KDE adds Safari feel to desktop Linux - The KDE Project has released a significant update to its K Desktop Environment software that includes refinements to the Konqueror Web browser derived from collaboration with Apple's Safari browser team.
KDE's Konqueror Browser Reaps Safari Benefits - In a perfect example of how open source and proprietary software can benefit each other, Apple got a significant headstart by basing Safari on established technologies like KHTML & Konqueror. And in return, Apple's contributions back to the open source community have benefitted Konqueror.
* Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) -...of course. This was the main focus of the keynote. A "feature complete" version of Leopard was demonstrated, and all WWDC attendees receive the current, feature complete beta of Leopard and Leopard Server. Demos, movies, and more information about all of the many new features are available here. No one outside of the conference will receive these builds (but can be expected to receive later seeds). Leopard is still on track to ship in October. Leopard is $129, or $69 edu/govt (as usual). Free/cheap upgrades to Leopard will likely only for hardware purchased within month prior to its release (also as usual). (See also Leopard Server).
* iPhone third party development - iPhone, previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications. Details on this are a little sketchy, and it's not what some hoping for a full iPhone SDK wanted, but it appears that all external app development will happen via web apps. However, it also appears such apps will appear as and have the look and feel of other iPhone apps. While this is news, it appears analysts are interpreting this as "new bad news", even though there was no expectation previously that iPhone would be an open platform, since it appeared that it would be closed, and this announcement is actually a positive development over the previous situation. iPhone is also still in schedule to ship on June 29 at 6pm via Apple retail stores and AT&T corporate stores. Still no news on specifics for online sales, preordering, etc.
* Safari Mac OS X and Windows - Safari is now available, in its 3.0 beta form, on Mac OS X 10.4.9 and Windows XP/Vista. At first glance, Safari is much, much faster than it was previously on Mac OS X, and includes a range of new features. This is the same version of Safari that will ship on Leopard and (essentially) iPhone. Safari is now also available on Windows; this is obviously going to be used as a channel of development for iPhone, since all external iPhone apps will essentially be Safari web apps.
* No new hardware, but the Apple Store and the rest of the Apple web site has a new look (which was why the Apple Store was down, which some see as an indication of new hardware announcements).
The talk of massive "increases" is a bit deceptive. The reason there appears to be more "intelligence" spending is that a lot more things are considered "intelligence" activities now.
TFA speaks to this exact point. The biggest increase didn't happen between "1995 and 2005" or "2000 and 2005", but between 2001-2003, when the largest government restructuring in nearly sixty years - since the creation of DOD and CIA with the National Security Act of 1947 - added a whole slew of capabilities and entities to the "intelligence" infrastructure of the United States, with the addition of DHS to the IC and the creation of the position and office of DNI.
It's all about organizational structure and what elements are considered intelligence. For example, a lot of elements now considered part of the "intelligence" budget are also part of the "defense" budget. And then you put the "intelligence" and "defense" budgets next to each other and they look really large, don't they? Except they're not additive. Nearly all of the "increase" comes from now including many defense activities and domestic security components under the guise of "intelligence".
Sure, we've increased intelligence spending. But intelligence spending still only around 2.5% of the total US budget. Defense spending is less than 20% (not anywhere near the "over half" some people like to say). We've also increased the number and types of programs that fall under the high-level, broad "intelligence" umbrella.
As an aside, for people concerned about outsourcing and contractors, the IC is considering that issue as well, but the fact is that the IC couldn't function without the array of products, services, and capabilities it obtains via specialty contractors.
I didn't say that was right, either. I said it was playing politics. And the two points aren't mutually exclusive.
And, to answer your question, it has EVERYTHING to do with Plame's outing. A lot of people think it was just a vindictive act to "get back" at Wilson. That was actually incidental (again, NOT saying it was right). The reason she was "outed" was in response to Wilson's editorial, saying, hey, this guy AND his wife have kind of a conflict of interest here. Like, the whole reason Wilson even has this pulpit for criticizing the administration is because he was sent "by his wife"[1] to Africa, and his wife and Wilson have clear political opinions on the administration's general positions on military action against Iraq.
While there may be internal procedures to deal with things like this, 1.) they obviously didn't work, since Wilson was sent, and 2.) Wilson was given an avenue to speak against administration policies because of his wife's position. "Outing" her (and again, I don't agree with it) was playing politics just as much as she, but especially Wilson, was. Oh, but what she did was "less" bad? I disagree. Using a position that isn't supposed to be political for political posturing from a position of secrecy is worse than a politician playing politics. Neither should have been done, and both were wrong, and arguing which is "worse" is academic.
[1] He wasn't really sent "by his wife"; but her team within CIA absolutely was involved in making the decision, and should have known better. And she should have almost insisted he not be sent because of this. This is why we have the notion of conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety: judges recuse themselves from cases even if they don't have an actual conflict, but just an appearance of one. I think that Wilson being sent and then using what was an official, non-political governmental factfinding capacity to turn around and chastise the administration on the editorial pages of the New York Times (hint: that's not the role of someone in that position) was just as bad as floating the whole reason he was doing this factfinding in the first place.
So the best example you can come up with is an isolated event almost four decades ago where state national guardsmen acting (inappropriately, some might say) in a police capacity killed four people, and that's an indictment of all and all operations of the entire defense and intelligence infrastructure for all time?
And yes, I realize we can all come up with more examples of fraud, abuse, illegal or questionable activities, etc. and so on, but it has nothing to do with militarism or jingoism, sorry to say. The statement that "nearly all of what the US defense and intelligence infrastructure does day-in, day-out is focused on protecting the people of the United States" is an accurate one, even including all the negatives.
If all you can see is the bad acts (or in some cases not "bad", but just those you personally disagree with) of any entity, and can't separate individual mistakes or bad acts from the larger roles, you're in a far deeper slumber than the ones you'd accuse others of not waking from.
I voted about 70-75% for Democratic candidates in the last several local and national elections. Unlike you, I consider individual ideas and policies as appropriate for local, state, and national issues, and don't simply regurgitate the ridiculous party line accusatory bullshit that is all you seem capable of.
Also, I don't like Rush Limbaugh, and don't listen to him (or any other talk radio). The fact that you see no problem with Plame's husband doing the African factfinding speaks utter volumes.
Back in the 60s there was a popular story (probably an urban legend, but still a good story) about a realtor in McLean, VA, who needed to do a report on how many people worked in the area. That would include CIA headquarters. The CIA refused to release any figures -- it's a national secret! So the guy called up the Soviet embassy, which was happy to provide the data he needed.
You're right. That is an urban legend. Designed to be funny, and designed to make a point that isn't really accurate, or at best is massively oversimplified.
Secrecy, often as not, is less about keeping the bad guys in the dark than about avoiding public scrutiny.
...says a cynic. Secrecy in free societies with freely elected governments is almost always about keeping the bad guys in the dark.[1] The fact that "public scrutiny" (which is supposed to happen by proxy with Congressional oversight, by the way) is simultaneously hindered is incidental.
[1] No, really. I know there are a lot of people out there who think a lot of what the defense or intelligence community does is corrupt, underhanded, evil, designed to subvert freedom (of our own people), line pockets of the rich, etc., but believe it or not, nearly all of what the US defense and intelligence infrastructure does day-in, day-out is focused on protecting the people of the United States. There might be disagreement on how and when to best do that, but that's a public policy and political issue, not one of defense or intelligence.
Question is, does it include the recent trend of outsourcing intelligence work ?
Um, yes, that's what this entire issue is about.
The blog that contains this article is called "The Spy Who Billed Me: Outsourcing the War on Terror", and the presentation itself is titled "Procuring the Future", and is entirely dedicated to contractors and contract acquisition, and the fact that the IC couldn't function or do its job without the variety of speciality contractors and services. The way the IC budget was "deduced" was by seeing dollars spent on contractors, and the knowledge that constituted "70%" of spending.
Yeah, the contract issue in general is one of concern, but, like all things, it's not simply "good" or "bad"; it has benefits, drawbacks, advantages, and problems, and the key is proper management of such resources. Keep in mind that all contractor issues aren't "outsourcing" in the way some like to think: it includes all manner of acquisition of capabilities and services, which also necessarily includes labor.
I've got news for you, buddy. I didn't agree with the vast majority of Rumsfeld's policies, didn't vote for Bush, am not a Bush "worshipper", and could hardly be called a "Republican", considering my voting record.
See, some people don't think everything is one "side" or the other, like you do, and don't constantly vilify every single thing that Bush or anyone else who is Republican/conservative simply because they are. I bet you're a nice party-line Democrat/liberal (maybe Green mixed in, too?) voter, though, right? A real "open-minded" thinker?
On Plame: perhaps there shouldn't have been a massive, glaring conflict of interest by her own workgroup essentially sending her *husband* on the fact-finding mission? Especially when she and her husband have espoused obvious political positions in conflict with the administration's? (Hint: that isn't an intelligence officer's function or purpose.) This was playing politics on both sides, and I'm sorry, but no one has a monopoly on playing politics.
Your colorful language ("Rumsfeldian", "denial junkies", "you are too sick to try to cure with facts", "shoddy lies" expose you for what you are: yet another black-and-whiter who thinks anything that the GOP or anyone with any Republican/conservative affiliation does is naturally evil and all dedicated to perpetuating the blind sheep police state you think we're living in (or will be living in), and that only you and your ilk are "enlightened" and know the "facts" and the "truth". Spare me.
No. The US government's budget, as a whole, was never a secret. People have been deducing and estimating, rather accurately, the entirety of the "intelligence budget" for decades.
What was secret was the budget for individual pieces of the intelligence community, which can imply underlying specific operations, programs, and technologies on which a nation may be spending money. And that should be secret. This, however, necessarily means that the total exact amount spent on intelligence programs is also secret. So we have a situation where we don't know something like:
1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 7 = 37
but do know:
A + B + C + D + E + X + ??? = 37 (approximately)
This has always been the case, will continue to be the case, as it should be, and is still the case even though this broad and vague number of how much is spent on "contractors", coupled with a percentage of total spent on contractors, is known.
And even this number isn't likely accurate, because what is or isn't "intelligence" is a matter of definitions and organization. All of these items are being paid for regardless. This is like saying what the "defense" budget is. Sure, we can throw out a huge number under the umbrella of DOD. But some of that money is also part of the "intelligence" budget. In fact, a huge chunk is. So which is it? Defense? Intelligence? Both?
And yes, a lot of this information about granular budgets of individual agencies and programs has been successfully kept from adversaries. It's not like we want to keep a total of ALL intelligence spending secret; the Soviet Union didn't even really care about that when it existed, and could deduce it accurately enough if it cared. What it WOULD care about is things like NRO's budget, or the budgets of the cryptanalysis components of the services, or NGA's budget, or line items in those budgets, etc. THAT is why the "intelligence budget" has properly been "secret".
It's not like it's a mystery how much we're paying in taxes.
So, the Director of National Intelligence should be fired because a PowerPoint presentation reveals something that is so broad and vague, given the that fact that the "intelligence" budget is "secret" has been a joke for the last decade?
The reason the intelligence budget has been secret has been so adversaries can't see how much you're spending on any one agency, which can imply underlying operations or technologies and techniques depending on how granular budget breakdowns were. It's never been that the total number has been "secret"; it's been that many of the constituent elements have been correctly kept secret, which necessarily means that the total amount can't be known exactly.
What is or isn't "intelligence" is a matter of definition, and as the article notes, it's just a matter of the fact that the DNI is now getting ahold of the fragmented budgets of the thousands of fragmented components and programs in the sixteen Intelligence Community components, many of which are in DOD, that currently fall under the operational guise of "intelligence", including massive chunks of NSA and entire agencies managing assets in space, like NRO.
Even this number doesn't likely accurately represent the "intelligence" budget, since so many areas are a mix of other disciplines, especially national security.
(Way to get in an off-topic post that manages to rant about conspiracy theories, Orwell (can we have a Godwin's Law for Orwell references at some point?), religion, and Hurricane Katrina all in one, though. America does not "serve at the president's pleasure" (nice US Attorney firing reference, though! Bravo!), no one thinks terrorism is to blame for everything or even most things (except for the things for which it is to blame, and some choose willful ignorance about the scope and nature of the problem), and Bush himself routinely has said that he has made mistakes and bad decisions, and no one except complete idiots would think anyone of any political stripe is "never wrong". And Katrina. Ugh. Fastest federal response ever to a disaster of that size and scope, and the local and state agencies knew about this for several, several days, and DID have the capability to do a lot more, and didn't. So, what, you want more federal control over states and localities? Maybe a law to allow domestic use of the military in natural disasters? Oh, wait...that is really Bush's secret attempt to declare martial law, right? I can't keep up.)
To follow up on this comment a bit, it's not like these aren't all elements that weren't already being paid for out of some budget. They were. It's just that a lot of the pieces in the past were probably considered part of the "defense" budget as opposed to the "intelligence" budget. It's a semantic distinction when it comes to the dollars, but I'll agree it is interesting for people to know from an organizational perspective, especially since the Intelligence Community budget has traditionally been officially secret.
The "intelligence budget" is just a matter of definitions.
The intelligence community is so large and diverse, that it is literally quite possible that the government itself didn't know how much money was spent on "intelligence".
This top line $60 billion figure is 25% above the estimated $48 billion budget for FY 08. It is quite probable that this total figure was not even known by the government until recently. Greater control and oversight of the Intelligence Community budget was a hallmark of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave it the mandate to get an overview of the entire amount spent on intelligence government-wide. To this end, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has recently gathered all parts of the previously fragmented Intelligence Community budget together for the first time as part of its Intelligence Resource Information System (IRIS). In the report from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence released last Thursday, the committee praised the Office of the Director of Intelligence for creating a "single budget system called the Intelligence Resource Information System." It also recognizes their efforts in helping create what "will be used for further inquiry by the Committee's budget and audit staffs and will be a baseline that allows the Congress and DNI to derive trend data from future reports."
Earlier, lower estimates were most likely only included what fell directly under the Director of Central Intelligence and which would have omitted parts of NSA, NRO. A total Intelligence Community number, with the Intelligence Community as defined by 50 U.S.C. 401a(4), would also now include the various military intelligence services (e.g. Army Intel, Navy Intel, etc.), each with its respective weapon technology intelligence exploitation shop. A total budget would also include a large portion of the budget of the Department of Homeland Security which was previously fragment across multiple government agencies. A $60 billion government-wide Intelligence Community budget is not at all out of line with the post 9/11 organizational reality. It seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget.
When you're dealing with sixteen separate agencies, including elements from the Department of Defense, to say something like "intelligence budget" is almost meaningless. What's pure intelligence? What's national defense? What is a mix? In fact, it often comes down to what some particular task or program is "anointed" by management. Different areas get reorganized and shuffled into different organizational structures. To say nothing of the fact that the addition of DHS to the Intelligence Community was the largest government reorganization in over a half-century, since the creation of the Department of Defense and CIA by the National Security Act of 1947.
Shuffle more, and you can probably make the "intelligence" budget appear lower. But the truth is that "it seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget."
And that should be a good thing.
On a different note, revealing classified or sensitive information by improper handling of technology solutions is a perennial problem, and it still floors me that the vetting and release process doesn't properly capture things like this (though they've gotten MUCH better).
I (like many people), was originally shocked to find out the user name and email is embedded in the file being unaware that this was in fact *always* the case. Despite all the folks here pointing out that it was always the case, how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret.
You were "shocked" to learn this?
Click song -> Get Info
Your name as the purchaser is on everything ever purchased from the iTunes Store, plain as day, along with the track name, album name, artist, genre, and so on.
So, to what standard to we hold Apple or purchasers to inform or find out respectively about something that's blindingly obvious, NOT hidden, and NOT obfuscated in any way?
Now you bring up the point about a EULA. How many users read those? Even if it was in the EULA (and frankly something to that effect may or may not be; I haven't checked), "how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret."
All this talk of "embedding" and "watermarking" as if it's somehow hidden or secret. I'm sorry, it's not. It's simply not. It's always been there and it has never been secret before. Sure, no brouhaha because who'd want to trade and share DRMed files, right? So now everyone gets all up in arms because they're on non-DRMed files, and the fact that Apple is the first mainstream company to start selling mainstream music from a major label without DRM gets lost in the mix. It's almost like people are trying to make Apple look bad, intentionally or no, for actually being the first to do what so many anti-DRM folks have been demanding.
This isn't secret. This isn't non-obvious. It's a name and email address stored in internationally standardized MPEG-4 atoms designed to hold EXACTLY such data elements. "Personal information at risk"? Your name in a plaintext name field in a media file that you purchased? Please.
So, why does the summary title and text use the terms "puking" and "barfing" when the article itself doesn't make any such references? Gratuitous? "Submitter's license"?
I mean, was that really necessary? Or is the story not interesting enough itself without toilet humor?
Yes, it's a watermark. It's just not a robust or stealthy one.
I suppose this is a semantic distinction, but "watermarking" usually implies robust and/or stealthy; inserting name and email address into standardized fields intended to hold just such data elements in a clear and non-obfuscated fashion doesn't really rise to what most people would consider a "watermark", in neither the physical nor digital realm.
So, in the most loose and generic sense of the term "watermark", sure, I guess we could call it watermark. But in the connotation many seem to mean or intend in this discussion, namely, that it's somehow hidden or secret and used to surreptitiously authenticate a file or its owner (or even that it has any authentication functionality or purpose whatsoever), it's not a "watermark" at all.
Believe it or not, it's possible for corporate leaders to actually have opinions and convictions about things. One mistake people like yourself make is that when you read anything that shows Apple in a positive light, you think that anyone agreeing with that thinks Steve Jobs is a "god" or some kind of savior.
Wrong.
It may be a "good business move" for Apple to start going down the no-DRM path. It may also be that everything Steve Jobs said in his anti-DRM "manifesto" of sorts is also correct, and something that he actually believes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, if removing DRM is such an obviously good business decision for the "bottom line" and "profits", then why was Apple the first major entity to actually do it in any meaningful or high-volume way with mainstream music?
Being "pro-Apple's-bottom-line" is fine. But that doesn't preclude Steve Jobs from having personal opinions and motivations that shape the way he runs the company. This whole "a corporation's only duty is to maximize profits and nothing else" line is garbage. On your region code arguments, you make assumptions that Steve Jobs has single-handed control over how Disney does all distribution of movies. You also ignore the incredibly complex situation with regard to regions for DVDs, which, for better or worse and no matter anyone's own opinion on them, are designed to allow for rollouts at different times in different regions of the world AND support the simply truth that some products can reasonably be sold for more in some markets than others. The owner/creator of the content has at least some say in the fact that they may want to sell something for $30 in the US, but $7 in Asia, do they not? Or are we arguing for globalization after all? I can't keep track.
The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs and Apple have now done more than any media, music, or computing industry company to tear down DRM where it counts, i.e., on mainstream content that is encumbered with DRM. I don't care if some indie artist is selling no-DRM music on eMusic. Good for them. We don't need to concentrate on indies who already sell without DRM, do we? We need to concentrate on the big labels who ARE selling with DRM. Apple has done more in the anti-DRM campaign in rhetoric, posturing, words, and now, action, than any other entity to date. Does that make Steve Jobs a "god"? Nope. It's just the simple truth. In the end it doesn't really matter if it's "good for Apple's bottom line", or if Steve Jobs really does believe everything he said about DRM, if it's good for you as a consumer, does it?
On the subject of iPod, you're arguing that Apple is somehow doing something any differently from any other peer vendor in this industry with regard to manufacturing. Would people pay $1000 or more for an iPod? You over simplify the situation by making everything mutually exclusive: Steve Jobs *could* make the iPod in better conditions, at the same time ignoring the fact that any such move would completely decimate the iPod. As long as a company is abiding by the laws in the countries in which they operate, I don't care where they are based or who they sell to: your problem is with the host nation (China), not with Apple. And sure, some people make the problem with the company instead of the country because they think their "action" will best be spent there. Fine. Good for them. Let them vote with their wallets.
I don't ever think anyone really said Steve Jobs was a god in all these straw man discussions. But believe it or not, individual opinions, convictions, and intent can shape a corporation just as much as any "concern for the bottom line". If concern for the bottom line was all that mattered, Apple should have been doing great under Gil Amelio. Some might say, "No, that just means Amelio was a bad businessman and Jobs isn't."
Or could it mean that there's more to the bottom line than these latent (or overt) anti-corporate arguments?
The file differences are why some originally thought that Apple might be using steganography. It turns out, though, that the AAC data is 100% identical and that the differences were a result in different metadata (modification dates) in the files:
That will be interesting when the RIAA sues Joe Blow for $1 trillion.
How about we wait until that happens? And even then, your problem is with the RIAA, not Apple. The fact that Apple puts name and email address in no-DRM files is irrelevant to any state of affairs involving the disposition of the files (stolen, uploaded tom P2P, etc.). If the information is illegitimate (e.g., bogus tags in files), it's easily provable. If it's not, then yeah, it's right back to, "My files were stolen. Prove me wrong."
Conversely - if they are putting personal information into the files and hope to retrieve it, then WE can retrieve it too. Be nice to have Joe Blow's address, SSN and/or credit card number. I wonder if Apple would be held liable as an accomplice in cases of identity theft - after all, it's not Joe Blow's fault his files got "stolen", but Apple put that personal info in them.
Except a name and email address isn't anywhere near any standard at all for "identity theft". So, no, Apple won't be held liable for anything, at all, in any case like this, even if they ever were to happen. A name and email address on a no-DRM music file is not an invasion of privacy and not an identity theft risk.
Man oh man, play with "DRM" and get burned. Companies just can't win - they've been beating the same dead horse for almost 15 years now. When will they learn?
Huh? This isn't DRM (by any understood definition of "DRM"). At all. It's not even clear that it was intended to be a "deterrent" to ANYTHING, since it's obvious, out in the open, and easily removed. Apple is doing more to move against DRM than any major entity in this realm ever has, in rhetoric and actions.
So, yeah, Apple "learned", and is following through.
That's why they thought that Apple might be using steganography. It turns out, though, that the AAC data is 100% identical and that the differences were a result in different metadata (modification dates) in the files:
Don't underestimate the number of spiteful people from all demographics who will do exactly that. It seems like petty revenge, but it will happen just as commonly as other forms of "internet abuse".
You're assuming that's why name and email address are even there (e.g., instead of just as incidental purchase metadata that's always been there that simply wasn't removed when Apple started removing DRM. After all, why remove it?).
Also, you're forgetting that Apple maintains the authoritative records on all iTunes music store purchases. So unless you're going to say that people will be uploading no-DRM tracks that they know other people have purchased, or that someone will be stealing someone else's music (e.g., boy/girlfriend, friend, etc.) and then uploading to be vindictive, I mean, aren't there a LOT of ways to harass people if you're hell-bent on harassing someone? You're assuming that there is any legal standard that would allow someone who uploads no-DRM songs they legitimately purchased.
And remember, all of the big forces arguing against the inclusion of this information aren't even arguing for it to be removed; they're arguing for it to be *encrypted*. Which means it can still be decrypted. Which means that, whether there's any truth to it or not, people will still be accusing Apple of underhanded tactics, and probably would even suspect Apple was in collusion with the RIAA and is providing music industry groups with the keys to decrypt.
This won't be happening "commonly" at all. This is just another mock-objection by people who'd find problems with Apple no matter what they did. Apple has done more now to advance the no-DRM movement than any other commercial entity involved in music, media, or computing. (Yes, more than any other company or vendor or (mainstream) music provider.)
Is the fact that your name is in a song that you purchased for your own use really that big of a deal? Especially considering this same information has been in all tracks ever purchased from the iTunes store for the last four years?
Hmm. Let's think about this a minute. How long until the first illegal music files watermarked to Dave Schroeder (das@doit.wisc.edu) turn up in P2P?
Running a little fast and loose with the term "watermarked", eh?
So a name and email address in a standard MPEG-4 atom intended for such purpose is now a "watermark"?
Since Apple maintains the authoritative purchase history of all transactions with the iTunes store for all users (and is also user-accessible), it would be ridiculously easy to prove that purchase was never made.
Still nice to know that there is such hatred of Apple that you'd insinuate that someone disseminating correct information about Apple should be targeted for online harassment, though!
Remove said personal information from the ID3 equivalent before uploading said file. Or is this information in some weird watermarking system I don't know about?
No. There is no weird watermarking system (though some people do suspect Apple of using hidden watermarks or steganography).
The information is stored in international standard MPEG-4 "atoms". In fact, they're even preexisting atoms for the purpose of storing name and email address. They're not secret, and not hidden.
If people are hell bent on uploading their files after they've purchased them, there's a number of ways the identifying information can be removed.
Plenty of people around who say, "But what if I then change the name and email to that of my most hated enemy and upload those??" though. Yeah. Okay.
I'm just going to ignore the DRM circumvention garbage that comprises the first half of the article, considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing to call DRM out for what it is.
The first half of the article is nothing but an anti-Apple rant, actually insinuating that Apple is on a mission to not let their users burn music to CD, which is completely and utterly false.
Then, the article drops this gem:
Turns out that Apple has been embedding its files with user information. iTunes customers have been downloading files that contain both their names and their email address.
"Turns out"? Let's continue...
How long this has been going on and just why Apple has felt compelled to do so is still a mystery - the company so far has refused to comment
A mystery? This has been going on since day one, and has never been a mystery. And even if it is a "mystery" on the non-DRM files, it was never a mystery on the DRM files, was never hidden, and was never secret. This has been known, never obfuscated, and obvious to anyone who clicked "Get Info" on anything purchased from the iTunes Store, ever.
but the reason seems obvious.
Oh, please. Do tell.
The embedded data won't prevent anyone from listening to their music files...which is what I thought the purpose of calling for no-DRM was. You know, so we could all use our files we legitimately own on any device.
but it might deter them from uploading them to a file-sharing server.
O, the humanity! Really??? It might deter people from that?
Well, let's take a look at the logic, here. It was never secret on the DRM files, and it's not secret on the no-DRM files. But, Apple also never overtly publicized it. So, if it's not even talked about, how is it a deterrent, exactly?
But the message is clear: take our songs public, and we'll take you public.
Oh, that's the message, is it? So we've been calling for no DRM for ages, so we can legitimately and legally use our music files, and now people have problems with not being able to do things with them that are strictly illegal? If you want to bash copyright or the fact that you can't legally share anything and everything with anyone with no repercussions, do that. But don't blame Apple because an incidental name and email address is in a file that you shouldn't be uploading anyway.
And to all the idiots who think this could be somehow "used against them" without their knowledge, it would be easily, easily provable that someone never made such a purchase from the iTunes store. But that's a different argument entirely. All these fringe examples of how something MIGHT be able to abused that makes all sorts of suppositions that aren't necessarily even true - that Apple put the information there for this purpose, or that it would ever even be used that way, by anyone, or that falsifying no-DRM tracks from iTunes and then uploading them to P2P networks will suddenly become routine harassment - are starting to get old.
Sure, encrypt the data. But you know what? if it was encrypted, do you really think all the people howling about this wouldn't be complaining even more? After all, it's still identifying information, and now it's encrypted! Maybe the RIAA has the key, and they're all going to come after you! Why is Apple hiding this information??? Does anyone really think that wouldn't happen?
My favorite quote of all this was from an EFF attorney; to paraphrase: if someone steals your iPod, the thief would have the name and email address of the rightful owner!
Oh, yes, I agree: what a nightmare scenario that would be!
Slashdot Mirror
Safari has always been based on KDE's KHTML, and they do contribute back to the community via the WebKit project.
See also:
KDE adds Safari feel to desktop Linux - The KDE Project has released a significant update to its K Desktop Environment software that includes refinements to the Konqueror Web browser derived from collaboration with Apple's Safari browser team.
KDE's Konqueror Browser Reaps Safari Benefits - In a perfect example of how open source and proprietary software can benefit each other, Apple got a significant headstart by basing Safari on established technologies like KHTML & Konqueror. And in return, Apple's contributions back to the open source community have benefitted Konqueror.
* Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) - ...of course. This was the main focus of the keynote. A "feature complete" version of Leopard was demonstrated, and all WWDC attendees receive the current, feature complete beta of Leopard and Leopard Server. Demos, movies, and more information about all of the many new features are available here. No one outside of the conference will receive these builds (but can be expected to receive later seeds). Leopard is still on track to ship in October. Leopard is $129, or $69 edu/govt (as usual). Free/cheap upgrades to Leopard will likely only for hardware purchased within month prior to its release (also as usual). (See also Leopard Server).
Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server press releases with more info.
* iPhone third party development - iPhone, previously thought to be completely closed, will have development possible via rich "Web 2.0" applications. Details on this are a little sketchy, and it's not what some hoping for a full iPhone SDK wanted, but it appears that all external app development will happen via web apps. However, it also appears such apps will appear as and have the look and feel of other iPhone apps. While this is news, it appears analysts are interpreting this as "new bad news", even though there was no expectation previously that iPhone would be an open platform, since it appeared that it would be closed, and this announcement is actually a positive development over the previous situation. iPhone is also still in schedule to ship on June 29 at 6pm via Apple retail stores and AT&T corporate stores. Still no news on specifics for online sales, preordering, etc.
Press release with more info.
* Safari Mac OS X and Windows - Safari is now available, in its 3.0 beta form, on Mac OS X 10.4.9 and Windows XP/Vista. At first glance, Safari is much, much faster than it was previously on Mac OS X, and includes a range of new features. This is the same version of Safari that will ship on Leopard and (essentially) iPhone. Safari is now also available on Windows; this is obviously going to be used as a channel of development for iPhone, since all external iPhone apps will essentially be Safari web apps.
Press release with more info.
* No new hardware, but the Apple Store and the rest of the Apple web site has a new look (which was why the Apple Store was down, which some see as an indication of new hardware announcements).
* Keynote summary
* Keynote archive will be available later today here.
The talk of massive "increases" is a bit deceptive. The reason there appears to be more "intelligence" spending is that a lot more things are considered "intelligence" activities now.
TFA speaks to this exact point. The biggest increase didn't happen between "1995 and 2005" or "2000 and 2005", but between 2001-2003, when the largest government restructuring in nearly sixty years - since the creation of DOD and CIA with the National Security Act of 1947 - added a whole slew of capabilities and entities to the "intelligence" infrastructure of the United States, with the addition of DHS to the IC and the creation of the position and office of DNI.
It's all about organizational structure and what elements are considered intelligence. For example, a lot of elements now considered part of the "intelligence" budget are also part of the "defense" budget. And then you put the "intelligence" and "defense" budgets next to each other and they look really large, don't they? Except they're not additive. Nearly all of the "increase" comes from now including many defense activities and domestic security components under the guise of "intelligence".
Sure, we've increased intelligence spending. But intelligence spending still only around 2.5% of the total US budget. Defense spending is less than 20% (not anywhere near the "over half" some people like to say). We've also increased the number and types of programs that fall under the high-level, broad "intelligence" umbrella.
As an aside, for people concerned about outsourcing and contractors, the IC is considering that issue as well, but the fact is that the IC couldn't function without the array of products, services, and capabilities it obtains via specialty contractors.
I didn't say that was right, either. I said it was playing politics. And the two points aren't mutually exclusive.
And, to answer your question, it has EVERYTHING to do with Plame's outing. A lot of people think it was just a vindictive act to "get back" at Wilson. That was actually incidental (again, NOT saying it was right). The reason she was "outed" was in response to Wilson's editorial, saying, hey, this guy AND his wife have kind of a conflict of interest here. Like, the whole reason Wilson even has this pulpit for criticizing the administration is because he was sent "by his wife"[1] to Africa, and his wife and Wilson have clear political opinions on the administration's general positions on military action against Iraq.
While there may be internal procedures to deal with things like this, 1.) they obviously didn't work, since Wilson was sent, and 2.) Wilson was given an avenue to speak against administration policies because of his wife's position. "Outing" her (and again, I don't agree with it) was playing politics just as much as she, but especially Wilson, was. Oh, but what she did was "less" bad? I disagree. Using a position that isn't supposed to be political for political posturing from a position of secrecy is worse than a politician playing politics. Neither should have been done, and both were wrong, and arguing which is "worse" is academic.
[1] He wasn't really sent "by his wife"; but her team within CIA absolutely was involved in making the decision, and should have known better. And she should have almost insisted he not be sent because of this. This is why we have the notion of conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety: judges recuse themselves from cases even if they don't have an actual conflict, but just an appearance of one. I think that Wilson being sent and then using what was an official, non-political governmental factfinding capacity to turn around and chastise the administration on the editorial pages of the New York Times (hint: that's not the role of someone in that position) was just as bad as floating the whole reason he was doing this factfinding in the first place.
So the best example you can come up with is an isolated event almost four decades ago where state national guardsmen acting (inappropriately, some might say) in a police capacity killed four people, and that's an indictment of all and all operations of the entire defense and intelligence infrastructure for all time?
And yes, I realize we can all come up with more examples of fraud, abuse, illegal or questionable activities, etc. and so on, but it has nothing to do with militarism or jingoism, sorry to say. The statement that "nearly all of what the US defense and intelligence infrastructure does day-in, day-out is focused on protecting the people of the United States" is an accurate one, even including all the negatives.
If all you can see is the bad acts (or in some cases not "bad", but just those you personally disagree with) of any entity, and can't separate individual mistakes or bad acts from the larger roles, you're in a far deeper slumber than the ones you'd accuse others of not waking from.
Oh yeah, you're a "Libertarian", right?
Nope. Sorry.
I voted about 70-75% for Democratic candidates in the last several local and national elections. Unlike you, I consider individual ideas and policies as appropriate for local, state, and national issues, and don't simply regurgitate the ridiculous party line accusatory bullshit that is all you seem capable of.
Also, I don't like Rush Limbaugh, and don't listen to him (or any other talk radio). The fact that you see no problem with Plame's husband doing the African factfinding speaks utter volumes.
Goodbye indeed.
You're right. That is an urban legend. Designed to be funny, and designed to make a point that isn't really accurate, or at best is massively oversimplified.
Secrecy, often as not, is less about keeping the bad guys in the dark than about avoiding public scrutiny.
...says a cynic. Secrecy in free societies with freely elected governments is almost always about keeping the bad guys in the dark.[1] The fact that "public scrutiny" (which is supposed to happen by proxy with Congressional oversight, by the way) is simultaneously hindered is incidental.
[1] No, really. I know there are a lot of people out there who think a lot of what the defense or intelligence community does is corrupt, underhanded, evil, designed to subvert freedom (of our own people), line pockets of the rich, etc., but believe it or not, nearly all of what the US defense and intelligence infrastructure does day-in, day-out is focused on protecting the people of the United States. There might be disagreement on how and when to best do that, but that's a public policy and political issue, not one of defense or intelligence.
Question is, does it include the recent trend of outsourcing intelligence work ?
Um, yes, that's what this entire issue is about.
The blog that contains this article is called "The Spy Who Billed Me: Outsourcing the War on Terror", and the presentation itself is titled "Procuring the Future", and is entirely dedicated to contractors and contract acquisition, and the fact that the IC couldn't function or do its job without the variety of speciality contractors and services. The way the IC budget was "deduced" was by seeing dollars spent on contractors, and the knowledge that constituted "70%" of spending.
Yeah, the contract issue in general is one of concern, but, like all things, it's not simply "good" or "bad"; it has benefits, drawbacks, advantages, and problems, and the key is proper management of such resources. Keep in mind that all contractor issues aren't "outsourcing" in the way some like to think: it includes all manner of acquisition of capabilities and services, which also necessarily includes labor.
I've got news for you, buddy. I didn't agree with the vast majority of Rumsfeld's policies, didn't vote for Bush, am not a Bush "worshipper", and could hardly be called a "Republican", considering my voting record.
See, some people don't think everything is one "side" or the other, like you do, and don't constantly vilify every single thing that Bush or anyone else who is Republican/conservative simply because they are. I bet you're a nice party-line Democrat/liberal (maybe Green mixed in, too?) voter, though, right? A real "open-minded" thinker?
On Plame: perhaps there shouldn't have been a massive, glaring conflict of interest by her own workgroup essentially sending her *husband* on the fact-finding mission? Especially when she and her husband have espoused obvious political positions in conflict with the administration's? (Hint: that isn't an intelligence officer's function or purpose.) This was playing politics on both sides, and I'm sorry, but no one has a monopoly on playing politics.
Your colorful language ("Rumsfeldian", "denial junkies", "you are too sick to try to cure with facts", "shoddy lies" expose you for what you are: yet another black-and-whiter who thinks anything that the GOP or anyone with any Republican/conservative affiliation does is naturally evil and all dedicated to perpetuating the blind sheep police state you think we're living in (or will be living in), and that only you and your ilk are "enlightened" and know the "facts" and the "truth". Spare me.
No. The US government's budget, as a whole, was never a secret. People have been deducing and estimating, rather accurately, the entirety of the "intelligence budget" for decades.
What was secret was the budget for individual pieces of the intelligence community, which can imply underlying specific operations, programs, and technologies on which a nation may be spending money. And that should be secret. This, however, necessarily means that the total exact amount spent on intelligence programs is also secret. So we have a situation where we don't know something like:
1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 7 = 37
but do know:
A + B + C + D + E + X + ??? = 37 (approximately)
This has always been the case, will continue to be the case, as it should be, and is still the case even though this broad and vague number of how much is spent on "contractors", coupled with a percentage of total spent on contractors, is known.
And even this number isn't likely accurate, because what is or isn't "intelligence" is a matter of definitions and organization. All of these items are being paid for regardless. This is like saying what the "defense" budget is. Sure, we can throw out a huge number under the umbrella of DOD. But some of that money is also part of the "intelligence" budget. In fact, a huge chunk is. So which is it? Defense? Intelligence? Both?
And yes, a lot of this information about granular budgets of individual agencies and programs has been successfully kept from adversaries. It's not like we want to keep a total of ALL intelligence spending secret; the Soviet Union didn't even really care about that when it existed, and could deduce it accurately enough if it cared. What it WOULD care about is things like NRO's budget, or the budgets of the cryptanalysis components of the services, or NGA's budget, or line items in those budgets, etc. THAT is why the "intelligence budget" has properly been "secret".
It's not like it's a mystery how much we're paying in taxes.
*Sigh*.
So, the Director of National Intelligence should be fired because a PowerPoint presentation reveals something that is so broad and vague, given the that fact that the "intelligence" budget is "secret" has been a joke for the last decade?
The reason the intelligence budget has been secret has been so adversaries can't see how much you're spending on any one agency, which can imply underlying operations or technologies and techniques depending on how granular budget breakdowns were. It's never been that the total number has been "secret"; it's been that many of the constituent elements have been correctly kept secret, which necessarily means that the total amount can't be known exactly.
What is or isn't "intelligence" is a matter of definition, and as the article notes, it's just a matter of the fact that the DNI is now getting ahold of the fragmented budgets of the thousands of fragmented components and programs in the sixteen Intelligence Community components, many of which are in DOD, that currently fall under the operational guise of "intelligence", including massive chunks of NSA and entire agencies managing assets in space, like NRO.
Even this number doesn't likely accurately represent the "intelligence" budget, since so many areas are a mix of other disciplines, especially national security.
(Way to get in an off-topic post that manages to rant about conspiracy theories, Orwell (can we have a Godwin's Law for Orwell references at some point?), religion, and Hurricane Katrina all in one, though. America does not "serve at the president's pleasure" (nice US Attorney firing reference, though! Bravo!), no one thinks terrorism is to blame for everything or even most things (except for the things for which it is to blame, and some choose willful ignorance about the scope and nature of the problem), and Bush himself routinely has said that he has made mistakes and bad decisions, and no one except complete idiots would think anyone of any political stripe is "never wrong". And Katrina. Ugh. Fastest federal response ever to a disaster of that size and scope, and the local and state agencies knew about this for several, several days, and DID have the capability to do a lot more, and didn't. So, what, you want more federal control over states and localities? Maybe a law to allow domestic use of the military in natural disasters? Oh, wait...that is really Bush's secret attempt to declare martial law, right? I can't keep up.)
To follow up on this comment a bit, it's not like these aren't all elements that weren't already being paid for out of some budget. They were. It's just that a lot of the pieces in the past were probably considered part of the "defense" budget as opposed to the "intelligence" budget. It's a semantic distinction when it comes to the dollars, but I'll agree it is interesting for people to know from an organizational perspective, especially since the Intelligence Community budget has traditionally been officially secret.
The "intelligence budget" is just a matter of definitions.
Yeah, that's no longer there.
It's now been posted by the Federation of American Scientists.
There are, however, a number of other contracting briefs and presentations posted here
The intelligence community is so large and diverse, that it is literally quite possible that the government itself didn't know how much money was spent on "intelligence".
Not because of incompetence, corruption, waste, or secrecy - though all those are certainly elements to varying degrees - but in reality because of the wide variety of agencies and activities that fall under the guise of "intelligence".
The article itself notes, correctly:
This top line $60 billion figure is 25% above the estimated $48 billion budget for FY 08. It is quite probable that this total figure was not even known by the government until recently. Greater control and oversight of the Intelligence Community budget was a hallmark of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 that created the position of the Director of National Intelligence and gave it the mandate to get an overview of the entire amount spent on intelligence government-wide. To this end, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has recently gathered all parts of the previously fragmented Intelligence Community budget together for the first time as part of its Intelligence Resource Information System (IRIS). In the report from the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence released last Thursday, the committee praised the Office of the Director of Intelligence for creating a "single budget system called the Intelligence Resource Information System." It also recognizes their efforts in helping create what "will be used for further inquiry by the Committee's budget and audit staffs and will be a baseline that allows the Congress and DNI to derive trend data from future reports."
Earlier, lower estimates were most likely only included what fell directly under the Director of Central Intelligence and which would have omitted parts of NSA, NRO. A total Intelligence Community number, with the Intelligence Community as defined by 50 U.S.C. 401a(4), would also now include the various military intelligence services (e.g. Army Intel, Navy Intel, etc.), each with its respective weapon technology intelligence exploitation shop. A total budget would also include a large portion of the budget of the Department of Homeland Security which was previously fragment across multiple government agencies. A $60 billion government-wide Intelligence Community budget is not at all out of line with the post 9/11 organizational reality. It seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget.
When you're dealing with sixteen separate agencies, including elements from the Department of Defense, to say something like "intelligence budget" is almost meaningless. What's pure intelligence? What's national defense? What is a mix? In fact, it often comes down to what some particular task or program is "anointed" by management. Different areas get reorganized and shuffled into different organizational structures. To say nothing of the fact that the addition of DHS to the Intelligence Community was the largest government reorganization in over a half-century, since the creation of the Department of Defense and CIA by the National Security Act of 1947.
Shuffle more, and you can probably make the "intelligence" budget appear lower. But the truth is that "it seems that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is just now getting a clear picture of the fragmented intelligence community budget."
And that should be a good thing.
On a different note, revealing classified or sensitive information by improper handling of technology solutions is a perennial problem, and it still floors me that the vetting and release process doesn't properly capture things like this (though they've gotten MUCH better).
I (like many people), was originally shocked to find out the user name and email is embedded in the file being unaware that this was in fact *always* the case. Despite all the folks here pointing out that it was always the case, how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret.
You were "shocked" to learn this?
Click song -> Get Info
Your name as the purchaser is on everything ever purchased from the iTunes Store, plain as day, along with the track name, album name, artist, genre, and so on.
So, to what standard to we hold Apple or purchasers to inform or find out respectively about something that's blindingly obvious, NOT hidden, and NOT obfuscated in any way?
Now you bring up the point about a EULA. How many users read those? Even if it was in the EULA (and frankly something to that effect may or may not be; I haven't checked), "how many regular users of iTunes and iPods are aware of that? If it isn't commonly understood, then it's as good as secret."
All this talk of "embedding" and "watermarking" as if it's somehow hidden or secret. I'm sorry, it's not. It's simply not. It's always been there and it has never been secret before. Sure, no brouhaha because who'd want to trade and share DRMed files, right? So now everyone gets all up in arms because they're on non-DRMed files, and the fact that Apple is the first mainstream company to start selling mainstream music from a major label without DRM gets lost in the mix. It's almost like people are trying to make Apple look bad, intentionally or no, for actually being the first to do what so many anti-DRM folks have been demanding.
This isn't secret. This isn't non-obvious. It's a name and email address stored in internationally standardized MPEG-4 atoms designed to hold EXACTLY such data elements. "Personal information at risk"? Your name in a plaintext name field in a media file that you purchased? Please.
So, why does the summary title and text use the terms "puking" and "barfing" when the article itself doesn't make any such references? Gratuitous? "Submitter's license"?
I mean, was that really necessary? Or is the story not interesting enough itself without toilet humor?
Yes, it's a watermark. It's just not a robust or stealthy one.
I suppose this is a semantic distinction, but "watermarking" usually implies robust and/or stealthy; inserting name and email address into standardized fields intended to hold just such data elements in a clear and non-obfuscated fashion doesn't really rise to what most people would consider a "watermark", in neither the physical nor digital realm.
So, in the most loose and generic sense of the term "watermark", sure, I guess we could call it watermark. But in the connotation many seem to mean or intend in this discussion, namely, that it's somehow hidden or secret and used to surreptitiously authenticate a file or its owner (or even that it has any authentication functionality or purpose whatsoever), it's not a "watermark" at all.
Believe it or not, it's possible for corporate leaders to actually have opinions and convictions about things. One mistake people like yourself make is that when you read anything that shows Apple in a positive light, you think that anyone agreeing with that thinks Steve Jobs is a "god" or some kind of savior.
Wrong.
It may be a "good business move" for Apple to start going down the no-DRM path. It may also be that everything Steve Jobs said in his anti-DRM "manifesto" of sorts is also correct, and something that he actually believes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also, if removing DRM is such an obviously good business decision for the "bottom line" and "profits", then why was Apple the first major entity to actually do it in any meaningful or high-volume way with mainstream music?
Being "pro-Apple's-bottom-line" is fine. But that doesn't preclude Steve Jobs from having personal opinions and motivations that shape the way he runs the company. This whole "a corporation's only duty is to maximize profits and nothing else" line is garbage. On your region code arguments, you make assumptions that Steve Jobs has single-handed control over how Disney does all distribution of movies. You also ignore the incredibly complex situation with regard to regions for DVDs, which, for better or worse and no matter anyone's own opinion on them, are designed to allow for rollouts at different times in different regions of the world AND support the simply truth that some products can reasonably be sold for more in some markets than others. The owner/creator of the content has at least some say in the fact that they may want to sell something for $30 in the US, but $7 in Asia, do they not? Or are we arguing for globalization after all? I can't keep track.
The fact of the matter is that Steve Jobs and Apple have now done more than any media, music, or computing industry company to tear down DRM where it counts, i.e., on mainstream content that is encumbered with DRM. I don't care if some indie artist is selling no-DRM music on eMusic. Good for them. We don't need to concentrate on indies who already sell without DRM, do we? We need to concentrate on the big labels who ARE selling with DRM. Apple has done more in the anti-DRM campaign in rhetoric, posturing, words, and now, action, than any other entity to date. Does that make Steve Jobs a "god"? Nope. It's just the simple truth. In the end it doesn't really matter if it's "good for Apple's bottom line", or if Steve Jobs really does believe everything he said about DRM, if it's good for you as a consumer, does it?
On the subject of iPod, you're arguing that Apple is somehow doing something any differently from any other peer vendor in this industry with regard to manufacturing. Would people pay $1000 or more for an iPod? You over simplify the situation by making everything mutually exclusive: Steve Jobs *could* make the iPod in better conditions, at the same time ignoring the fact that any such move would completely decimate the iPod. As long as a company is abiding by the laws in the countries in which they operate, I don't care where they are based or who they sell to: your problem is with the host nation (China), not with Apple. And sure, some people make the problem with the company instead of the country because they think their "action" will best be spent there. Fine. Good for them. Let them vote with their wallets.
I don't ever think anyone really said Steve Jobs was a god in all these straw man discussions. But believe it or not, individual opinions, convictions, and intent can shape a corporation just as much as any "concern for the bottom line". If concern for the bottom line was all that mattered, Apple should have been doing great under Gil Amelio. Some might say, "No, that just means Amelio was a bad businessman and Jobs isn't."
Or could it mean that there's more to the bottom line than these latent (or overt) anti-corporate arguments?
It's not a watermark (there may be a watermark as well, but no one has found one yet).
t eganography-in-itunes-plus-songs/
5 &postcount=123
Actually, people already have found that Apple isn't using a watermark or steganography technique, either:
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/01/apple-using-s
The file differences are why some originally thought that Apple might be using steganography. It turns out, though, that the AAC data is 100% identical and that the differences were a result in different metadata (modification dates) in the files:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=369662
So, Apple is indeed not using steganography or other hidden watermarking on the files.
That will be interesting when the RIAA sues Joe Blow for $1 trillion.
How about we wait until that happens? And even then, your problem is with the RIAA, not Apple. The fact that Apple puts name and email address in no-DRM files is irrelevant to any state of affairs involving the disposition of the files (stolen, uploaded tom P2P, etc.). If the information is illegitimate (e.g., bogus tags in files), it's easily provable. If it's not, then yeah, it's right back to, "My files were stolen. Prove me wrong."
Conversely - if they are putting personal information into the files and hope to retrieve it, then WE can retrieve it too. Be nice to have Joe Blow's address, SSN and/or credit card number. I wonder if Apple would be held liable as an accomplice in cases of identity theft - after all, it's not Joe Blow's fault his files got "stolen", but Apple put that personal info in them.
Except a name and email address isn't anywhere near any standard at all for "identity theft". So, no, Apple won't be held liable for anything, at all, in any case like this, even if they ever were to happen. A name and email address on a no-DRM music file is not an invasion of privacy and not an identity theft risk.
Man oh man, play with "DRM" and get burned. Companies just can't win - they've been beating the same dead horse for almost 15 years now. When will they learn?
Huh? This isn't DRM (by any understood definition of "DRM"). At all. It's not even clear that it was intended to be a "deterrent" to ANYTHING, since it's obvious, out in the open, and easily removed. Apple is doing more to move against DRM than any major entity in this realm ever has, in rhetoric and actions.
So, yeah, Apple "learned", and is following through.
People have done that:
t eganography-in-itunes-plus-songs/
5 &postcount=123
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/01/apple-using-s
That's why they thought that Apple might be using steganography. It turns out, though, that the AAC data is 100% identical and that the differences were a result in different metadata (modification dates) in the files:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=369662
So, Apple is indeed not using steganography or other hidden watermarking on the files.
Don't underestimate the number of spiteful people from all demographics who will do exactly that. It seems like petty revenge, but it will happen just as commonly as other forms of "internet abuse".
You're assuming that's why name and email address are even there (e.g., instead of just as incidental purchase metadata that's always been there that simply wasn't removed when Apple started removing DRM. After all, why remove it?).
Also, you're forgetting that Apple maintains the authoritative records on all iTunes music store purchases. So unless you're going to say that people will be uploading no-DRM tracks that they know other people have purchased, or that someone will be stealing someone else's music (e.g., boy/girlfriend, friend, etc.) and then uploading to be vindictive, I mean, aren't there a LOT of ways to harass people if you're hell-bent on harassing someone? You're assuming that there is any legal standard that would allow someone who uploads no-DRM songs they legitimately purchased.
And remember, all of the big forces arguing against the inclusion of this information aren't even arguing for it to be removed; they're arguing for it to be *encrypted*. Which means it can still be decrypted. Which means that, whether there's any truth to it or not, people will still be accusing Apple of underhanded tactics, and probably would even suspect Apple was in collusion with the RIAA and is providing music industry groups with the keys to decrypt.
This won't be happening "commonly" at all. This is just another mock-objection by people who'd find problems with Apple no matter what they did. Apple has done more now to advance the no-DRM movement than any other commercial entity involved in music, media, or computing. (Yes, more than any other company or vendor or (mainstream) music provider.)
Is the fact that your name is in a song that you purchased for your own use really that big of a deal? Especially considering this same information has been in all tracks ever purchased from the iTunes store for the last four years?
Hmm. Let's think about this a minute. How long until the first illegal music files watermarked to Dave Schroeder (das@doit.wisc.edu) turn up in P2P?
Running a little fast and loose with the term "watermarked", eh?
So a name and email address in a standard MPEG-4 atom intended for such purpose is now a "watermark"?
Since Apple maintains the authoritative purchase history of all transactions with the iTunes store for all users (and is also user-accessible), it would be ridiculously easy to prove that purchase was never made.
Still nice to know that there is such hatred of Apple that you'd insinuate that someone disseminating correct information about Apple should be targeted for online harassment, though!
Remove said personal information from the ID3 equivalent before uploading said file. Or is this information in some weird watermarking system I don't know about?
No. There is no weird watermarking system (though some people do suspect Apple of using hidden watermarks or steganography).
The information is stored in international standard MPEG-4 "atoms". In fact, they're even preexisting atoms for the purpose of storing name and email address. They're not secret, and not hidden.
If people are hell bent on uploading their files after they've purchased them, there's a number of ways the identifying information can be removed.
Plenty of people around who say, "But what if I then change the name and email to that of my most hated enemy and upload those??" though. Yeah. Okay.
I'm just going to ignore the DRM circumvention garbage that comprises the first half of the article, considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing to call DRM out for what it is.
...which is what I thought the purpose of calling for no-DRM was. You know, so we could all use our files we legitimately own on any device.
The first half of the article is nothing but an anti-Apple rant, actually insinuating that Apple is on a mission to not let their users burn music to CD, which is completely and utterly false.
Then, the article drops this gem:
Turns out that Apple has been embedding its files with user information. iTunes customers have been downloading files that contain both their names and their email address.
"Turns out"? Let's continue...
How long this has been going on and just why Apple has felt compelled to do so is still a mystery - the company so far has refused to comment
A mystery? This has been going on since day one, and has never been a mystery. And even if it is a "mystery" on the non-DRM files, it was never a mystery on the DRM files, was never hidden, and was never secret. This has been known, never obfuscated, and obvious to anyone who clicked "Get Info" on anything purchased from the iTunes Store, ever.
but the reason seems obvious.
Oh, please. Do tell.
The embedded data won't prevent anyone from listening to their music files
but it might deter them from uploading them to a file-sharing server.
O, the humanity! Really??? It might deter people from that?
Well, let's take a look at the logic, here. It was never secret on the DRM files, and it's not secret on the no-DRM files. But, Apple also never overtly publicized it. So, if it's not even talked about, how is it a deterrent, exactly?
But the message is clear: take our songs public, and we'll take you public.
Oh, that's the message, is it? So we've been calling for no DRM for ages, so we can legitimately and legally use our music files, and now people have problems with not being able to do things with them that are strictly illegal? If you want to bash copyright or the fact that you can't legally share anything and everything with anyone with no repercussions, do that. But don't blame Apple because an incidental name and email address is in a file that you shouldn't be uploading anyway.
And to all the idiots who think this could be somehow "used against them" without their knowledge, it would be easily, easily provable that someone never made such a purchase from the iTunes store. But that's a different argument entirely. All these fringe examples of how something MIGHT be able to abused that makes all sorts of suppositions that aren't necessarily even true - that Apple put the information there for this purpose, or that it would ever even be used that way, by anyone, or that falsifying no-DRM tracks from iTunes and then uploading them to P2P networks will suddenly become routine harassment - are starting to get old.
Sure, encrypt the data. But you know what? if it was encrypted, do you really think all the people howling about this wouldn't be complaining even more? After all, it's still identifying information, and now it's encrypted! Maybe the RIAA has the key, and they're all going to come after you! Why is Apple hiding this information??? Does anyone really think that wouldn't happen?
My favorite quote of all this was from an EFF attorney; to paraphrase: if someone steals your iPod, the thief would have the name and email address of the rightful owner!
Oh, yes, I agree: what a nightmare scenario that would be!