pointless to do so? have you ever worked at a large public corporation with a legal dept? im guessing no.. this release went through many iterations internally to ensure technical veracity, but that could nonetheless appear to demonstrate transparency.
Just figured out... The first post that I replied to state that Apple _might_ be misleading the public. You are stating, without the slightest evidence, as a plain fact that they are indeed misleading the public. You also are stating, without the slightest evidence, that their lawyers are not clever enough to produce a sufficiently misleading statement on their first attempt, but that they needed many iterations to do so.
In other words, without the slightest evidence you are claiming that Apple is lying and their lawyers are idiots. Or did I misinterpret what you said in any way?
pointless to do so? have you ever worked at a large public corporation with a legal dept? im guessing no.. this release went through many iterations internally to ensure technical veracity, but that could nonetheless appear to demonstrate transparency.
I am working at a large public corporation with a legal department.
Every legal department will tell you that a statement that is technically correct but entirely misleading will give you not the slightest legal protection. More important for Apple, making a statement that is technically correct but entirely misleading would mean that the shit hits the fan even harder when things get out. And things get out.
Curious in that Apple iPhone was the only piece of gear that could be relied upon to be cracked. Any model.
Emphasis on "was". Up to about iPhone 3G.
There are two major changes nowadays. Change one is permanent full disk encryption. Change two is activation. You can only activate a wiped phone. When you buy a used phone, the seller could hand you their AppleId and password (which would be a stupid thing to do), so you wouldn't activate the phone yourself and would have whatever software is on the phone. But you would instead wipe the phone, activate it with your own AppleId and password, and whatever was on the phone (including whatever the NSA put on it) is gone. If you open a box that is supposed to contain a brand new iPhone and it doesn't require activation, then you know it's not new.
The actual claim that the Chinese make is that a new feature in iOS collects location data on the phone (which it does), and if the phone gets stolen or hacked, someone might see that data and that could have all kinds of consequences, worst case consequences for China's national security. So there was _no_ claim that Apple was involved or helping in any spying at all.
To a software developer it should be obvious that if Apple wanted to spy on you, the presence or absence of this feature wouldn't make the slightest difference whatsoever. If Apple can secretly send data that were openly collected on your phone, they could equally easily secretly send data that was secretly collected on your phone.
To a non-developer, it should be equally obvious that there are hundreds of features with the same national security implications, like word processors, spreadsheets, note-taking applications and so on and so on. Probably applications that are far more dangerous. I would expect a word processor to contain much juicier information than a location log.
You are claiming that Apple is making statements that while literally true, are misleading people to make them belief something that isn't true.
I would assume that Apple doesn't aim statements like this at paranoids. Fact is: Apple either acts in a way that a normal, non-paranoid person would expect from a statement like this and are speaking the truth, or they are not and they are lying, but it would be utterly pointless for Apple to make carefully crafted statements that are literally true but misleading.
Actually, fixed term makes a lot more sense. Why should a book written by a 20 year old have on average sixty years more copyright than a book written by an 80 year old? And why should that change if the 20 year old is hit by a truck?
People have argued the right to not incriminate themselves right up to the European courts, but it was rejected. When you are arrested in the UK you are told that if you fail to mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court it may harm your defence, so there is no right to silence either.
I enquired about that. Here's a situation where it "may harm your defence". Let's say you are a crime suspect. You say you have a witness you can give evidence that you were nowhere near the crime scene. What should happen is that you tell the police who your witness is, they question your witness, and either let you go because the witness convinces them you were not there, or the witness says your story is bullshit, or they decide not to believe your witness and investigate further. In the last two cases this will then come up in your court case.
But let's say you refuse to say who the witness is. The police has no chance to check if the witness says the truth or not because they don't know who the witness is. And in your court case you suddenly present the witness. In that case, the judge can throw that witness out because the police had no chance to investigate.
So you do have the right to remain silence, and it doesn't harm your defense if you remain silent all the time including the court case. It _can_ harm your defense if you remain silent but only until you appear in court.
Wait a second... That's not my experience at all. If a car with a license plate matching your license plate is caught speeding, you will get a letter asking you whether you were driving the car. If you say "yes" you can accept a low (ish) fixed penalty and points without going to court. If you say "no" or "can't remember" or insist on going to court they start investigating. The matter will end up with the driver in court, there will be a higher fine plus court cost, but there will not be more points.
But seriously, you can't remember who is driving your car? I mean before you let anyone drive your car, you have to make sure that they have a valid driving license, and that they have insurance, so please tell me how can you forget who was driving? Or are you saying you were so drunk that you can't remember driving?
Since when is a password in itself evidence, or in any way incriminating yourself? What the police find from access granted by said password is another matter.
It would be incriminating in rare cases. For example, if the police don't know for sure that it is _your_ computer involved in a crime, then providing a password would prove that it's your computer, and it would be incriminating. That's why for this law to apply in the UK, the police must already have evidence that you have the password.
I bought 40~ used iphones off ebay and at least 12 of them were still logged into social media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat) and had thousands of photos and videos. i did not see any nudes but i did have fun with some of their profiles.
If you have burglars who are caught by logging into facebook at a victim's home computer and not logging out before they are leaving, what can you expect?
When someone says reset phone and reset data, the OS should ensure a clean wipe not a soft wipe. Should atleast fill it with 0s. And people should try to keep most of their data on sd cards and move those alongs when they get new phones.
There's one phone that just throws away the encryption keys, which are never stored anywhere than on two locations on the hard drive (in encrypted form), so only these two locations need to be wiped. That phone also has the ability to access a small amount of flash memory directly without the firmware interfering, to make sure that no invisible copies of those keys are created. Well, it's not Android...
What gives you that idea?
It means either Foxconn or Apple make more money. Perhaps both.
Obviously Foxconn has no other customers than Apple. Reminds me of the headlines last year "300 workers threaten suicide at Apple factory" (because they were in fear of losing their jobs due to dropping X-box sales).
A big part of the problem why Americans (and others) are fatter and fatter are because of misbeliefs foisted upon them.
Can't be voted up more enough. Let's say you buy some healthy low-fat yoghurt. And then you check and it's stuffed full with sugar! And it has a HUGE "low fat" printed on it, when it has more calories and is less healthy for you then the unmodified normal fat yoghurt. The problem is that your body _wants_ fat because that's what it has been designed to want for the last 100,000 years, and as long as it doesn't get the fat it wants it just wants more food!
How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question?
They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the content owner. And they have to give you a contact address. As they make a statement under penalty of perjury, they are either right or criminals. If they are criminals, that will get sorted out.
That C file is part of the Android MSM kernel source tree and does contain a "Qualcomm Confidential and Proprietary" line while noting it's now under a Linux Foundation copyright.
Well, that could be just a tiny little problem for Qualcomm then. In a DMCA takedown notice, there are mistakes that you are allowed to make and mistakes that are criminal. A DMCA takedown notice against material that is not the one you own, or that has a license which you didn't notice, that's harmless. But you state under penalty of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of the item that you believe to be infringed. So if the Linux Foundation is indeed the copyright holder, that should be fatal.
Neither the summary, nor the linked article, nor the article linked to in the linked article give the crucial information: What exactly did the court decide?
Quite obviously if I use Tor for criminal activity, and my best buddy sets up a Tor exit node exclusively for me to support my criminal activity, then he will be convicted for running that exit node. Not just in Austria, but everywhere.
And equally obviously, someone who operates a Tor exit node, which is without his knowledge and without his agreement used by a criminal for criminal activity, that operator _should not_ be convicted, neither in Austria nor elsewhere.
What all these articles don't say is what exactly the Tor operator has done. And without that we can't judge what happened.
If you repair a car that is then used in a robbery, you shouldn't be accused of being an accomplice. Except if you knew it was going to be used in a robbery. For example, if you repeatedly fixed a car that was used to drive into shop windows, and even fix steel plates to the front of the car.
Uzi Nissan, of Nissan computer [nissan.com] fame has been paying the price for years for daring to be born with a name that was later copyrighted.
That case must be about the most stupid use of lawyers that I've heard of. If you follow the link, you will see that neither Uzi Nissan nor the Nissan car company can make proper use of the www.nissan.com domain. I'd bet that Nissan's lawyers very proudly reported that they won a court case - which is totally pointless, because their goal should have been to get the use of the domain name.
Had Nissan not sent lawyers but someone with intelligence, then they would be able to use the name, and Uzi Nissan would have a brand new Nissan car parked in front of his computer shop every year. Which would have been better all around for everyone involved.
Perjury will essentially be impossible to prove, so, they almost might as well have not included the penalty.
What? That's nonsense. You must claim _under penalty of perjury_ that some work is infringed and you are or represent the copyright holder. There should be nothing easier to prove or disprove.
Thanks for this. "Good faith belief" can cover a multitude of sins. The use of copyrighted work does not necessarily have to be authorized by the copyright owner, for instance in the case of "fair use".
The law says what it says. Now if we ignore the fact that "fair use" will be a very rare situation, the law says the copyright holder can ask for the work to be taken down if you are not authorised, and the copyright holder is not required to investigate at this point whether you did something that doesn't require authorisation. "Fair use" = not authorised. "Fair use" can only be used as a defence in court when you are sued for copyright infringement.
Takedown + waiting for a counter notice is not overreacting, it is the appropriate reaction. And of course they have to send your counter notice to the claimant. What are you afraid of? Just write in your counter notice to John Smith "I own the copyright on all the works on my site, and if John Smith thinks he can force me to remove an article about a different person with the same name, I'd like to know what drugs he is taking. "
In the case of the "John Smith": When someone sends a DMCA takedown notice, they declare under penalty of perjury that they have copyright on the work that they believe you are infringing upon. (If the are mistaken about the work - the one you published is not the one that they have the copyright for, or they are wrong about the infringing - you have a license, that's fine, but they _must_ have the copyright for _some_ work). So you can take them to court and give them an expensive lesson in copyright law and the DMCA law.
Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.
Because it was mostly politicians being killed. And because Harrison Ford survived.
A contract does not require a signature, it requires a meeting of minds. A signature is one way of demonstrating this. Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work is another.
Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work means you agree to do work for the company in exchange for payment. It doesn't demonstrate in any way that you agreed to anything beyond that in your employment contract, especially if you didn't sign it.
Slashdot Mirror
pointless to do so? have you ever worked at a large public corporation with a legal dept? im guessing no.. this release went through many iterations internally to ensure technical veracity, but that could nonetheless appear to demonstrate transparency.
Just figured out... The first post that I replied to state that Apple _might_ be misleading the public. You are stating, without the slightest evidence, as a plain fact that they are indeed misleading the public. You also are stating, without the slightest evidence, that their lawyers are not clever enough to produce a sufficiently misleading statement on their first attempt, but that they needed many iterations to do so.
In other words, without the slightest evidence you are claiming that Apple is lying and their lawyers are idiots. Or did I misinterpret what you said in any way?
pointless to do so? have you ever worked at a large public corporation with a legal dept? im guessing no.. this release went through many iterations internally to ensure technical veracity, but that could nonetheless appear to demonstrate transparency.
I am working at a large public corporation with a legal department.
Every legal department will tell you that a statement that is technically correct but entirely misleading will give you not the slightest legal protection. More important for Apple, making a statement that is technically correct but entirely misleading would mean that the shit hits the fan even harder when things get out. And things get out.
Curious in that Apple iPhone was the only piece of gear that could be relied upon to be cracked. Any model.
Emphasis on "was". Up to about iPhone 3G.
There are two major changes nowadays. Change one is permanent full disk encryption. Change two is activation. You can only activate a wiped phone. When you buy a used phone, the seller could hand you their AppleId and password (which would be a stupid thing to do), so you wouldn't activate the phone yourself and would have whatever software is on the phone. But you would instead wipe the phone, activate it with your own AppleId and password, and whatever was on the phone (including whatever the NSA put on it) is gone. If you open a box that is supposed to contain a brand new iPhone and it doesn't require activation, then you know it's not new.
The actual claim that the Chinese make is that a new feature in iOS collects location data on the phone (which it does), and if the phone gets stolen or hacked, someone might see that data and that could have all kinds of consequences, worst case consequences for China's national security. So there was _no_ claim that Apple was involved or helping in any spying at all.
To a software developer it should be obvious that if Apple wanted to spy on you, the presence or absence of this feature wouldn't make the slightest difference whatsoever. If Apple can secretly send data that were openly collected on your phone, they could equally easily secretly send data that was secretly collected on your phone.
To a non-developer, it should be equally obvious that there are hundreds of features with the same national security implications, like word processors, spreadsheets, note-taking applications and so on and so on. Probably applications that are far more dangerous. I would expect a word processor to contain much juicier information than a location log.
You are claiming that Apple is making statements that while literally true, are misleading people to make them belief something that isn't true.
I would assume that Apple doesn't aim statements like this at paranoids. Fact is: Apple either acts in a way that a normal, non-paranoid person would expect from a statement like this and are speaking the truth, or they are not and they are lying, but it would be utterly pointless for Apple to make carefully crafted statements that are literally true but misleading.
Doesn't China still have a 1 child law.
So? Who says you can't have a second child after you sold the first one?
Actually, fixed term makes a lot more sense. Why should a book written by a 20 year old have on average sixty years more copyright than a book written by an 80 year old? And why should that change if the 20 year old is hit by a truck?
People have argued the right to not incriminate themselves right up to the European courts, but it was rejected. When you are arrested in the UK you are told that if you fail to mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court it may harm your defence, so there is no right to silence either.
I enquired about that. Here's a situation where it "may harm your defence". Let's say you are a crime suspect. You say you have a witness you can give evidence that you were nowhere near the crime scene. What should happen is that you tell the police who your witness is, they question your witness, and either let you go because the witness convinces them you were not there, or the witness says your story is bullshit, or they decide not to believe your witness and investigate further. In the last two cases this will then come up in your court case.
But let's say you refuse to say who the witness is. The police has no chance to check if the witness says the truth or not because they don't know who the witness is. And in your court case you suddenly present the witness. In that case, the judge can throw that witness out because the police had no chance to investigate.
So you do have the right to remain silence, and it doesn't harm your defense if you remain silent all the time including the court case. It _can_ harm your defense if you remain silent but only until you appear in court.
It doesn't matter. In the UK, you face jail time for not turning over passwords... even if you can prove you never had them.
And that is exactly nonsense. You can only go to jail if they can prove that you have the password and don't turn it over.
Wait a second... That's not my experience at all. If a car with a license plate matching your license plate is caught speeding, you will get a letter asking you whether you were driving the car. If you say "yes" you can accept a low (ish) fixed penalty and points without going to court. If you say "no" or "can't remember" or insist on going to court they start investigating. The matter will end up with the driver in court, there will be a higher fine plus court cost, but there will not be more points.
But seriously, you can't remember who is driving your car? I mean before you let anyone drive your car, you have to make sure that they have a valid driving license, and that they have insurance, so please tell me how can you forget who was driving? Or are you saying you were so drunk that you can't remember driving?
Since when is a password in itself evidence, or in any way incriminating yourself? What the police find from access granted by said password is another matter.
It would be incriminating in rare cases. For example, if the police don't know for sure that it is _your_ computer involved in a crime, then providing a password would prove that it's your computer, and it would be incriminating. That's why for this law to apply in the UK, the police must already have evidence that you have the password.
I bought 40~ used iphones off ebay and at least 12 of them were still logged into social media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat) and had thousands of photos and videos. i did not see any nudes but i did have fun with some of their profiles.
If you have burglars who are caught by logging into facebook at a victim's home computer and not logging out before they are leaving, what can you expect?
When someone says reset phone and reset data, the OS should ensure a clean wipe not a soft wipe. Should atleast fill it with 0s. And people should try to keep most of their data on sd cards and move those alongs when they get new phones.
There's one phone that just throws away the encryption keys, which are never stored anywhere than on two locations on the hard drive (in encrypted form), so only these two locations need to be wiped. That phone also has the ability to access a small amount of flash memory directly without the firmware interfering, to make sure that no invisible copies of those keys are created. Well, it's not Android...
What gives you that idea?
It means either Foxconn or Apple make more money. Perhaps both.
Obviously Foxconn has no other customers than Apple. Reminds me of the headlines last year "300 workers threaten suicide at Apple factory" (because they were in fear of losing their jobs due to dropping X-box sales).
A big part of the problem why Americans (and others) are fatter and fatter are because of misbeliefs foisted upon them.
Can't be voted up more enough. Let's say you buy some healthy low-fat yoghurt. And then you check and it's stuffed full with sugar! And it has a HUGE "low fat" printed on it, when it has more calories and is less healthy for you then the unmodified normal fat yoghurt. The problem is that your body _wants_ fat because that's what it has been designed to want for the last 100,000 years, and as long as it doesn't get the fat it wants it just wants more food!
How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question?
They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the content owner. And they have to give you a contact address. As they make a statement under penalty of perjury, they are either right or criminals. If they are criminals, that will get sorted out.
That C file is part of the Android MSM kernel source tree and does contain a "Qualcomm Confidential and Proprietary" line while noting it's now under a Linux Foundation copyright.
Well, that could be just a tiny little problem for Qualcomm then. In a DMCA takedown notice, there are mistakes that you are allowed to make and mistakes that are criminal. A DMCA takedown notice against material that is not the one you own, or that has a license which you didn't notice, that's harmless. But you state under penalty of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of the item that you believe to be infringed. So if the Linux Foundation is indeed the copyright holder, that should be fatal.
Neither the summary, nor the linked article, nor the article linked to in the linked article give the crucial information: What exactly did the court decide?
Quite obviously if I use Tor for criminal activity, and my best buddy sets up a Tor exit node exclusively for me to support my criminal activity, then he will be convicted for running that exit node. Not just in Austria, but everywhere.
And equally obviously, someone who operates a Tor exit node, which is without his knowledge and without his agreement used by a criminal for criminal activity, that operator _should not_ be convicted, neither in Austria nor elsewhere.
What all these articles don't say is what exactly the Tor operator has done. And without that we can't judge what happened.
If you repair a car that is then used in a robbery, you shouldn't be accused of being an accomplice. Except if you knew it was going to be used in a robbery. For example, if you repeatedly fixed a car that was used to drive into shop windows, and even fix steel plates to the front of the car.
Uzi Nissan, of Nissan computer [nissan.com] fame has been paying the price for years for daring to be born with a name that was later copyrighted.
That case must be about the most stupid use of lawyers that I've heard of. If you follow the link, you will see that neither Uzi Nissan nor the Nissan car company can make proper use of the www.nissan.com domain. I'd bet that Nissan's lawyers very proudly reported that they won a court case - which is totally pointless, because their goal should have been to get the use of the domain name.
Had Nissan not sent lawyers but someone with intelligence, then they would be able to use the name, and Uzi Nissan would have a brand new Nissan car parked in front of his computer shop every year. Which would have been better all around for everyone involved.
Perjury will essentially be impossible to prove, so, they almost might as well have not included the penalty.
What? That's nonsense. You must claim _under penalty of perjury_ that some work is infringed and you are or represent the copyright holder. There should be nothing easier to prove or disprove.
Thanks for this. "Good faith belief" can cover a multitude of sins. The use of copyrighted work does not necessarily have to be authorized by the copyright owner, for instance in the case of "fair use".
The law says what it says. Now if we ignore the fact that "fair use" will be a very rare situation, the law says the copyright holder can ask for the work to be taken down if you are not authorised, and the copyright holder is not required to investigate at this point whether you did something that doesn't require authorisation. "Fair use" = not authorised. "Fair use" can only be used as a defence in court when you are sued for copyright infringement.
Takedown + waiting for a counter notice is not overreacting, it is the appropriate reaction. And of course they have to send your counter notice to the claimant. What are you afraid of? Just write in your counter notice to John Smith "I own the copyright on all the works on my site, and if John Smith thinks he can force me to remove an article about a different person with the same name, I'd like to know what drugs he is taking. "
In the case of the "John Smith": When someone sends a DMCA takedown notice, they declare under penalty of perjury that they have copyright on the work that they believe you are infringing upon. (If the are mistaken about the work - the one you published is not the one that they have the copyright for, or they are wrong about the infringing - you have a license, that's fine, but they _must_ have the copyright for _some_ work). So you can take them to court and give them an expensive lesson in copyright law and the DMCA law.
Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.
Because it was mostly politicians being killed. And because Harrison Ford survived.
A contract does not require a signature, it requires a meeting of minds. A signature is one way of demonstrating this. Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work is another.
Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work means you agree to do work for the company in exchange for payment. It doesn't demonstrate in any way that you agreed to anything beyond that in your employment contract, especially if you didn't sign it.