It aint their data, it's the owners data. they are simply hijacking ownership.
That's right. However, it that's the case, then the owners explicitly authorized Facebook (and whoever Facebook chooses to partner with) to distribute the data. Whatever is marked as "public" can be viewed by other 3rd parties, but there is no implicit or explicit authorization from owners to those unrelated 3rd parties to redistribute.
This would be, in concept, similar to someone grabbing source and/or binaries from sourceforge.net and selling/redistributing them in violation of their licenses. What robots.txt says is irrelevant. The owners would have a right to complain. Facebook/SourceForge would also have a right to complain because such illegal distribution of data could hurt their legitimate operations.
However, all that may not be what happened. After reading the blog post, it seems like he was only grabbing the data about publicly posted names, usernames, locations and relationships. It's unclear what other details his crawler grabbed, but I don't think those alone can be copyrighted. Per the blog post, Facebook alleged that using accessing their servers with a "web crawler" was not authorized and robots.txt didn't have any legal meaning. That doesn't seem like a valid argument though - if that was the case, then search engines wouldn't and couldn't exist; and, it should be easy to demonstrate that they did and still do allow other search engines (to whom they have no prior explicit agreements) to index their pages.
Whether iControlPad was patented or not is irrelevant. If it was being designed 6 months before Apple "thought of it" then Apple shouldn't be grated a 17 year monopoly on the invention. That would be unfair.
Having said that, Apple's patent application has a slight twist in it that describes the device storing some information on it. If iControlPad doesn't store any game information on the device itself, then it is not affected by this patent application. I still think it shouldn't be granted because just adding this storage component doesn't make it non-obvious in any way, but with USPTO you'll never know.
I read that part about the "second circuitry to retain information about a game" too. I was wondering if that was thrown in there in order to make it sound like something non-obvious; but also still be able to go after "violators" even if they don't store the scores or player profile information because they would otherwise significantly infringe.
Besides, the examples they describe to support this "second circuitry" idea are pretty lame anyway. They say you could plug in your gaming shell to the portable systems at restaurants, waiting rooms, etc. Who in their right mind buy this patented gaming shell on its own which then they would proceed to take to the doctor's office, which in turn would have to have an iPhone or an iPod sitting at the table with the magazines, then proceed to plug this "semi-public" iPhone into their shell and play the game that may or may not be installed on the device?
Even the case with the siblings competition doesn't make sense. You wouldn't buy a separate shell for every person in your household. You would have 1 shell per device, then enter the name of the player when you have the high score.
And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.
It's not that obvious to me (assuming you are referring to software patents). Physical objects have specific properties and perform specific functions using a specific mechanism. These specifics, if they are "non-obvious" and have no prior art, can be patented.
By contrast, software patents are always just algorithms, they are broad and allow for many different variables. They are closer to a concept of an idea, and far from the concept of a specific implementation. They are also (again, in concept) similar to patents on business methods.
If a patent on a physical invention is for a specific type of bottle with the specific type of handle and a specific type of neck and cap that allows you to pour water without spilling it, then by comparison, the software patent is for a method of pouring water without spilling it. There's a big difference between the two.
It seems like Apple's patent lawyers are actively looking out for technology that has been invented/developed but hasn't been patented yet (and is at least somewhat related to their products); and filing patent applications for them. See "multi-touch."
The purpose is dual:
1. Prevent others from patenting the same thing; 2. Use the patents to defend or preemptively attack competitors (see Nokia and HTC respectively).
This makes sense within the current patent system because if they don't do it, someone else might; and then Apple might end up on the defensive. Given that USPTO is extremely lenient with patents and bear no responsibility whatsoever, having the patents locked up in your safe automatically gives you an upper hand against others. Now it becomes a matter of someone having an incentive and financial means to challenge your legal 17-year government granted and protected monopoly.
There is no fucking way there are google servers in 190 some odd countries.
The cliche IT answer to "Where does your cloud store data?" is "Why do you want to know?" And it is with good reason.
The answer is NOYB (none of your business) and it is with good reason. Even though Google provides the service, the data belongs to the customer, i.e. Yale. It is in Yale's discretion where they want to store their data and what reasons they are willing to give out to 3rd parties for doing so.
However, I'll give you a good reason. If Google can guarantee that the data will be stored in certain countries (or even offer an option for an extra fee or whatever), then it will satisfy Yale's comfort level with respect to the privacy and legality of their data.
For example, for argument's sake, if Google could guarantee the data would only stay in the U.S. Yale would be well aware of the legal process and rights with regard to their data. However, this may not be the case in other countries such as China, Iran, Italy, Indonesia, etc.. I bet there are plenty of Chinese students studying at Yale, and there are professors of Chinese descent who then would be exposed if the data is stored in China. If Chinese government gets access to their communication and determines it needs to put certain individuals on their watch list based on their views on free speech, human rights, government, etc. they will risk being detained and jailed next time they travel home to visit relatives or after they finish school. It is in Yale's interest to protect their faculty and students from such threats.
And, from no reasonable perspective, does Yale have to come out and state to any 3rd party, including Google, that so and so is a member of their faculty and they have a concern that that person's communication is stored in such and such countries then they may have a problem. It's NOYB.
On the other hand, why doesn't Google provide an additional service to their clients where they, the clients, get to pick the countries to which their data could potentially be replicated? It seems like a feature that their clients (companies, universities, governments, etc.) would very likely pay extra for; especially considering Google's own recent encounters with Chinese and Italian governments.
To be fair that's an assumption of the system, not the problem with the CAs themselves. The assumption is that either your Internet traffic or CA is not compromised. The point of the CA is to act as an "authority" to confirm the authenticity of the party you are dealing with. If both your Internet traffic and CAs are compromised (especially by the same person) then you do not have any other leg to stand on - you do not have security and that person can manipulate your packets as he/she wishes.
If you want to be more secure, use self-signed certs and physically pick it up from (or give it to) the person you are dealing with. Actually, this could be a service e-mail and other communication providers could provide for an annual fee to their users. I don't know whether the Chinese government will like it or even allow it.
it was Apple who was pushing for actually standardizing on H.264 only for HTML5 video in W3C committee, and Google didn't support it (but neither it supported standardizing Theora as the "minimum requirement").
Yes, Apple wanted a proprietary "standard" (surprise!) and neither Google nor MS jumped out of their seats and yell "hey, that's not right! We should have something everyone could use." Instead they were thinking - if we can cut out small guys we'll have more control. Want to make a small and affordable portable computer that records and plays video using the new web "standard" that everyone else's browser uses? That's one more barrier to entry for you. Does Firefox's increasing market share look attractive? Great target!
That's NOT what the web standards are for!
It's a matter of precise usage of words. "Exclusive" means "excluding others". By definition, a system that is open via plugins is not "exclusive". In your hypothetical IE scenario, it would be correct to say that "IE supports VBScript", but it would be incorrect to say that "IE supports VBScript exclusively", unless you also qualify it as "out of the box".
It is a choice of words - call it however you want, but whether a browser or an OS has certain non-web non-standard APIs or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the said browser supports web standards. Again, by supporting only H264 they are making a statement of how they view the web standards.
That's not a real standard now, is it?
It's not, because it doesn't really standardize anything useful. In contrast, HTML5 does cover many things (as evidenced by the sheer size of the standard). It doesn't cover everything, though.
Correct - this is not about other areas that HTML5 covers. This is about the video tag that is part of the standard, but doesn't really offer anything "useful" with it. The way it currently is:
<video>[patent]</video>
is to create barriers for others and hold hostage innovation on the web. That's the real reason for supporting H264 only.
It's irrelevant whether someone can write something extra that could do something. The exclusivity is what they are shipping "out of the box" or with the immediate availability with their browsers (with the exception of Chrome, but what about youtube - that's a separate can of worms), and are willing to support and maintain throughout the life of their product.
Relying on a 3rd party with no apparent interest to develop and maintain others' browsers does not exactly count for supporting a web standard. If IE only supported VBScript but required a user to install the Javascript 3rd party add-on from an unrelated 3rd party website, you wouldn't call it MS supporting Javascript in IE. In fact, I'd say they support VBScript exclusively, but product XYZ can add other languages to it.
In fact, if we just follow on with that, why not just say the new HTML standard is the <html> tag. Anything that goes in between the opening and closing tags are (or can be) patented proprietary "standards" set by a handful of corporations:
<html>[insert your patented technology here]</html>
That's not a real standard now, is it? Well, that's what they are doing with the video tag.
That's right. Because of those companies, HTML5 failed to standardize on something everyone could freely use. Those same co-conspirator companies are trying to pass H264 as such standard, which we know it's not.
With the distribution of H264 in their browsers, Apple, MS, Google and alike are contending (whether implicitly or explicitly) that they are implementing some kind of web "standard" in their HTML5 video.
That just sounds like putting your words into their mouths to me.
Not really. By choosing to exclusively support a patented proprietary format they are doing it with their actions, no loudspeakers required.
The point is not H264 vs Theora advantages. The point is the difference between a "standard" and a "proprietary extension".
If your definition of a web "standard" is a specification for a patented technology that acts as a barrier to entry to everyone except the select few handful then H264 is your choice.
However, if that's the case, then I do not agree with you. The reason for a WWW "standard" is that it should be free to all to make, distribute and render however they see fit regardless of the OS, platform, hardware, software, day of the week, or weather in Japan. That's the spirit of a true world-wide-web "standard".
That's also part of the reason why some are upset about HTML5 video over Flash. Adobe/Macromedia Flash plugin is a proprietary extension to the browser. There is no secret, or ifs or buts about it. Users are aware they don't have flash on their iPhones. If they don't have it on their computer, they go and download the plugin. With the distribution of H264 in their browsers, Apple, MS, Google and alike are contending (whether implicitly or explicitly) that they are implementing some kind of web "standard" in their HTML5 video. They are trying to blur the line between a true "standard" and a proprietary extension by confusing general public who doesn't know the details (and by general public I mean semi-savvy people who at least know what a web browser or Internet or a website is).
Maybe the next thing will be a proprietary patented Javascript or CSS additions that will be pushed out as an HTML6 "standard" that will only be reasonably available to the select few with deep pockets; that can then sprinkle the licensed goodness to all for "free" or low cost for certain uses, on certain OSes, on certain browsers. Sure that could cover most of the browser market, but is that right?
Screw all that! We should want a web "standard" to be available to everyone equally without any licenses or fees. We should want "standards" that spur technology innovation on the web, not a legal web of patents and licenses that are kept hostage by a handful of corporations. In fact, if those same companies are so keen on defining a true web video "standard" why not invest a pocket change out of $10s of billions cash they each have in their bank accounts and help improve performance of Theora, or release a specification that's truly free for all? The answer is obvious - it's because that's not their intention - their intent is to hold hostage the innovation with software patents.
So, sure go ahead and argue how H264 is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe it is, maybe not, but that's missing the point. The point is it is either a true "standard" OR it's a patented proprietary extension that tries to deceive users and pass itself as the new HTML5 web video "standard". Well, I know which one it is and based on your post, so do you.
Exactly. Android was meant to be used on all kinds of devices with all kinds of different features, of which touchscreen mobile phones are just one (but perhaps the most important to-date) category. If you want a single OS / single device "platform" there are other options available on the market.
1) turn of locate if you want to be private. It's only turned on otherwise by a warrant (yes, a warrant, not just due process), or when you dial 911 and your phone switches to the secure mode for doing so.
That's fine, but missing the point. The argument made was that tower records are a replacement for collecting publicly available information. They are NOT. Whether you have the cell phone with you, on/off, location feature activated or not has no effect on the original argument.
The Fourth Amendment is not about what private entities may or may not do - i.e. it doesn't say "everyone shall have a right to a feature to disable electronic tracking by the government." The Fourth Amendment very clearly says what the government can and cannot do.
I don't disagree with you on the rest of the points. And I'm sure most law enforcement officials are doing their jobs in good faith and they are fair and impartial; and they don't intend to intentionally harm anyone, or violate anybody's privacy or other rights. A lot of the times it's not an easy job to do and I have a great respect for those people.
However, that doesn't mean we abandon our rights, or stop taking them seriously. And there has been nothing said at this point that convinces me that what they propose does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
But anyone is free, like you said, to go to the Congress and ask them to repeal the Fourth Amendment or change its wording to what they think it should be. Either that, or the Supreme Court will hopefully clarify it for everyone.
1) You can go somewhere private, and we still saw you go there.
Not necessarily. You can sit in the back of your friend's tinted car and travel directly from one covered garage on a private property to another. Nobody will see you go anywhere. Yet tower records may have the info. So, tower records are not exactly a replacement of manpower capturing publicly available information.
2) This data is tower location only, not GPS coordinates, it's only accurate to parts of a MILE, not feet or meters. If it gets you within a few city blocks it's doing well....
That's undisputed. However, you also have to consider that when the technology improves, these precedents and laws will be used to gain more power from it. What if 2 years from now towers could track you within a couple of city blocks? Later within a block? A half a block? What's an acceptable limit? All the while the issue is not this limit, the issue is ultimately to prevent abuse of power.
3) lack of a warrant does NOT imply lack of Due Process. Nor does it imply lack of cost or manpower. Tracking you via cell (which is not real time, just history data btw), is more efficient yes, but still requires manpower, an active case file to bill the cost against, and a reason to do so.
It can be both real-time (or near real-time) and historical.
You are right - the lack of warrant does not necessarily mean the lack of due process of law - unless - the law says you cannot do certain things without the warrant; in which case, it does mean there's lack of due process if you do it anyway.
There's nothing PRIVATE about where you went in public, where any officer so deputized could simply have followed you.
That would be true only if you could guarantee that the cell phone towers only track locations when a person is "in public." That's not possible. Just because you have a cell phone does not mean that you are "in public." You could be at home, or at a private property. In fact, that's probably the case for most of the time.
As for your list, the only one the government can not ALREADY do without a warrant is get a customer list from a reseller.
And why not? By that same logic, they could theoretically have posted an officer inside every single business and watch the employees as they handle customers or customer records. Hey, as long as the business "cooperates" (wink, wink) that's just a matter of manpower. So now virtually no information is private and none require a warrant, right?
(though most will give this up willingly, and you can NOT sue the reseller if they do, unless you have a written agreement/contract with them explicitly for them to refuse to release that information, since it is their information).
Absolutely right. This is not about what a private entity may or may not do. This is about what the government needs a warrant for.
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
But it DOES violate. From their own argument:
"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"
Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.
In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:
a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:
- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records - hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records - credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records - libraries reveal to the government their book lending records - dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records - etc.
Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?
I guess it depends on your use - if you are happy with 15-20 apps you won't have issues. If you have 70-80+ apps you are probably approaching the limit.
You also have to consider that any data stored on SD card is potentially insecure as a rogue app with SD card and "full internet" access rights (pretty standard these days) can read and transfer any file from SD card.
I don't like the idea of insecure storage on the SD card, so storing app data on FAT32 filesystem would not be a good security practice. I like the idea of either supporting a better filesystem on it, or having a bigger flash drive on the device.
... and application caches, and databases, and anything else that developer decides to store in the phone memory for you.
Since folks seem unable to stop FUDing
You mean they have run out of excuses. "Folks" cannot FUD if they are seeing low storage error/warning messages on their phones.
Onboard storage has been a non-issue for me
Speak for yourself then, AC. I am using 300 MB of the app storage partition right now. I'd like to think if I upgrade my phone I can install more apps, and not have to delete half of them.
As far as I understand, out of 512 MB internal flash drive only 190 MB is available for apps. 190 MB is nothing for a phone of this stature and does not measure up to the rest of the specs.
Google didn't offer that functionality in their baseline kernel because (supposedly) there were concerns about sd speed (you need to buy class 6 to match onboard memory speeds) and of course removing or losing the card to failure means loss of your apps and functionality.
It's because they don't have a proper security model implemented for apps storage. They currently still use user permissions to prevent copying protected files. In the current state of affairs if Google were to allow apps on SD card, anyone could make a copy of an apk file from one SD card onto another.
512 MB is too little, but with an 8gb micro sd card and apps2sd there was enough room to spin around like julie andrews while singing the hills are alive with the sound of music.
That's right. With the more/faster RAM and better processors apps are also increasing in size - they do more, have more graphics and more content. Good games right now are 20-30MB each. 190 MB storage is like a slap in the face!
I agree for the most part, but in this day and age and the number and variety of available apps and their sizes, you can't restrict application installation space to 190 MB (without apps2sd hacks that have other issues). I don't consider that "beefy" for today's phones. The phone has 512 MB (more than twice that) of RAM for crying out loud!
AFAIK, the only mass produced Android phone that gets to a near reasonable app storage partition size is Samsung Galaxy (1 GB). I easily use 300 MB of it right now.
Host names cannot be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP's DNS services constitutes to "visiting" the resolved host name. You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP's. You can run your own DNS server too.
When a client "visits" a URI it:
1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service 2. makes a connection to the said IP address 3. if connection uses SSL, proceeds with the "handshake" 4. sends host name, URI, and other request info via the above connection
ISPs can log #2, but cannot log #4 without packet inspection. It's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted (e.g. https).
That's assuming Jeff Han wants to get the patent himself and is willing sue Apple for it. Nothing suggests that. If he wanted to apply for the patent, he would have filed his application long before Apple did. In fact, if you do a search for Apple and Jeff Han all you find is rumors that Apple unsuccessfully attempted to hire him prior to iPhone launch.
Moreover, when filing for a patent, applicant has a responsibility to disclose any prior related research on the subject matter. None of Apple's multi-touch patents even mention Jeff Han and his research. It would be incomprehensible to any reasonable person that Apple's "inventors" would be unaware of a high profile research done at NYU and presented at an annual event in front of 1000s of attendees at TED. I don't know what the legal remedy is but I'd guess on that ground alone those patents are invalid.
Here's Jeff Han demonstrating multi-touch interface in Feb. 2006 that he had been working on. Pinch and zoom? Gestures? Multiple fingers/hands? It's all there. You can tell he didn't come up with that overnight.
Looks like someone at Apple noticed his or similar technology/research and said - hey, this hasn't been patented yet!
Give props to the USPTO and the patent system, as usual.
So, what are you saying - that Motorola should reach out to Nokia and hope that Nokia, out of goodness of their heart, will throw their competitors a bone? Nokia has no interest in having their competitors succeed.
Google, on the other hand, has an interest in making their platform succeed for all phone manufacturers because the more phones those manufacturers sell the more they stuff Google's pockets with online services revenue.
Don't get me wrong, I like Maemo and I love Qt (it's one of the best and easiest programming toolkit I've used); but I'd love to hear how Nokia's platform(s) are any "more open" than Android. Because Symbian definitely is NOT.
Slashdot Mirror
It aint their data, it's the owners data. they are simply hijacking ownership.
That's right. However, it that's the case, then the owners explicitly authorized Facebook (and whoever Facebook chooses to partner with) to distribute the data. Whatever is marked as "public" can be viewed by other 3rd parties, but there is no implicit or explicit authorization from owners to those unrelated 3rd parties to redistribute.
This would be, in concept, similar to someone grabbing source and/or binaries from sourceforge.net and selling/redistributing them in violation of their licenses. What robots.txt says is irrelevant. The owners would have a right to complain. Facebook/SourceForge would also have a right to complain because such illegal distribution of data could hurt their legitimate operations.
However, all that may not be what happened. After reading the blog post, it seems like he was only grabbing the data about publicly posted names, usernames, locations and relationships. It's unclear what other details his crawler grabbed, but I don't think those alone can be copyrighted. Per the blog post, Facebook alleged that using accessing their servers with a "web crawler" was not authorized and robots.txt didn't have any legal meaning. That doesn't seem like a valid argument though - if that was the case, then search engines wouldn't and couldn't exist; and, it should be easy to demonstrate that they did and still do allow other search engines (to whom they have no prior explicit agreements) to index their pages.
Whether iControlPad was patented or not is irrelevant. If it was being designed 6 months before Apple "thought of it" then Apple shouldn't be grated a 17 year monopoly on the invention. That would be unfair.
Having said that, Apple's patent application has a slight twist in it that describes the device storing some information on it. If iControlPad doesn't store any game information on the device itself, then it is not affected by this patent application. I still think it shouldn't be granted because just adding this storage component doesn't make it non-obvious in any way, but with USPTO you'll never know.
I read that part about the "second circuitry to retain information about a game" too. I was wondering if that was thrown in there in order to make it sound like something non-obvious; but also still be able to go after "violators" even if they don't store the scores or player profile information because they would otherwise significantly infringe.
Besides, the examples they describe to support this "second circuitry" idea are pretty lame anyway. They say you could plug in your gaming shell to the portable systems at restaurants, waiting rooms, etc. Who in their right mind buy this patented gaming shell on its own which then they would proceed to take to the doctor's office, which in turn would have to have an iPhone or an iPod sitting at the table with the magazines, then proceed to plug this "semi-public" iPhone into their shell and play the game that may or may not be installed on the device?
Even the case with the siblings competition doesn't make sense. You wouldn't buy a separate shell for every person in your household. You would have 1 shell per device, then enter the name of the player when you have the high score.
And in this day and age it's pretty obvious to me that if you allow patents for any physical invention it would be silly not to also offer patents on virtual inventions.
It's not that obvious to me (assuming you are referring to software patents). Physical objects have specific properties and perform specific functions using a specific mechanism. These specifics, if they are "non-obvious" and have no prior art, can be patented.
By contrast, software patents are always just algorithms, they are broad and allow for many different variables. They are closer to a concept of an idea, and far from the concept of a specific implementation. They are also (again, in concept) similar to patents on business methods.
If a patent on a physical invention is for a specific type of bottle with the specific type of handle and a specific type of neck and cap that allows you to pour water without spilling it, then by comparison, the software patent is for a method of pouring water without spilling it. There's a big difference between the two.
It seems like Apple's patent lawyers are actively looking out for technology that has been invented/developed but hasn't been patented yet (and is at least somewhat related to their products); and filing patent applications for them. See "multi-touch."
The purpose is dual:
1. Prevent others from patenting the same thing;
2. Use the patents to defend or preemptively attack competitors (see Nokia and HTC respectively).
This makes sense within the current patent system because if they don't do it, someone else might; and then Apple might end up on the defensive. Given that USPTO is extremely lenient with patents and bear no responsibility whatsoever, having the patents locked up in your safe automatically gives you an upper hand against others. Now it becomes a matter of someone having an incentive and financial means to challenge your legal 17-year government granted and protected monopoly.
Good luck!
There is no fucking way there are google servers in 190 some odd countries.
The cliche IT answer to "Where does your cloud store data?" is "Why do you want to know?" And it is with good reason.
The answer is NOYB (none of your business) and it is with good reason. Even though Google provides the service, the data belongs to the customer, i.e. Yale. It is in Yale's discretion where they want to store their data and what reasons they are willing to give out to 3rd parties for doing so.
However, I'll give you a good reason. If Google can guarantee that the data will be stored in certain countries (or even offer an option for an extra fee or whatever), then it will satisfy Yale's comfort level with respect to the privacy and legality of their data.
For example, for argument's sake, if Google could guarantee the data would only stay in the U.S. Yale would be well aware of the legal process and rights with regard to their data. However, this may not be the case in other countries such as China, Iran, Italy, Indonesia, etc.. I bet there are plenty of Chinese students studying at Yale, and there are professors of Chinese descent who then would be exposed if the data is stored in China. If Chinese government gets access to their communication and determines it needs to put certain individuals on their watch list based on their views on free speech, human rights, government, etc. they will risk being detained and jailed next time they travel home to visit relatives or after they finish school. It is in Yale's interest to protect their faculty and students from such threats.
And, from no reasonable perspective, does Yale have to come out and state to any 3rd party, including Google, that so and so is a member of their faculty and they have a concern that that person's communication is stored in such and such countries then they may have a problem. It's NOYB.
On the other hand, why doesn't Google provide an additional service to their clients where they, the clients, get to pick the countries to which their data could potentially be replicated? It seems like a feature that their clients (companies, universities, governments, etc.) would very likely pay extra for; especially considering Google's own recent encounters with Chinese and Italian governments.
To be fair that's an assumption of the system, not the problem with the CAs themselves. The assumption is that either your Internet traffic or CA is not compromised. The point of the CA is to act as an "authority" to confirm the authenticity of the party you are dealing with. If both your Internet traffic and CAs are compromised (especially by the same person) then you do not have any other leg to stand on - you do not have security and that person can manipulate your packets as he/she wishes.
If you want to be more secure, use self-signed certs and physically pick it up from (or give it to) the person you are dealing with. Actually, this could be a service e-mail and other communication providers could provide for an annual fee to their users. I don't know whether the Chinese government will like it or even allow it.
it was Apple who was pushing for actually standardizing on H.264 only for HTML5 video in W3C committee, and Google didn't support it (but neither it supported standardizing Theora as the "minimum requirement").
Yes, Apple wanted a proprietary "standard" (surprise!) and neither Google nor MS jumped out of their seats and yell "hey, that's not right! We should have something everyone could use." Instead they were thinking - if we can cut out small guys we'll have more control. Want to make a small and affordable portable computer that records and plays video using the new web "standard" that everyone else's browser uses? That's one more barrier to entry for you. Does Firefox's increasing market share look attractive? Great target!
That's NOT what the web standards are for!
It's a matter of precise usage of words. "Exclusive" means "excluding others". By definition, a system that is open via plugins is not "exclusive". In your hypothetical IE scenario, it would be correct to say that "IE supports VBScript", but it would be incorrect to say that "IE supports VBScript exclusively", unless you also qualify it as "out of the box".
It is a choice of words - call it however you want, but whether a browser or an OS has certain non-web non-standard APIs or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the said browser supports web standards. Again, by supporting only H264 they are making a statement of how they view the web standards.
That's not a real standard now, is it?
It's not, because it doesn't really standardize anything useful. In contrast, HTML5 does cover many things (as evidenced by the sheer size of the standard). It doesn't cover everything, though.
Correct - this is not about other areas that HTML5 covers. This is about the video tag that is part of the standard, but doesn't really offer anything "useful" with it. The way it currently is:
<video>[patent]</video>
is to create barriers for others and hold hostage innovation on the web. That's the real reason for supporting H264 only.
It's irrelevant whether someone can write something extra that could do something. The exclusivity is what they are shipping "out of the box" or with the immediate availability with their browsers (with the exception of Chrome, but what about youtube - that's a separate can of worms), and are willing to support and maintain throughout the life of their product.
Relying on a 3rd party with no apparent interest to develop and maintain others' browsers does not exactly count for supporting a web standard. If IE only supported VBScript but required a user to install the Javascript 3rd party add-on from an unrelated 3rd party website, you wouldn't call it MS supporting Javascript in IE. In fact, I'd say they support VBScript exclusively, but product XYZ can add other languages to it.
In fact, if we just follow on with that, why not just say the new HTML standard is the <html> tag. Anything that goes in between the opening and closing tags are (or can be) patented proprietary "standards" set by a handful of corporations:
<html>[insert your patented technology here]</html>
That's not a real standard now, is it? Well, that's what they are doing with the video tag.
HTML5 doesn't standardize on H.264.
That's right. Because of those companies, HTML5 failed to standardize on something everyone could freely use. Those same co-conspirator companies are trying to pass H264 as such standard, which we know it's not.
With the distribution of H264 in their browsers, Apple, MS, Google and alike are contending (whether implicitly or explicitly) that they are implementing some kind of web "standard" in their HTML5 video.
That just sounds like putting your words into their mouths to me.
Not really. By choosing to exclusively support a patented proprietary format they are doing it with their actions, no loudspeakers required.
The point is not H264 vs Theora advantages. The point is the difference between a "standard" and a "proprietary extension".
If your definition of a web "standard" is a specification for a patented technology that acts as a barrier to entry to everyone except the select few handful then H264 is your choice.
However, if that's the case, then I do not agree with you. The reason for a WWW "standard" is that it should be free to all to make, distribute and render however they see fit regardless of the OS, platform, hardware, software, day of the week, or weather in Japan. That's the spirit of a true world-wide-web "standard".
That's also part of the reason why some are upset about HTML5 video over Flash. Adobe/Macromedia Flash plugin is a proprietary extension to the browser. There is no secret, or ifs or buts about it. Users are aware they don't have flash on their iPhones. If they don't have it on their computer, they go and download the plugin. With the distribution of H264 in their browsers, Apple, MS, Google and alike are contending (whether implicitly or explicitly) that they are implementing some kind of web "standard" in their HTML5 video. They are trying to blur the line between a true "standard" and a proprietary extension by confusing general public who doesn't know the details (and by general public I mean semi-savvy people who at least know what a web browser or Internet or a website is).
Maybe the next thing will be a proprietary patented Javascript or CSS additions that will be pushed out as an HTML6 "standard" that will only be reasonably available to the select few with deep pockets; that can then sprinkle the licensed goodness to all for "free" or low cost for certain uses, on certain OSes, on certain browsers. Sure that could cover most of the browser market, but is that right?
Screw all that! We should want a web "standard" to be available to everyone equally without any licenses or fees. We should want "standards" that spur technology innovation on the web, not a legal web of patents and licenses that are kept hostage by a handful of corporations. In fact, if those same companies are so keen on defining a true web video "standard" why not invest a pocket change out of $10s of billions cash they each have in their bank accounts and help improve performance of Theora, or release a specification that's truly free for all? The answer is obvious - it's because that's not their intention - their intent is to hold hostage the innovation with software patents.
So, sure go ahead and argue how H264 is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe it is, maybe not, but that's missing the point. The point is it is either a true "standard" OR it's a patented proprietary extension that tries to deceive users and pass itself as the new HTML5 web video "standard". Well, I know which one it is and based on your post, so do you.
Here's a hint: it's about supporting a standard that no one thought Microsoft would support.
About the only things that can possibly fall into that category for me would be Theora and XUL.
Exactly. Android was meant to be used on all kinds of devices with all kinds of different features, of which touchscreen mobile phones are just one (but perhaps the most important to-date) category. If you want a single OS / single device "platform" there are other options available on the market.
1) turn of locate if you want to be private. It's only turned on otherwise by a warrant (yes, a warrant, not just due process), or when you dial 911 and your phone switches to the secure mode for doing so.
That's fine, but missing the point. The argument made was that tower records are a replacement for collecting publicly available information. They are NOT. Whether you have the cell phone with you, on/off, location feature activated or not has no effect on the original argument.
The Fourth Amendment is not about what private entities may or may not do - i.e. it doesn't say "everyone shall have a right to a feature to disable electronic tracking by the government." The Fourth Amendment very clearly says what the government can and cannot do.
I don't disagree with you on the rest of the points. And I'm sure most law enforcement officials are doing their jobs in good faith and they are fair and impartial; and they don't intend to intentionally harm anyone, or violate anybody's privacy or other rights. A lot of the times it's not an easy job to do and I have a great respect for those people.
However, that doesn't mean we abandon our rights, or stop taking them seriously. And there has been nothing said at this point that convinces me that what they propose does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
But anyone is free, like you said, to go to the Congress and ask them to repeal the Fourth Amendment or change its wording to what they think it should be. Either that, or the Supreme Court will hopefully clarify it for everyone.
1) You can go somewhere private, and we still saw you go there.
Not necessarily. You can sit in the back of your friend's tinted car and travel directly from one covered garage on a private property to another. Nobody will see you go anywhere. Yet tower records may have the info. So, tower records are not exactly a replacement of manpower capturing publicly available information.
2) This data is tower location only, not GPS coordinates, it's only accurate to parts of a MILE, not feet or meters. If it gets you within a few city blocks it's doing well....
That's undisputed. However, you also have to consider that when the technology improves, these precedents and laws will be used to gain more power from it. What if 2 years from now towers could track you within a couple of city blocks? Later within a block? A half a block? What's an acceptable limit? All the while the issue is not this limit, the issue is ultimately to prevent abuse of power.
3) lack of a warrant does NOT imply lack of Due Process. Nor does it imply lack of cost or manpower. Tracking you via cell (which is not real time, just history data btw), is more efficient yes, but still requires manpower, an active case file to bill the cost against, and a reason to do so.
It can be both real-time (or near real-time) and historical.
You are right - the lack of warrant does not necessarily mean the lack of due process of law - unless - the law says you cannot do certain things without the warrant; in which case, it does mean there's lack of due process if you do it anyway.
There's nothing PRIVATE about where you went in public, where any officer so deputized could simply have followed you.
That would be true only if you could guarantee that the cell phone towers only track locations when a person is "in public." That's not possible. Just because you have a cell phone does not mean that you are "in public." You could be at home, or at a private property. In fact, that's probably the case for most of the time.
As for your list, the only one the government can not ALREADY do without a warrant is get a customer list from a reseller.
And why not? By that same logic, they could theoretically have posted an officer inside every single business and watch the employees as they handle customers or customer records. Hey, as long as the business "cooperates" (wink, wink) that's just a matter of manpower. So now virtually no information is private and none require a warrant, right?
(though most will give this up willingly, and you can NOT sue the reseller if they do, unless you have a written agreement/contract with them explicitly for them to refuse to release that information, since it is their information).
Absolutely right. This is not about what a private entity may or may not do. This is about what the government needs a warrant for.
What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?
But it DOES violate. From their own argument:
"a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"
Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.
In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:
a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:
- phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records
- hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records
- credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records
- libraries reveal to the government their book lending records
- dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records
- etc.
Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?
I guess it depends on your use - if you are happy with 15-20 apps you won't have issues. If you have 70-80+ apps you are probably approaching the limit.
You also have to consider that any data stored on SD card is potentially insecure as a rogue app with SD card and "full internet" access rights (pretty standard these days) can read and transfer any file from SD card.
I don't like the idea of insecure storage on the SD card, so storing app data on FAT32 filesystem would not be a good security practice. I like the idea of either supporting a better filesystem on it, or having a bigger flash drive on the device.
190MB for app code.
... and application caches, and databases, and anything else that developer decides to store in the phone memory for you.
Since folks seem unable to stop FUDing
You mean they have run out of excuses. "Folks" cannot FUD if they are seeing low storage error/warning messages on their phones.
Onboard storage has been a non-issue for me
Speak for yourself then, AC. I am using 300 MB of the app storage partition right now. I'd like to think if I upgrade my phone I can install more apps, and not have to delete half of them.
Yes, agreed. 512MB is hardly anything.
As far as I understand, out of 512 MB internal flash drive only 190 MB is available for apps. 190 MB is nothing for a phone of this stature and does not measure up to the rest of the specs.
Google didn't offer that functionality in their baseline kernel because (supposedly) there were concerns
about sd speed (you need to buy class 6 to match onboard memory speeds) and of course removing or losing
the card to failure means loss of your apps and functionality.
It's because they don't have a proper security model implemented for apps storage. They currently still use user permissions to prevent copying protected files. In the current state of affairs if Google were to allow apps on SD card, anyone could make a copy of an apk file from one SD card onto another.
512 MB is too little, but with an 8gb micro sd card and apps2sd there was
enough room to spin around like julie andrews while singing the hills are alive with the sound of music.
That's right. With the more/faster RAM and better processors apps are also increasing in size - they do more, have more graphics and more content. Good games right now are 20-30MB each. 190 MB storage is like a slap in the face!
... beefy the hardware specs were ...
I agree for the most part, but in this day and age and the number and variety of available apps and their sizes, you can't restrict application installation space to 190 MB (without apps2sd hacks that have other issues). I don't consider that "beefy" for today's phones. The phone has 512 MB (more than twice that) of RAM for crying out loud!
AFAIK, the only mass produced Android phone that gets to a near reasonable app storage partition size is Samsung Galaxy (1 GB). I easily use 300 MB of it right now.
Host names cannot be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP's DNS services constitutes to "visiting" the resolved host name. You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP's. You can run your own DNS server too.
When a client "visits" a URI it:
1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service
2. makes a connection to the said IP address
3. if connection uses SSL, proceeds with the "handshake"
4. sends host name, URI, and other request info via the above connection
ISPs can log #2, but cannot log #4 without packet inspection. It's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted (e.g. https).
That's assuming Jeff Han wants to get the patent himself and is willing sue Apple for it. Nothing suggests that. If he wanted to apply for the patent, he would have filed his application long before Apple did. In fact, if you do a search for Apple and Jeff Han all you find is rumors that Apple unsuccessfully attempted to hire him prior to iPhone launch.
Moreover, when filing for a patent, applicant has a responsibility to disclose any prior related research on the subject matter. None of Apple's multi-touch patents even mention Jeff Han and his research. It would be incomprehensible to any reasonable person that Apple's "inventors" would be unaware of a high profile research done at NYU and presented at an annual event in front of 1000s of attendees at TED. I don't know what the legal remedy is but I'd guess on that ground alone those patents are invalid.
That's because they know they'll lose.
Here's Apple's "multi-touch" patent.
Date filed: July 3, 2006
Here's Jeff Han demonstrating multi-touch interface in Feb. 2006 that he had been working on. Pinch and zoom? Gestures? Multiple fingers/hands? It's all there. You can tell he didn't come up with that overnight.
Looks like someone at Apple noticed his or similar technology/research and said - hey, this hasn't been patented yet!
Give props to the USPTO and the patent system, as usual.
So, what are you saying - that Motorola should reach out to Nokia and hope that Nokia, out of goodness of their heart, will throw their competitors a bone? Nokia has no interest in having their competitors succeed.
Google, on the other hand, has an interest in making their platform succeed for all phone manufacturers because the more phones those manufacturers sell the more they stuff Google's pockets with online services revenue.
Don't get me wrong, I like Maemo and I love Qt (it's one of the best and easiest programming toolkit I've used); but I'd love to hear how Nokia's platform(s) are any "more open" than Android. Because Symbian definitely is NOT.