but I thought you needed the "Apps that can appear on top" permission to record what a user is doing in other apps. Without it, the only thing that can be recorded is the developer's own app. This makes the privacy implications much smaller for most apps, since the developer will always have access to know what it is showing you (along with what you tap/type/press) as that is inherent in its ability to be interactive.
That's not to say privacy couldn't be improved. In particular, "Apps that can appear on top" does not convey the ability to record a person's activities, so that really should to be renamed (or else sectioned out into a different permission). Also, for apps like web browsers and clients that connect to servers not operated by/for the developer, recording interactions in one's own app is a much bigger issue. I'm still not sure if there's anything that can be done about this security-wise though, because -- again -- the app needs access to the data in order to display it.
Lastly, I feel like screenshots (as opposed to data like coordinates, strings values of fields, etc) are a kind of crude method for analytics anyway, yet they're the only thing this study focuses on. So it kind of gives a false impression to criticize this SDK, when I'm sure essentially the same information is transmitted (much more frequently) in text form and couldn't be detected by this survey.
I've seen both terms used in regards to this phone and I don't trust the media not to use these terms interchangeably. I don't even know that the FBI has stated one way or the other.
If it's encrypted though, the government is on its own to brute force it and Apple can't help decrypt it even if they wanted to, so this is a debate about nothing.
Apple can theoretically unlock the device by flashing it with new signed firmware, but I didn't understand in the San Bernardino case either why the FBI didn't just disassemble the phone and directly download the data from the flash memory chip.
YouTube shouldn't be blamed. They are just following the law.
Fox should be blamed though, for filing a frivolous (not to mention false) copyright claim.
Those complaining about "innocent until proven guilty" or that there should be some sort of vetting by YouTube of DMCA takedown notices before they are enforced likely aren't very familiar with the DMCA, which affords content uploaders (such as 'sw1tched') the right to submit a DMCA counter-claim (in this case, a simple letter to YouTube asserting that the content doesn't infringe on Fox's intellectual property) at which point YouTube would reinstate the video.
Furthermore, there is some precedent for suing the party that made the infringement claim. In order to file the original DMCA notice, Fox's lawyers had to assert (under penalty of perjury) that they had "a good faith belief that use of the material" was not permitted per their copyrights. If 'sw1tched' can demonstrate that they acted in bad faith (such as by pointing to the fact they DMCAed a video clearly uploaded way before this episode was created, and possibly taken for the purposes of creating the episode) then he wins.
Slashdot Mirror
but I thought you needed the "Apps that can appear on top" permission to record what a user is doing in other apps. Without it, the only thing that can be recorded is the developer's own app. This makes the privacy implications much smaller for most apps, since the developer will always have access to know what it is showing you (along with what you tap/type/press) as that is inherent in its ability to be interactive. That's not to say privacy couldn't be improved. In particular, "Apps that can appear on top" does not convey the ability to record a person's activities, so that really should to be renamed (or else sectioned out into a different permission). Also, for apps like web browsers and clients that connect to servers not operated by/for the developer, recording interactions in one's own app is a much bigger issue. I'm still not sure if there's anything that can be done about this security-wise though, because -- again -- the app needs access to the data in order to display it. Lastly, I feel like screenshots (as opposed to data like coordinates, strings values of fields, etc) are a kind of crude method for analytics anyway, yet they're the only thing this study focuses on. So it kind of gives a false impression to criticize this SDK, when I'm sure essentially the same information is transmitted (much more frequently) in text form and couldn't be detected by this survey.
Or both?
I've seen both terms used in regards to this phone and I don't trust the media not to use these terms interchangeably. I don't even know that the FBI has stated one way or the other.
If it's encrypted though, the government is on its own to brute force it and Apple can't help decrypt it even if they wanted to, so this is a debate about nothing.
Apple can theoretically unlock the device by flashing it with new signed firmware, but I didn't understand in the San Bernardino case either why the FBI didn't just disassemble the phone and directly download the data from the flash memory chip.
Won't all existing fobs have to be reprogrammed?
YouTube shouldn't be blamed. They are just following the law.
Fox should be blamed though, for filing a frivolous (not to mention false) copyright claim.
Those complaining about "innocent until proven guilty" or that there should be some sort of vetting by YouTube of DMCA takedown notices before they are enforced likely aren't very familiar with the DMCA, which affords content uploaders (such as 'sw1tched') the right to submit a DMCA counter-claim (in this case, a simple letter to YouTube asserting that the content doesn't infringe on Fox's intellectual property) at which point YouTube would reinstate the video.
Furthermore, there is some precedent for suing the party that made the infringement claim. In order to file the original DMCA notice, Fox's lawyers had to assert (under penalty of perjury) that they had "a good faith belief that use of the material" was not permitted per their copyrights. If 'sw1tched' can demonstrate that they acted in bad faith (such as by pointing to the fact they DMCAed a video clearly uploaded way before this episode was created, and possibly taken for the purposes of creating the episode) then he wins.