424 posts • joined 13 May 2009
And the next 7nm laptop processor will be designed by In, er, AM, um, Qualcomm: The 64-bit Arm Snapdragon 8CX
I like the idea of my replacement Linux workstation actually being low power and fanless. At the moment I am looking at a traditional big, high-end Ryzen system but maybe I should move all the hard stuff into my big, noisy, power-hungry server and go for a small, quiet and low-power workstation on the desktop instead?
Any chance it will run off-the-shelf Debian Testing?
The most scary thing about this is not the legal ability to force companies to assist (I can easily get around that by creating my own crypto -- and non-corporate tools with no one to serve the TCN to will soon be widely available); it is the lack of visibility.
It should be essential that we, the voters, can track how much these powers are being used. Instead of being secret, every company should be required to announce when they receive a TCN, and the full details (including the list of who's communications were intercepted) should be published within one year (extended only on authorisation by a court, and only for individual affected accounts).
We know that powers such as these get misused (often with the best of intentions). Just look back at the history of cases of police infiltration of trade unions, campaign groups, human rights groups, anti-war or anti-bomb activists, etc. All with abuse of powers intended only to save lives.
I can understand the Australian opposition being weak and naive enough to be convinced that these (ultimately ineffective) powers are important. I can't understand them not requiring the removal of the secrecy as their price for approval.
Quoting a mouthpiece for the RIAA???
I strongly agree that Internet giants with significant market power need serious regulation to prevent their anti-social actions, particularly around privacy.
However, first there needs to be strong regulation of media companies who not only have market power but create cartels like RIAA and MPAA. Their anti-social abuse of copyright, a measure designed to augment the public domain by reserving some rights for a very limited time to allow reasonable profits to be made, needs to be strongly curbed first.
Modern technology has so dramatically reduced the costs of distributing content that the limited profit intended to be delivered to the content producer could now be achieved in much less than 20 years -- copyright terms should have gone down over the last 100 years, not up!
Yes, regulate large internet players. But clean up the copyright cartels and kill off the greed of the content players first.
Re: two forms of non-photo ID...?
The problem is even worse for some specific groups. For example, wives in some communities are even less likely to have photo-ID than their husbands, and are unlikely to be named on any utility bills -- their whole presence is in their husband's name. Why would we deny them the vote?
Other groups such as homeless or frequently moving people or people in shared accommodation are likely to have no ID -- and likely to be poorer. Why would the Conservative government be trying to deny them a vote I wonder?
It is just gerrymandering with a fig leaf created from a non-problem.
Re: I'm confused.
It is not really any different
The difference is the way it can be used, and the business models associated with it. It becomes possible for you to "buy" a SIM instantly, anywhere in the world, and from any vendor located anywhere in the world.
Acquiring a SIM can be as simple as downloading an app or just registering on a website. We are likely to see special-purpose eSIMs. For example, Disney could offer a SIM, worldwide, with a subscription to their movies, or Steam could offer one with a subscription to their games. Why would they? Well, there are a few obvious reasons like bundling and advertising (and bypassing Google) but the real answers will come when disrupters and innovators come up with ideas none of us have thought of.
Re: Slippery slope; And not the fun kind
Liberty vs. Authoritarianism is a completely orthogonal axis to political (really economic) left-right. Plenty of authoritarians all over the political axis (it's pretty much a requirement to want to be in parliament, isn't it?).
I am quite far-liberty, but pretty centrist on the UK left-right spectrum (mid-left when viewed from the US, of course).
How long before the courts move into the modern world?
It has been very easy, for over 20 years, to electronically sign documents. How long do we have to wait for courts to implement this?
Every judge should have a signing key and so should every court. Every document produced by the judge should be signed with both keys. All other documents involved in a case should be signed by the court (and probably also the submitting lawyer). It should be trivially easy for someone to check the electronic signature is valid (a website to do it for individuals and small companies; large companies could build it into their own systems).
I know it involves changes to court systems, but why wasn't the work started over 10 years ago and completed 5 years ago?
FYI: Drone maker DJI's 'Get it on Google Play' website button definitely does not get the app from Google Play...
Re: Walled Garden
While I completely agree about user education and care, it is not correct to say that there is no value in getting an app from the Play store. Google's security checking, while very limited, is not nothing. And, more importantly, getting the same version as a lot of other people makes it more likely that I will hear about any subsequent serious issue.
I also have never had a virus in over 40 years of using computers. And I use two phones with no Google accounts and no Play store access. I prefer to get apks from F-Droid if possible, or from the Play Store (using my work phone to access them, which has access using the Google account I require for work). Getting them from the vendor is my third choice (and is not often possible). I almost never get them from 3rd parties such as Yalp .
Re: But will it safeguard patient privacy ?
too short on time to wait for a PC to log off one person and log on another
The printer at work is capable of recording the ID from my card whenever I go to pick up a printout. I would certainly hope that (a modern application on) an NHS PC doesn't require a separate Windows login for each user but that the app requires an ID card to be presented to a reader each time a transaction occurs and records it in the access log. It would take no more time than using your card to open a door.
Re: ""Who owns the intellectual property and responsibility of a bot contribution: "
Because the "ownership" we are talking about here is copyright. The truth is that nobody owns code as it is infinitely copyable. But, in most cases, somebody owns a copyright on the code. But as copyright is an intellectual property right, it can only arise from human creativity, not from a machine.
Do not forget, you do not violate copyright if you independently come up with exactly the same code as someone else but did not copy theirs. It is not the code which is the property, it is the right to prevent others copying your intellectual creation which is the property.
Re: ""Who owns the intellectual property and responsibility of a bot contribution: "
It isn't a good question. It is an important question, that needs to be discussed and very clearly answered. But, fortunately, the answer is simple: no one owns it.
Just as no one owns the wild deer who come into my garden and eat my flowers, and no one owns a fish in the middle of the ocean, and no one owns the sound of the bird singing outside my window. And no one owns Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet either.
It is a fallacy, pushed very very hard by the big copyright owners, that everything has to be "owned" by someone. Things which are in the public domain are not owned by anyone, and things created by machines go straight into the public domain -- essentially the copyright term on them is zero.
Responsibility is harder. In general, the operator of a machine has responsibility for its actions: if I let go of a self-propelled lawnmower and it kills someone it is my responsibility. It is complicated because sometimes responsibility may rest with (or be shared with) the manufacturer or the owner instead of the operator -- sometimes a court will have to decide which.
But, if you operate a bot which has been given check-in rights to a piece of software and it checks in bad code, you will end up with responsibility (maybe shared with whoever created it, depending on things like whether the operator was well-enough informed of the risks, whether the creator misrepresented anything, whether the creator was negligent, etc). However, in this case, the bot is just sending a suggestion to the person who has check-in rights: they have responsibility for the check-in if they approve it, just as they have responsibility if they accept a pull request from anyone else.
The most important thing is: don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is an "owner" for content created by a machine. There isn't -- it is in the public domain.
I don't think it is intended as passive aggressive language. Currently vendors wishing to distribute Google apps are specifically prevented (by their licence agreement) to also offer non-compatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets.
One of the Competition Commission requirements is to remove that restriction. That is a good thing, so vendors can freely decide whether they want to have two lines of phones, one with Google apps and one with a forked OS that works without Google apps (to compete with Apple -- presumably at a similarly premium price).
Decoding the Chinese Super Micro super spy-chip super-scandal: What do we know – and who is telling the truth?
Are SuperMicro systems going cheap?
I have been thinking about buying a server and sticking it in a CoLo, for offsite backups. Maybe now is the time?
I don't care about the SuperMicro share price -- are their servers going cheap now? I don't care if the Chinese can copy my data -- the rest of the world has it already thanks to my government.
New Zealand border cops warn travelers that without handing over electronic passwords 'You shall not pass!'
Re: I'm getting to the point now
I already use full-disk encryption on my home computer disks -- primarily so when they die I can throw them in the rubbish without worrying about having to securely delete the contents. Of course, I can, and will, decrypt them for authorities but when I stop using them I don't keep the passwords (the current password is stored on a small USB stick that the computer reads at boot time but no previous passwords are stored).
I am considering moving to always encrypting my USB sticks with a disposable password each time I use them. When I have finished with it I don't bother deleting the files on it: I just destroy the password, knowing that no one can recover the files. This is already how my work laptop handles USB sticks.
My work phone already encrypts its SD card. I have no idea what the password is.
Once this has become the norm for most people, there will be nothing suspicious about having several MicroSD cards in your luggage, each encrypted, with no idea what the passwords are and no way to recover the contents. They are just spares for when you want to move data or need more space for photos and videos.
Re: Might be a nice idea, but it'll stay theoretical
Unless there's a way to force Facebook to use this construct, I don't see any change any time soon.
It is a first step.
Obviously the only answer to the problems with Facebook, Twitter, etc are for regulators to enforce competition with open interoperation. Then people can have their "conservative facebook" or their "activist twitter" and still follow their favourite pop stars and Auntie Betty as well. But regulators won't force that until the tools are in place to make it work.
This sounds like one of those building blocks. If it is successful then we can start asking regulators to use competition laws to force the massive players to use it.
Questioning the premise
We need El Reg to be more active in questioning the premise behind these sorts of requests. Before talking about either the impact or the implementation details (as in this article) we need to be much more critical of the claims being used to justify this.
The claim is that law enforcement is "going dark" and losing access to evidence it needs.
On the contrary. it is a golden age for law enforcement. Instead of planning with trusted comrades, in a private room, criminals now use text and even talk on mobile phones in public places. Some even use email and web chatrooms (particularly those planning digital crimes). Much more planning information is available to law enforcement.
And, as for evidence of the crimes themselves, instead of just stealing something or assaulting someone criminals now often record their actions with photos or even videos. For their own amusement or to prove to someone else that they did as they were commanded. That evidence is often available and would never even have existed in the past.
Law enforcement have never had it so good. There is so much evidence available to them.
As we all know, policing is a difficult job. Unfortunately for them, we need it to remain so in order to protect our civil liberties (such as trade unions, effective protest and campaigns for major societal changes). The simplifications that the digital world have introduced to their job need to be rolled-back.
Encryption is part of that: not only is there no justification for demands for law enforcement access, we actually need improved, easy-to-use, routine encryption to protect all of us and our civil liberties.
Re: don't seem like that much of a threat to me
I get that, but my question was in what way is that a threat to me
The answer is that it might be or might not be. You don't have to be James Bond for this to be a problem.
Even in the UK, a journalist for a local paper might find this a problem if they have been trying to track down and write about corruption in the local council awarding planning approvals. An investigative journalist at a national newspaper will certainly be targeted, often by powerful or dangerous people (even if only reporting on extramarital affairs).
Abused women and children also need to have privacy (why do you think people aren't allowed to take photos of their children's school play? It isn't about paedophiles, it is about children who have been removed from abuse possibly being located by the abusers).
And, in some countries almost anyone might accidentally fall foul of government or criminal gangs and need to keep their location hidden.
Sure, maybe you have the luxury of living in a safe country, with no serious enemies and a boring job (just like I do). Or are qualified to make a full analysis of your security risks. But there are many people not in that position and manufacturers need to be forced to fix problems which put these people into danger.
Only the old hands or those peed off with Canonical use Debian these days.
I don't think that is true. I heard the other day that there is a waiting list to become a Debian Developer because there are more people wanting to become a DD than the people managing the process can handle.
And looking at https://contributors.debian.org/contributors/year/2018 there are still a lot of people contributing to Debian.
As for systemd, like many people I don't like it but it is clearly here to stay (unlike the previous attempts at init system replacement) and more and more software will assume it is there, like it or not. Devuan is the UKIP of Linux distros: defined only by hating one thing and supported by moaning pensioners.
Re: "And extremely sad you're happy to carry a ID card 24x7 "
I've my ID card in the wallet with the driving license and the credit cards, for decades, and never anything bad happened because of it. It's just a simple and comfortable way to prove you are what you say whenever such a proof is needed.
And I have lived my life for many decades carrying no ID at all and have never had anything bad happen. I have never had any need to prove my identity except at borders and, as you say, being in Britain borders rarely crop up unexpectedly.
Unlike you, I was able to handle all my parents affairs without any need to prove my identity to the lawyers involved -- the process does not require proving identity unless someone challenges it. The point is that ID cards are only useful in a society which has changed to require them. If there are no ID cards no one can demand them, no one needs them and society still functions perfectly well.
And ID cards have massive disadvantages. Perhaps most seriously, they enable much more commercial spying, with very many companies ending up with both a unique ID for correlating data they acquire (legally or not) from many sources and personal information like name, address and age which I have no wish to share with companies I do business with unless I see some actual benefit to me.
I could almost understand a government ID card but it would have to be absolutely illegal for any commercial company to record any information from a card.
Re: ...citing the Windrush scandal as justification.
The fix for the Windrush scandal is clear: the government need to end this "hostile environment" and "war" around immigration.
The law needs to be very clear: if you are in the country it must be up to the government to prove that you have no right to be here, not up to you to prove that you do have the right to be here.
I am quite happy with current and recent levels of immigration and have no problem with accepting the small amount of illegal immigration that occurs. It isn't a problem in my view. Somehow those of us who share this view need to make our position known to fight the xenophobic little-Britain insularists.
Re: I'm so totally in Google's camp on this
If Google's services are better that is a fine and perfectly valid way to compete. What is not fine is to use market power to prevent others from competing. That is the reason the competitors are not as good -- if they spend the money to make them as good, they can't sell them to get their investment back because of Google's abuse.
If, once the environment is competitive, "people simply prefer Google's solutions" that is fine. And it might even be that Google remain the largest player but it would mean that market segments like "the tinfoil crowd" actually have a real choice.
Re: Why so hard?
Just having a button inside held for 10 seconds to dis-associate the old owner from the system would be great for a car thief that had stolen your key to nick your car.
No. It would make no difference at all.
If my car is stolen I don't go and find it and retrieve it myself. I call the police and the insurance company. They would still be able to use the mechanisms they use today to contact the manufacturer and get access to location and other information -- they aren't asking the owner for that today.
New owner must be able to disconnect seller immediately from the vehicle
Car manufacturers must put a "disconnect car from current account" function within the vehicle itself so that the new owner can do the disconnect before driving a single metre after buying the car.
If there is a concern about theft then the back end for the function can be made more complex: still collect the data but prevent the previous owner from accessing the data or controlling anything. The police can still have access to the data (for example with a warrant) but the previous owner does not unless they go through a process to reclaim the car (disputing that ownership has been transferred). Meanwhile, the person with control of the car immediately has full access and control (although only to data from the moment of claiming the account).
It is not reasonable to require any co-operation from the previous owner, nor to allow any access from one of the users to data about the other's usage, nor any complex process of proving ownership to a third party such as JLR or a dealer (control of the car should be sufficient). The tiny number of cases of theft or disputed ownership would be the cases which have the complex process, probably involving a court.
BoJo didn't want to become PM instead of the PM. Everyone knew that the "leaving" job was a poisoned chalice and whoever did it would be immediately removed (and happy to go) once it was over, whatever happened. Theresa May realised that was her only chance of becoming PM so went for it. BoJo is just continuing his positioning to stand after Brexit is over.
He knew he would have to resign, over a "point of principle", at some point to set himself up as a future saviour. He would probably have preferred to leave it a little later so it was fresher in people's minds when he comes back, but his hand was pretty forced if he didn't want to start being considered responsible for the mess.
Re: If you ever wondered
Good thought. I already never "click through" to the supplier I am interested in -- I go to their website and start again (mainly because I am bolshie and if they won't offer an equally good price to someone not using a comparison site then I won't do business with them). But I will now make sure I give fake details (name, address, DOB, etc) to the comparison site -- close enough that I should get roughly the same quote but not enough to identify or contact me.
Re: Corporate Security
I downvoted you because you have identified a completely disproportionate and unrealistic justification for a blatant privacy violation.
Yes, I understand that the incident caused you and your company a lot of genuine concern and I commend your hard work in checking on your visitors' safety. I had an employee on business in the New York area on 9/11 and it was obviously very worrying for him, his family and for us in the company. I know that his wife appreciated the effort we went to to confirm his safety and let her know before he had been able to call her directly.
However, such incidents are of such low likelihood that it is not worth taking any action at all in advance, let alone sacrificing an important human right. I haven't checked the numbers, but I am sure the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is much less than that of being killed by lightning.
What we need is a society which values reasonable assessments of risk and accepts that "something must be done -- this is something" is no way to make decisions.
Why aren't there riots over this? Why aren't there resistance cells being created, with freedom fighters destroying surveillance cameras?
My parents fought in WW2, and I lived through the threat of nuclear annihilation in the Cold War, to protect us against police states, where the authorities tried to monitor what everyone was doing. Out of that we maintained Britain as a free society, with (now) the lowest crime rates ever and even terrorism is not a serious threat (reduced to running people over with vehicles).
Why on earth are people willing to just give up all liberty and put an electronic tail on every man, woman and child at all times? The police have a tough job, and that is deliberate! If the police are too effective, if their job is too easy or cheap, they become a tool for the government to suppress free thought, protest, whistleblowers, activists, trades unionists and, eventually, even political disagreement. Policing needs to be hard and expensive so they are forced to focus on important crime.
Whatever your political interests, whether you are a right-wing abortion protester or a left-wing animal rights activist, you have to be really concerned about tracking and surveillance. How have we got to this state?
Encryption will become ubiquitous
I am currently looking into encrypting all my disks with separate (long) passwords. My plan is that the system will be set up with the passwords for the current set of disks but I will not record them anywhere else. I certainly won't be able to remember them!
This is because I currently have a pile of old disks (some working, some not) which I can't send to the dump because they have private and personal data on them. My plan is that in future when I stop using a disk I can throw it away (or sell it on eBay) without worrying because no one (including me) can access the data any more.
Once I have that all set up I plan to look into extending it to removable media (memory cards). My drawer of USB sticks will then be full of encrypted drives which I don't know the password to. When I need one I will reformat it with a new password, use it for however long I need it and then throw away the password and put the stick back in the drawer.
If I can do this, how long will it be before it becomes ubiquitous on every device? In particular for memory cards. At which point no one will know whether the memory card they have confiscated from the terrorist suspect at the border is "empty" (no one knows the password) or contains the plans for their latest atrocity. It is unlikely anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorist knows the password. Particularly if they are carrying several.
Re: When it comes to being an authoritarian, data fetishist nut job..
Too many people forget that "authoritarian/freedom" is a completely orthogonal axis to political left/right. Unfortunately, becoming an MP mostly attracts more authoritarians so they are over-represented in the House of Commons. We need more civil society types appointed to the House of Lords to counter this.
Re: Who decides what is illegal?
Sorry, Headley, your analogy is completely wrong. Policing forums is not at all related to publishing. The publisher is the person putting up the post. All Google/FB/etc are doing (in these cases) is providing transmission capability (just like BT and the Royal Mail).
A better analogy for FB/Google/etc is a hotel. Of course a hotel doesn't want people using its rooms to conduct illegal activities (e.g. run a criminal operation). But it doesn't employ people to spy on all the rooms all the time, monitor what people are doing, etc. It waits for the police to call about some activity and then it may terminate the room hire.
I am no fan of Google/FB/etc (in fact, I do not use them), but in this case they are right. This is critical because Google/FB/etc are the town square nowadays, whether I like it or not. If I have a complaint (against the government or against a company) I need to be able to air it on FB/etc. FB/etc should not be allowed to interfere with that unless my activity is illegal.
So if you create some content and it gets ripped off, who protects you?
No one does. Sorry -- that is the way the world has changed. Wake up, smell the coffee and get a new business model. There are other ways to make money from your talent and the material you have created than getting paid for copies.
Copyright (the law) and business models around talent and content have always been reinvented every 20 years due to changes in technology. Just think about the impact (on both laws and business models) of piano rolls, phonographs, radio, TV, VCRs, etc. All those took away someone's existing exclusive rights and forced them to change their business model. Some of them went out of business and some others were more successful. That is business.
Cory Doctorow has a great example: think about music hall artists. They used to have control over the only way to be entertained by them: you had to buy a ticket to get into the theatre. It means that success rewarded not only being able to sign and dance but also charisma, stage presence and good looks. Then radio came along and everyone could get the entertainment for free. All of a sudden success rewarded a good voice (and a talent for ending up in the newspapers). Dancing, charisma, looks became much less relevant. Some performers lost out very heavily, and others saw much increased success. No one succeeded in getting the new reality banned.
Re: Whatever is bad for Google...
I share your dislike of Google. but these two articles favour only Google!
Google will never have to pay the link tax to anyone: no one who owns any copyright, of any type, can afford Google to delist it. Copyright is worth precisely zero if no one knows your copyrighted material exists (to buy it) and Google is the way the word finds everything. So Google will always be given free licenses.
Google Youtube has already implemented the leading content identifying system. Even if someone demands it be improved, Google is ahead of everyone else and can easily improve it at little further cost. All the "staydown" does is create a massive barrier to entry for any competitors to Youtube. You want a Bulgarian national competitor to Youtube? Well, you won't get one now because no one can compete: with no revenue except advertising, how will your national UGC service ever pay the entry costs of implementing Content-ID?
The only winner for this is Google. Certainly not Spotify. And not copyright owners either.
What do I need to specify on my next motherboard?
I'm looking to replace one of my systems later this year and I am thinking this will make a great system disk.
What do I need to look for in my motherboard specs to make sure I can use things like this (and whatever their competitors are coming out with that are similar)?
By the way, this will be an AMD system (I like to help make sure Intel has some competition) and will run Linux. It will be a workstation class system.
Re: But ...
jake is right, but it is also true that today's commercial internet is pretty much under the control of ICANN, because the commercial internet heavily relies on (mostly) shared naming (and, although to a much lesser extent, shared numbering).
While private IP-based networks are possible (and used to be common, and partially still exist today as corporate intranets), only ubergeeks and special interest groups (militaries, terrorist groups?) would really be up for operating a global IP-based network without use of the normal DNS.
There is a problem for copyright holders who don't have deep pockets
The biggest problem for small copyright owners is not piracy, it is visibility. The big companies can pay for massive advertising campaigns. The small guys rely on visibility on web sites. It doesn't help them that a higher proportion of their users may be forced to pay, if no one even knows their stuff exists!
That visibility will go away almost completely when all sites except Google and Facebook stop allowing users to upload content and messages due to the imposition of unreasonable liabilities and high cost barriers to entry.
Not in my name
I am very worried that some firms will use this issue as an excuse for storing (and subsequently losing) even more of my personal data! Including some quite sensitive stuff.
For example, there is no need for a retailer to know my date of birth and I always refuse to do business with anyone who requires it (I know some people just lie but I choose who I give my business to). I could imagine that many sites might try to add DOB as part of their "verification/reset" process. If so, they won't get my business.
The main reason for that is the general principle that given the strongly asymmetric power relationship with a commercial company, I need to make sure they know as little as possible about me. That minimises their chance to set prices based on my willingness to pay, or to exchange information with other companies.
Another reason is that although I do not think the government is snooping on me, they do regularly snoop on people I rely on or support such as investigative journalists, trade union organisers, human rights lawyers, etc and those people need to be able to avoid being identified in many of their transactions.
We need to make sure that the concern for data security does not throw privacy, particularly privacy from commercial organisations, out of the window.
Re: I don,t get it.
Why is domain name registration any different?
Because a domain name is not a company. It is an address. I do not need to display my name and phone number as I walk around or put my name on my front door. I don't even need to tell them to someone who talks to me in the street (or someone I telephone). Why should I need to tell them to someone who talks to me on the internet?
Re: The real reason is...
There is some truth in that. That is part of the reason why I trust Amazon a little more than some other spyware vendors.
The main reason is that they want you to have Alexa to make it easy to sell you stuff. They have a very strong interest in not doing anything (or, more importantly, not letting anyone else do anything) that makes it likely you realise how bad an idea it is to have their spy in the house. So they will focus on things to make you (i) find Alexa useful and (ii) buy stuff.
That means I expect them to do nasty things that help them find out more about you, to target ads, offers and pricing. However, they are not very likely to allow third parties to abuse the device.
Of course, saying I trust them a little more than others doesn't mean much. I certainly won't have one of their devices in the house, but I don't refuse to visit my brother-in-law who has one, which I might for other devices.
Re: Explain to me what the real life cost is of "your data"
ok , so armed with that little treasure trove , I load face book and an advert pops up at the side saying "hey fancy some life insurance?" I'm still not seeing the problem.
In real life, you don't tell everyone you come into contact with (from the door opener at the mall, to your boss, to your spouse, to your doctor) the same things. Sometimes these are big important things, other times they are just "nobody else's business". You are many different persona, presenting many different views of your life to many different groups of people.
Maybe you don't want your potential employer to know you are pregnant. Maybe you don't want your daughter to know, yet, that your doctor has told you you have cancer. Maybe you want to go looking for a new car without the seller knowing your old car has just died and you need to buy something in a hurry. Maybe you coach a kids football team and you don't want them to find out that you are thinking about moving away because it isn't certain yet. Maybe you don't want the investment company you are talking to to know that you have over $1M invested elsewhere because you want them to offer you a discount to get you into saving. Maybe you don't want the car insurance company you have just contacted to know how much your current insurer has quoted. Maybe you don't want Amazon to work out the most you are willing to pay every time it shows you a price.
Maybe you just think cartels are illegal for a reason and you don't want commercial companies exchanging information, gossip and rumour about you -- you need some advantage in negotiating deals in an age with massively asymmetric information.
Re: And on another news item...
This is a really big upcoming fight.
It is clear that under US law content created by machines is not copyrightable. And under the "moral rights" approach often advanced in Europe it should be clear that morals are irrelevant for machines. So, content created by machine should have no copyright at all (even though some people choose to pretend that there is no such thing as content without copyright).
The bigger issue is when there is some human involvement: design of algorithm, effort spent teaching algorithm, facilitation and setup of creation process, selection of outputs, editing, etc. On the other hand, some human contributions are clearly not relevant for copyright: turning the handle on the sausage machine, etc.
If we go back to the purpose of copyright: to promote the creation of content by making sure that creators are fairly compensated. We certainly want to encourage people to create interesting content-generation algorithms. But we don't really want rewards to be based on how many times you turn the handle and create a copy with a few differences (a different colour palette for the same picture, or a different genre for the same novel or movie).
What we need is some clear leadership and thinking about these new issues, otherwise it will be left to the legacy content industries to write the agenda. And their goal will be to maximize payments for whatever they think they can do (and no interest in anything else).
Re: Next time you see a please donate
Or remember the battle Wikipedia has to fight every day against attempts to push the boundaries of copyright beyond what statute says (and, when that fails, to extend the statute itself to steal content belonging to the public) and donate to Wikipedia.
I hope David Slater is very successful in selling his other pictures: I am sure the publicity has been very good for him.
However, that wish has no effect on the purely legal question of whether there is any copyright at all in the monkey selfie. I am not a copyright lawyer so my opinion is worthless but I look forward to this being judged in a court sometime. Although my suspicion is that David Slater will come under a lot of pressure from major wildlife photographers not to let any such case get to court.
Re: Unsupported feature is unsupported
YES the privacy aspect was a bit of a sore spot, but the WAY that privacy was caused (by sending traffic to a different domain) was a problem.
NO, it was NOT a problem and is not a security flaw.
At no time does a user, app or web server end up confused about what site they are accessing -- all the secure steps (https, certificates, etc) use the correct host names. The hack just means that people spying on the unencrypted initial steps of the connection set up see a different, uncontroversial, host name.
I think it is a shame that Google have stopped it working. I suspect that if they really wanted to, they could actually offer this as a (paid for) feature for sites which want to be accessible without their users revealing that they are contacting it.
Re: "an opportunity to invest even more heavily in privacy."
I now have DuckDuckGo
I have now moved on to Searx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searx). It finds more stuff than DDG (DDG is one of the engines it uses), although the tradeoff is that it really isn't so good at ordering the results. And you have to pick an instance to use (or run one yourself).
Re: Seems like a direct correlation...
The obvious flip side is that any clever tech to help FB identify me and track me for cool reasons allows them to identify and track me for nefarious reasons... or for others to do so if FB deliberately or accidentally exposes this data.
Neither of those are the reasons this law exists. The reason this law exists is that the obvious flip side is that other people may have different things going on in their lives and for them the capability is not "bloody cool" it is "bloody scary" or maybe even "life threatening".
Bloody millennials ...I bet you think this song is about you...