1438 posts • joined 6 Sep 2006
Re: Right to be forgotten
"I don't quite understand is what Google et al are realistically meant to do in order to pre-emptively filter out results, or why they should do so at all. The responsibility surely lies with the people publishing the information"
Yes. That'll be Google. The CJEU had to balance two fundamental rights (privacy, free expression) and in Gonzalez v Google Sp. (2014) determined that Google was effectively publishing (and republishing) private information continually. Google had argued that it was that it was an offshore data processing business, and was not therefore subject to EU privacy rules. The actual computation took place somewhere else, outside the EU. This was rejected.
Of course the publishers have a responsibility and we receive such requests regularly. I'm struggling to see the logic in 2018 that because one publisher takes responsibility, another Google doesn't have to take any at all. Google continually filters Search. That argument has long gone. Is that what you meant?
Re: Have they got Andrew locked in a bunker?
Samsung would have objected if I'd waltzed off down The Strand with pockets full of unreleased Note 9s. Which would have been pointless anyway, as it was very dark outside.
Vitamin D is always a good idea in an English summer - even one like this.
Re: May we please stop calling them phones?
I always mention telephony - it's a golden rule. And I did right here. Every phone is tested on 2+ networks in the nastiest notspots I can find.
(And given more time and resources, I'd devote pages to signal and audio quality and do proper testing. It's what many of you want. )
Re: much larger resonance chamber
Exactly. Which is why I wrote:
"For the superior audio you'll need accessories, and in the case of HiRes audio, decent accessories."
The perils of skim reading, eh?
Re: The biggest corporation of all is actually...
"These aren't little two-people-in-a-shed companies "
Actually, most are. You need to visit more record labels. Many would be glad to have an actual shed.
It was small independent labels who got a worse deal than big labels, because when you have dominant market power you can screw the little guy harder:
And if you are a dominant player dealing with a DIY artist, who is her own label and publisher, you can completely grind them into the ground:
So that was the background which persuaded the European Commission that there was an unfair playing field. Apple and Spotify supported the change - they don't enjoy the UGC loophole. Google has the filters but uses them as a competitive weapon.
Disclaimer: tweaking Article 13 would not be *my* preferred option when one dominant player is exploiting a unique advantage in one sector. That seems a classic case for a surgical strike using competition law. Google is abusing its monopoly position in video distribution. Nice, clean and simple. But objecting to the law because (the activist slogan this week) it helps entrench Google, or (the usual Chicken Little response from slacktivists) the sky might fall, doesn't help level the playing field.
I ran out of time. It's coming
Re: "The US approach maximises consumer welfare"
It may do that as well, but "consumer welfare" is a technical term:
...which really means lower prices. The prevailing theory in US antitrust is that if prices are lower, then everyone's a happy bunny.
I think you mean the Fleetwood Mac song:
"I Want You To Xiaomi Huawei"
h/t: Thomas Newton for that one.
There's nothing wrong with being a fool when you're young - you're growing up.
If you're still doing it when you're 40, you're probably a barrister.
" I like to look back at my location history when I'm filling out mileage claims (or just waking up from a GREAT weekend)"
Slight GLITCH in the Matrix there, I reckons.
Re: No Slater did not intentionally set it up.
Very little of that is correct. The US Copyright Office clarified that animals can't own copyright. It didn't need to go any further. This was stated in the third Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices which was being updated at the time.
"There was no 'setup' or placement or intention for the equipment to be used by passing animals"
The fact that Slater had gone to Indonesia for the purpose of taking photos of monkeys, and a photo was taken using his equipment laid out for the purpose of er, taking photos, is quite sufficient. Most TV wildlife footage falls into this category: it is activated by the non-human subject. Victory for TechDirt/Wikimedia/PETA would have resulted in the BBC and others losing huge amounts of material. They were seriously worried at the time.
Let me know when the macaques have designed and built their own camera - then you may have an argument.
Re: Can I ask...
Is a Porter or an IPA OK? Prosecco is for stripping paint with, and lager is for catching snails.
I've been eating five haggis a day - wait. Does this not count?
"Isn't Psion a registered trademark or something? Some kind of protection to keep the real memories alive?"
Planet doesn't use the Psion brand or trademark anywhere.
"Sorry, but I find it seriously awkward that I hear no one ever mentioning once how this device managed to handle their appointments."
The Calendar app that Planet has created isn't ready to ship yet. Perhaps you'll hear more when it does. Until then, assume it handles appointments just like any Android handles appointments.
Those bananas are for blending then drinking, rather than eating, so I don't mind them being very ripe.
Because the tin robin is quite partial to it.
Re: *Points in disappointment*
The Notch is optional. You can turn it off, it then looks like a phone with a very thin top bezel, rather than a phone with a very very thin top bezel and a Notch. Puzzles me why so many phone makers want to introduce a Notch just to lose one very.
Facebook's inflection point: Now everyone knows this greedy mass surveillance operation for what it is
Re: don't worry, our ads aren't as effective as we told you
Thanks - that's the most relevant comment of all in this debate. I've written a piece about this (predates this one), but we haven't run it yet.
Consider that most people block out ads (and many run ad-blockers), and that behavioural targeting is soooo good, I get targeted with Club18-30 holidays, while students get targeted with retirement ads from Saga. The whole business is borked - something Zuckerberg can't admit - or at least nowhere near as effective as he wants us to believe.
The 2016 Election was a freak result, but I think this might have had more to do with it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/trump-clinton-debate-prep/index.html - in fact, have a look at Clinton's campaign schedule for the final month.
Re: Huawei has no Brand Recognition
"phones, like for Samsung, are just a sideshow for Huawei, an attempt to get their name seen. They are all about networks and networking, the phone is just a marketing thing."
Consumer devices (mostly phones) brought in $30-35 billion for Huawei last year (yes, billion).
Quite "a marketing thing".
Re: Chinese government
"Huawei was set up by, and is currently led by ..."
I am struggling to find a single fact in your comment that is correct.
"Put somebody who doesn't understand tech in charge of it."
Like Tim Berners Lee?
This is a very interesting and important point AC, but by "this avenue is not available for common people" I presume you mean the High Court not the ICO process, which is free to use.
RTBF is a tool for people who are not famous, are not public figures, and can't afford Hugh Tomlinson QC.
Re: Key Point
"The case hinges on whether a random search is basic journalism requiring reasonable judgement about the reliability of the information, relevance, importance, etc to the final result."
It should do, as this is a sensible description. But the UK Courts have already established that journalism may mean distribution of documents written by others, and this is what Google is arguing it does.
"It's inconceivable that music industry execs have decided to get in bed with other middle men to extend their perpetual shafting of the artists"
Only to a moron who didn't RTFA, but as usual, your hatred of the writer has clouded your ability to read or think clearly.
The majors have large equity stakes in Spotify, and will profit hugely from the IPO. As much as $3.39 billion. So the incentives for the majors has been: keep quiet, then cut and run, rather than develop the digital music market for the long term.
It's all in there. You only have to read, but you prefer to make a clot of yourself.
"Basically, technology old-timer IBM doesn't exactly mind seeing laws passed that make it harder for Google and other internet whippersnappers to rake in money."
I'm intrigued by this. How is Google inconvenienced by a law on sex trafficking. Is Google actually a sex trafficker? Similarly with political ads, and checking where they come from - this should not be onerous.
If being obliged to act ethically is an inconvenience, we need new Googles. These ones aren't worth defending.
Congress told Google "don't you dare pull a SOPA on this." Instead it sends its grumbles through EFF and other client organisations, but that's all it can do now. Grumble.
To make a call you start the Phone app (it's on the Dock) or hit Fn-Esc. You can then close the lid and carry on talking. It doesn't matter which way up you hold it, as there are two mics, and it works out which one is nearest your gob.
I would like to have tested this of course, but the SIM slot isn't working. If you have a wrist-jobbie that gives you alerts, it becomes feasible to replace a regular phone.
I wish I could understand a word of that.
But I have a feeling I need to improve my “pose estimation”.
You must be new here, Doug.
Re: Apologies to hijack this thread...
"Throw it into the bottom of your laptop bag, bung a load of stuff on top and see how good the tough outside case really is."
Exactly. Or a child's backpack.
Re: Wikipedia infaillible ? No!
"Britannica contains many inaccuracies, Wikepedia as well, however, studies have confirmed that in general, Wikipedia was better than Britannica."
I'm betting that on the evidence of your spelling and accuracy, you are a Wikipedian?
Your positing the hypothetical of ISPs choking startups against the reality of Google, Facebook choking startups. OK, then.
"If you're worried about Google's market share..."
Why the if? Is competition optional? The economic dominance by a few big players is not a trivial issue. There hasn't been a competitor emerge for over a decade. And where did your personal data go today? You do't know and neither do I.
Title II repeal keeps an easily distracted mob busy, while the Sans Culotte butcher "draws dotted lines on their hides".
No. A Government was lobbied by one massive corporation to shaft another massive corporation, and gave in. The ad market in India now belongs to Google: a monopoly, rather than the duopoly we have here:
It's called "crony capitalism".
Re: I wish the writer had dug into this just a little more..
They're for India and China. Yes, a London launch but no UK press.
Let me know when you have finished digging.
Re: Whitelist vs Blacklist
I don't think children are scared of philosophy, they ask some really good questions in my experience.
I think the philosophers, especially in the USA, are terrified of the children!
Kraftwerk only made two "prog" LPs (when they were a two piece, and a few tracks feature drums)
After that it was all pop. But then JMJ is pop too?
Re: You can accuse Oracle of many things but it isn't an ad-slinger...
"I'm not defending Google"
You very much are, indirectly, by questioning the credentials of someone trying to break up an important monopoly. (Hence: "the idiot points at the finger").
Re: Not GDPR relevent
Schrems original motivation was as I explained - permissionless tracking.
Re: You can accuse Oracle of many things but it isn't an ad-slinger...
No, Oracle isn't an ad-slinger. Oracle's bottom line would certainly benefit from a more diverse digital ad market, and this is why they're going after the Google-Facebook duopoly. Going after monopolies successfully usually does improve the market, with more new entrants.
Oracle's complaint expresses what pretty much everyone in the ad industry says, but won't point out in public, for fear of being (metaphorically) kneecapped.
You read right, Dave. Reviewers have had the device for days, which is plenty of time to find its flaws. We weren't permitted to disclose them until 2pm Monday GMT.
This is another unusual and suspect practice and it's not something we're comfortable with - as it involves deceiving the readers to some extent. What do you think?
It truncates Reg comments, just when you least
There is no fog in that picture.
Re: Wonder how many of these right to be forgotten people
"Right to be forgotten is a far too easy way for politicians and influential people to hide things about their activities that may look a bit iffy"
How, exactly? The politician would need to convince a court that there is no public interest justification for continuing publication of the material. There, a public interest defence can be advanced. Very few politicians or celebrities win these.
Re: Essential service
If it's "essential" do you mind that it's partial, and succumbs to corporate pressure? Or is "full of holes" good enough?
"a religious cult which regards information as Divine "
The cult is contemporary and Swedish, but information worship goes back to Gnosticism. After Comte ("Religion of Humanity), there were a number of religions of positivism. One disciple was Teixeira Mendes who put "Order and Progress" on the Brazilian flag.
Brewster and Memory Holes
"We don't see people trying to modify the records that we've stored," Kahle told The Register.
Archive.org seems very happy to modify the record itself. How do I know?
Back in 2003, when Carly Fiorina as CEO, HP requested the deletion of material it found embarrassing, and Archive.org happily complied. I recall this made things difficult for us journalists to corroborate previous statements, and so hold the executives to account.
So I find the Memory Hole competition richly ironic. Archive.org *is* the memory hole.
Real archives have exceptions for copying and preservation, and the kind of threats HP made could be ignored. Don't mistake Brewster's collection for a real archive.
The Top 10%'s share of income has not changed since 1990. Income inequality has narrowed slightly in the past few years.
The change is within the Top 10%: the "super-rich" are racing away from the rest of the "rich" (£50,000-£150,000pa). You particular notice this in the money laundering capital of the world, Dubai-on-Thames.
Re: "if this wasn't like a householder objecting to these newfangled aeroplanes flying over"
That's excellent. Everyone should use this if confronted with the analogy again.
@ScissorHands strikes again
Yes, but it was a UX on one single phone that you couldn't buy. Not sold in most countries. Not even marketed. No one gives a crap.
The timeline/hub was 18 months later came in BB10, a mass market platform. And that swipe to multitask stuff was in WebOS in 2009.
The same sort of school that blows £50,000 of its PTA's money on iPads, I would guess.