden from view. Journalist John Sweeney spoke to Glencore boss, Ivan Glasenberg, in order to discuss with him some of the evidence he had gathered which showed Glencore's involvement with murderous paramilitaries in Colombia (where it owns and runs several coal-mining operations subsidiaries) and with child-labour using copper mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (an ironically cruel name for a country which is anything but democratic).

In both instances Glencore boss, Ivan Glasenberg, flatly denies that the company had any involvement or jurisdiction whatsoever over the operations in question. It is only after being presented with the evidence gathered by Sweeney, that he then performs a U-turn and attempts to justify that there was nothing the company could do to address these problems sooner (as with the case of acid pollution from copper extraction operations in the DRC for example). So that is the first of two important conclusions from the report - that the corporate spokespeople for these companies are not above presenting an absolute outright falsehood for the public, which will only be retracted in the face of convincing evidence.

The second conclusion relates exactly to the main issue of ethical practice in complex product supply chains. Basically, Sweeney was only able to discover the highly unethical business practices engaged in by Glencore subsidiaries by acquainting himself with all the local partners of Glencore and by secretly following the copper from its source in the mine (where it is extracted by children as young as 10 years old) through various extracting and refinement plants and to the point at which it is exported (to yet another Glencore subsidiary). Some of this detective work involved secretly following the aforementioned copper load for 26 hours straight on a pot-holed dirt road across this war-ravaged country.

This is not something we are likely to have time for every time we need to buy a new smart-phone, calculator, or even copper pipe. As I keep saying - being an ethical tech consumer shouldn't be this hard! One way to make things simpler, would be for us as consumers to exert a domino effect of pressure along the supply chain (in the direction that money flows through it - not goods). Apple's information about its suppliers is a step in the right direction towards achieving this aim but ultimately this is a task that will require the efforts of numerous powerful companies, loud and clear signals from consumers, an effective and independent regulatory effort and a whole host of NGO, academic, and industry organisations. The first step however, is simply signalling that this is something that we demand and expect as consumers - and thereby make it into something that carries a potential financial reward for companies.

The next post in this series will feature an overview of easy steps which can be taken to continue building the pressure on companies to eradicate these practices from their entire supply chains.

Most people are becoming increasingly aware of the UK situation with regards to extradition - in that it pretty much appals the majority of the reasonable public, whatever their political orientation. Perhaps unsurprisingly in today's internet age - where the web throws up constant challenges for the judiciary and law enforcement - it is with regard to various online crimes that the shortcomings of the UK's current laws and treaties are being most critically exposed.

Gary MacKinnon, the autistic computer engineer from Scotland who hacked into NASA and US military systems, is controversially facing up to 60 years in jail if extradited to the US - despite the fact he made no profit from his crimes and claims he was initially seeking evidence of 'UFO cover-ups'. Meanwhile, Richard O'Dwyer, the British student creator of tvshack.com, which provided links to externally-hosted but copyrighted content, is facing imminent extradition and a potential sentence of 10 years in a US high-security prison.

Public opinion is pretty strongly against either of these extraditions (neither man would face a fair trial in the US considering how much legal expenses would amount to - and the fact is that most similar cases never even make it to trial; most defendants are worn down to some sort of plea bargain after years spent in limbo in the system). In addition, both of the likely jail terms seem absolutely draconian (10 and 60 years respectively, in a high security prison) and completely inappropriate considering the circumstances of the two men (US high-security prisons are not exactly humane environments for disabled inmates for example).

Contrast this with the case of the radical muslim cleric Abu Qatada, currently fighting extradition to Jordan on terrorism charges, whom it seems the UK government is increasingly unable to deport (despite the fact he has known links to Al-Qaeda, including providing the spiritual propaganda for 9/11, advocated the killing of non-muslims, Jews, Americans and pretty much anyone who doesn't follow his extreme fundamentalist take on Islam).

Suffice it to say that there is no public sympathy for this man and that most people are outraged that it is apparently so difficult to get rid of him, while a harmless student, who effectively built a search engine tool but, in observance of existing laws, did not host any illegal content - is imminently facing 10 years in a US high security prison. (N.B. I'm not saying that O'Dwyer or McKinnon do not have a case to answer - just that they must be treated fairly, which in this country means 'innocent until proven guilty' - and not the other way around).

Or take for example the fact that we still have not been able to prosecute anybody for the murder Litvinenko, despite having clearly identified suspects, simply because our current arrangement with Russia doesn't allow us to have access to them. These kinds of examples could go on and on - but the point is simple: people we actually want to prosecute here, for crimes they have committed here, are often not available to us because our inbound treaties are inadequate. Meanwhile people we generally feel shouldn't be deported are facing lengthy and punishing battles to fight extradition (usually to the US), while when we actually do want to get rid off someone, we often can't.

So, as I said earlier, the UK's current extradition treaties are completely unfit for purpose at the moment - a fact which is being highlighted on a regular basis, often by cases that involve some sort of internet activity. Which brings me to this week's news, in which BPAS announced that, following an earlier hack of their database (for which a man from the Midlands has now been jailed) they have now suffered around 2,500 further attacks on their systems in the 5 weeks since his arrest. Around a third of these have come from the US.

Not surprisingly, many of you have since wondered if those responsible for these attacks will also be expediently extradited on account of the aforementioned US/UK 'special relationship'. Unfortunately, for the time being, the answer is 'no' - for a few reasons:

1. Just because many of the attacks came from IP addresses in the US doesn't necessarily mean that those responsible do too. Modern hacking is a little more advanced than that, and it is possible that these US computers are simply part of an unwittingly infected botnet being controlled from elsewhere. If time and resources are devoted to investigating this however, answers to this question are probably available.

2. Even if the attackers did come from the US, there could be hundreds of them, and we have only received a total of 40 people from the US via extradition requests in the 7 year period of 2004-2011 for example (out of 57 requests made). It is a resource-intensive activity and would probably be unfeasable to attempt in larger numbers.

3. Finally, as many people are now increasingly realising, the US/UK arrangement is not exactly balanced 50-50 in terms of power, but is actually a little more one sided than that (a recent report found that extradited British citizens' rights are not respected in the same way that US citizens' are). The UK also has to provide much more justification in order to pursue a request than would be the case going in the other direction.

The bottom line is that pursuing justice for international crimes is still far more difficult than it should be considering the staggering levels of economic co-operation between most of the world's countries - and especially those involved in the cases mentioned here (I'm not even going to touch cases like state-sponsored hacking of Google by Chinese hackers). Even though some political lip-service is being paid here in the UK to the need to reform some of these treaties, little has thus far been achieved. The fact remains that, in cases of web-related crime, extradition treaties can only function - at best - as well as other local laws around the internet, which remain in many cases worryingly unclear in the UK.

Sadly, it is only once these issues are addressed that we might contemplate justice for crimes such as the attempted hacking of the the BPAS database, which sadly represents yet another act of religious fundamentalists seeking to violate the rights and privacy of law-abiding citizens - something which understandably disturbs the vast majority of the British public judging by this week's reactions to the news.

Now, that the dust has settled on the initial reaction, I thought it'd be useful to outline the current state of play in 5 quick facts:

1. Firstly, no proposed bill has yet been unveiled. It seems that the likely announcement will come in the Queen's speech in May and, even in that scenario, the bill would have to pass through both houses which - judging by the initial reactions of some ministers - will not be straightforward.

2. The expected proposals will involve a private security firm - contracted by the government (probably GCHQ) - monitoring email messaging, web browsing and phone calls in real time. However, the content of emails and phone calls will not be monitored - only the details of time, recipient etc. Browsing history details (i.e. urls requested) would all be logged.

3. The proposals would require additional hardware and software support to be installed at the ISP side of things - which might lead to an increase in the cost of internet provision (or these costs might potentially be subsidised). No mention of this issue has so far been made.

4. The purpose of the legislation would be to assist in counter-terrorism law enforcement. However, an obvious problem which has been highlighted by some is that the collection of this vast array of personal data, for all UK internet users would create a new vulnerability and potential security issue.

5. Currently, Clegg and Cameron seem to disagree strongly over the proposals - with Clegg's office strongly stressing that he had agreed only to 'look at' the proposals and hadn't passed his approval on them. The issue is considered pretty significant by several high-profile figures (including web creator Tim Berners-Lee), who have also expressed their concern and disapproval.

So, that's a quick overview of the current situation, although one further - currently unanswered - question interests me perhaps even more: would data on 'walled garden' websites (such as Facebook) also be accessible and, if so, how will this affect the network's popularity, usage patterns, and financial valuation?

Drupal, the open-source, PHP-based CMS is increasingly the tool of choice not only for smaller and medium sized businesses but also major corporate giants (like US telco Verizon) and organisations with large, and complex, needs (like the White House and even, sometimes, the UK government) - whether the challenge lies in building and managing a complex employee intranet (such as Verizon's) or an ever changing live website such as those of media outlets like The Economist. TallyFox, a recent Etondigital project, provides another recent example of the power of Drupal in integrating multiple functions and varied features into accessible and clean interfaces.

As well as offering a versatility that means Drupal is equally useful to both a hobby bedroom blogger and the IT department of one of the most powerful governments in the world, the CMS also offers an extremely valuable community aspect which in practice means that you can usually do things better, and more quickly, than with some alternative options.

Indeed, it is this community aspect that Buytaert is looking to focus on with Acquia. Since Drupal is free and open-source, he made no money from the massively successful creation for a number of years (after devising the original version in his university dorm room in 2001). With Acquia, a commercial venture, he hopes to build a professional 'enterprise guide to Drupal' for those larger and more demanding Drupal users, who wish to harness the skills and know-how of Acquia's expert engineers (recruited directly from the Drupal community) in order to enhance, in whatever way, their Drupal experience. In addition to this technical support, Acquia also offers a cloud hosting service based on Amazon Web Services which aims to provide companies with additional specialised tools throughout each stage of the website development process.

With companies like ebay, twitter, Intel and Paypal all having already signed up to some of Acquia's services, the venture looks sure to be a major Drupal success story - which only promises to even further improve the level of skills and know-how around Drupal, thus increasing the capabilities of the CMS and the options available to companies making use of it. Excellent news all round for the future of Drupal!

For example, someone who wasn't really keeping up to date with changing demographics on social media might not be aware that using Myspace is never going to be as effective now as it once was. Admittedly, this is quite an extreme example (it's rare to find someone engaged in social media activity who isn't aware of the network's steep decline over the past 36 months) but nonetheless, I hope you see the point.

A more likely scenario might be missing out on new opportunities - such as Pinterest for example, which has a rapidly growing user base (currently at 21 million), especially popular in the US and amongst 25-50 year-old women, and would be absolutely excellent for communicating with that particular demographic.

So that's why a quick glance at up-to-date demographics every few months is pretty good policy for social media marketers (even part-time ones!). And you'd really be a fool not to do so with so many lovely infographics on offer, organising and presenting all that useful information for you in an accessible and clear way - one of which I've posted below, courtesy of onlineMBA.com):

One of consequences of globalisation is that medium to large sized companies often run operations which span many countries. A product can now be designed in one office in Sweden; get tested in another in Germany before being manufactured in China for sale in the Australian market. While trade has been global for many hundreds of years (as soon as sea-faring ships were developed), it was really limited to a relatively small number of products (the first world imported sugar, tea, bananas etc, and exported steel, weapons, textiles and so on). Now, pretty much everything we buy and use in our daily lives provides some evidence of this globalisation - including tech hardware and gadgets.

One challenge of living in such an age - especially for those who wish to minimise the negative impact that their life has on other people - is how to avoid unwittingly supporting economic practices which destroy individual lives, communities, and the environment, simply through ignorance when shopping for the things you need or want. The problem is that some industries and products are a lot more complex than others, making it far easier to make informed choices when buying chocolate or sugar than when choosing a new laptop or smartphone.

So while the question of whether fruit is fair-trade or trainers have been made in a sweatshop with child labour is usually now not too difficult to answer (we have been aware of these issues for slightly longer and the provenance of the products themselves is much easier to verify), it is nigh on impossible to be 100% sure about your tech gadgets, due to very complex supply chains being a standard feature of the tech world.

Ever since a dozen or so Foxconn workers committed suicide in 2010, the issue of where our gadgets come from and how they're made has been a higher profile news item than was previously the case - largely due to the newsworthiness of almost any story involving Apple (whose products are manufactured by Foxconn in China). There is now a greater level of attention being paid to the factories where many of our gadgets are assembled, as well as on the conditions enjoyed/endured by workers (see for example this recent report, re-assessing Foxconn's current practices relative to what they were five and even ten years ago).

However, even if the company that makes the stuff operates perfectly ethically, there is still a host of other companies involved in the supply chain - starting with mining and raw material extraction companies, refinement & processing, component manufacture and so on. It is often these companies that often have the most unethical and questionable business practices (often with regard to environmental practices, especially with mining and extraction industries). Then there's also the question of co-operation and complicity in supporting sometimes very brutal or corrupt governments in return for access to mining sites.

So while it is easy for us to visualise our iPad or Nokia phone being assembled from smaller components (microchips, camera lenses, glass screens and plastic buttons) in a factory in China - it is simply not part of most people's consciousness that these smaller components often require things like Lanthanum, Gadolinium, Samarium or Cerium in their manufacture. Rare earth elements such as these are absolutely essential for building the high-performance chips and conductors that power our phones or laptops, or for constructing the lenses in our SLR cameras and so on.

The question really is, do we care whether or not the extraction of some Gadolinium which ended up in our laptops or phones was done in such a manner that it left local farmland polluted with toxins, or involved the circumventing of local community representatives and co-operation with corrupt officials?

If we do, then how might we choose which sat-nav, laptop or camcorder to buy?

Well, I've been having a quick glance on the internet for info - and sadly cannot find anything to help me decide. Most of the major tech companies have some sort of 'Environment' or 'Sustainability' section on their websites which varies in prominence, accessibility and detail with each company (check out these examples from Apple, Sony, Samsung and Canon). However, while these statements do typically include many important things (such as recycling issues, toxin-free products, lowering carbon footprints etc) - they pretty much never include a detailed policy in concrete terms on exactly how supply chains are managed with regard to ethical practice.

What would here be much appreciated is some info on which mining and extraction companies the manufacturers buy their supplies from and how these organisations are also held accountable with regard to the ethical and environmental standards espoused in these various sustainability statements. After all, just because the dynamics of globalisation mean that a mining company is three or four steps removed away from Dell, Apple or whoever else, I still think they should be considered a relevant area for these sustainability statements to cover. At present, the info on who else is present in the product supply chain is woefully inadequate - as indeed is any information on how 'sustainability' is introduced to this aspect of business practice.

The problem is that these kinds of stories will never be as newsworthy as the Foxconn suicides, simply because with each further link (away from Apple - the company we all know) to some obscure mining company (which nobody recognises the name of) the attention that malpractice might command gets reduced to the point that we have absolutely no idea of the full provenance of our gadgets. In order to get closer to achieving this goal, we arguably need consumers to be more aware of what's inside their tech gear and to care about where it comes from - once this happens, things will most likely change very quickly (look for example how the conditions of Foxconn employees have changed in the past couple of years since the high-profile suicides).

I'd love to hear from readers what your thoughts are on this? Is it something you've thought about before or would like to know more about? Has anyone actually researched this in more detail? Feel free to drop me a line in the comments below :)

So, without further ado - here they are:

1. Techcrunch. Ok, so this is really rather obvious as a starting point but they are usually first with news and info as well as adding dozens of new posts each day (you'll never return to find the site as you left it after your last visit). Most of you probably already know of this site, so I won't go on about it.

2. Engadget & Gizmodo. Excellent for hardware and gadget related news, reviews, photos and info. I wouldn't buy any new gear of any sort without first checking their very detailed reviews.

3. Wired. Essentially similar to techcrunch - but they have four international editions, including one based in the UK, which is great for us Brits who occasionally yearn to read about a company which isn't based in California.

4. Techeblog. Great for when you're not looking for anything in particular but fancy seeing something new/interesting. Quirky items, short posts, lots of good photos. A fun way to spend 10 mins every other day.

5. Financial Times Tech Blog. I know that lots of blogs cover the business and financial side of the tech industry (including techcrunch especially) - but the FT tech blog is the most reliable and well-informed on these matters in my opinion (the Bloomberg tech blog is also decent for this).

6. The Guardian tech blog. Of the UK newspapers, The Guardian is the best at covering tech and web in my opinion (something backed up by the fact that their mobile apps are far better than those offered by any of the other titles).

7. Mashable. Superb for social media related info, as well as eye-catching photo galleries and addictive 'best of...' and 'top...' type lists.

8. That Video Game blog. There's lots and lots of blogs covering the same material - but this one is my favourite due to its nice layout and clean design.

That's it! (there's only 8 points because a couple of them feature two blogs each). These are my favourite 10 blogs for keeping up to date with the majority of general web & tech developments. There's plenty of more niche blogs which I also enjoy (focusing on SEO, gadget teardowns, infographic galleries and everything in between) but they are best left for another post focusing on these specific categories - like this earlier post about SEO blogs for example.

The above sites are just a suggestion for your bookmarks bar - the kind of links you'd hit up for twenty minutes in the morning over a cup of tea in order to keep up to date with what's happening. Enjoy!