"For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is denied and Googles motion for summary judgment is granted. Judgment will be entered in favor of Google dismissing the Complaint. Google shall submit a proposed judgment, on notice, within five business days hereof."
"In sum, we conclude that: (1) Googles unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transfor-mative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Googles commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use. (2) Googles provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement. Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer."
you're right - really, it's in the opinion of all copyright / IP lawyers & thinkers in this country that Google lost, because it didn't get to do what it wanted to do, even if it "won", it is Pyrrhic.
the balance of comments in Hacker News about a topic like this: it tips towards the wrong understanding of that case. There's Gell Mann Amnesia in every comment section.
A summary judgement in favor of Google with an explicit sentence in the ruling that Google was not "violating intellectual property law" is an unmitigated victory.
Google removed a ridiculous amount of material during the dispute with the Author's Guild. I know because a bunch of my legal history research citation links collected between 2007-2011 are long since dead, with the material completely gone, AFAICT, and either not discoverable or only available in excerpt. And this was stuff from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which definitely was out of copyright in the US, though some of it may have potentially been a headache in Europe regarding copyright-adjacent author rights that Google didn't want to deal with.
"just use a second phone" cannot be the answer because 99% of people will just scoff at that. Instead of buying a second phone, why not just buy one that works?
And that's to say nothing of the environmental impact.
> "just use a second phone" cannot be the answer because 99% of people will just scoff at that.
Here we are talking about installing PostmarketOS/Linux on a smartphone. The next milestone is not to get everyone on it. First we need a base of early adopters that are willing to use it despite the drawbacks. The more user those alternatives will get, the more they will be developed, the better it will get.
Sure, for the next years, it will be way behind Android or iOS in terms of ease of use, but that's the price to pay to get back control on the device you own that is probably the main computer you use everyday.
For me that's not worse than using Linux in the early 2000s, and like Linux in the early 2000s, it may even be _fun_ to be an early adopter of Linux on the smartphone.
Now we don't need to migrate everyone to PostmarketOS, we _just_ need an alternative OS for at least the ones who are willing to play with it.
What you're saying already existed. Linux on a smartphone was called Android. It ended up where it is today. If you were to somehow make another Linux on a smartphone competitor, it too would end up where Android is today, for the same reasons.
The current cyber security zeitgeist is to only allow "trusted" devices in your SSO flow and to also shove your VPN authentication on that SSO flow which includes even third party browsers not working. Only Chrome with a managed profile is even allowed to login. That pretty much means if you're not using a most recent version of iOS or Android you're SOL for using it for work.
And good luck spoofing it these days cause they are usually backed by hardware backed tpm encryption. Which is why windows 11 only installs if there's a tpm 2.0 device detected.
It's become super dystopian in the past 10 years and I don't see it changing.
Always thankful that I got to live through the wild West days because that's going away.
I don't argue that the problem isn't serious. I just want to tell that giving up is not the solution. I use a GNU/Linux phone and refuse any banks or services that don't work there. Yes, it's challenging and I have to make compromises because of it. Such is life.
Having a rooted android 11 phone for years was never a problem. My bank apps worked just fine. Even for work stuff (usually). It's on the personal side where I actually started to value having a virtual credit card on my phone with Google pay or apple pay. The stack to enable that securely is only on android and iOS and there's nothing else out there that has that. Open source community needs a full stack for attesting biometric sensors, storing secrets, and pushing them out through NFC and doing it properly is a lot.
Seconded. The NFC payment feature is useful on mobile in a way that generic "online banking" just isn't IMO. In the same category are transit apps, ride-hailing apps, social messaging, and a (very) few other others. The problem is that payment really does require a secure stack, as you describe.
Indeed, I do too. But since you always need at least one backup means of payment, I keep a second virtual card on mobile for that. Which alas is a very convenient solution.
It is the best answer at the moment. You can keep an absolute basic phone with all the banking and such apps loaded and nothing else. You treat it like an appliance. Your daily driver will be separate and can be running PostmarketOS or LineageOS etc.
There are several benefits off the top of my head:
1. Since you only install banking/govt type apps on your "important" phone, it stays more secure vs. putting your random game app along with the banking app on the same phone.
2. When you upgrade your daily driver, you don't need to deal with tons of re-auth steps for banking/govt apps.
3. Your daily driver can be customized to the nth degree because the pesky banking app won't be on it to refuse login because, say, you turned on developer options or rooted the phone.
4. You can even leave the basic phone at home for extra safety, if you wish, without affecting your daily driver.
5. You can root your daily driver and put as much adblocking setup as you want to boost your privacy. Your basic phone won't have enough activity outside banking/govt. to build much of a profile.
There's just one problem: increasingly, everything that makes a phone a "daily driver" is the thing that can only work on the "important" phone. Banking/finance, government services, commerce, work, communications (thanks a lot E2EE), and DRM-ed entertainment - all the major players here are locking their software down and relying on remote attestation to ensure their locks stay shut.
With this being the trend, you're already more likely to leave what you called "daily driver" phone home, and only take the "important" one with you.
Still waiting for someone to make a tiny token sized phone. Unfortunately the smallest around, Unihertz Atom, is both outdated and too low resolution for some apps to work.
Been doing this for years. Old phone for testing apps and running servers
All the Google stuff is disabled, open source Contacts app,^1 no Google Play Services, no access to remote DNS, Netguard for application firewall and port forwarding, with computer I control as gateway. 1. Have yet to find any other app that can access contacts when storing them this way, even the Meta's biggest Trojans
Meanwhile, new phone, "important phone", stays offline. Wifi off. Location off. path?.xtracloud.net blocked. Phone is used for texting and phone calls, no internet access
The "banking app" argument, i.e., either install a custom ROM or give up or submit to surveillance, is a false dichotomy. There are other options
I don't use a phone for internet banking, I use a computer I can control; there is no "banking app" (talk about high risk, geez)
The "banking app" problem is a common refrain on HN but in the real world I know many people who do not use a phone for internet banking
Mobile OS just suck. It's like being forced to use MS Windows
It might actually be a better environmental decision, if instead of buying a new second phone, it is instead about keeping an existing phone in use and not adding to the burning heaps of e-waste. Given the rising popularity of refurbished phones, not to mention the lower costs, it might actually be the opposite of what you claim, at least on those grounds.
And for the rest, well, "just works" for what? With a little time and effort, it may even get to the case of the "just works" part is a siloed unit like a SIM card that is just installed to the device, making it opt-in and user owned...
Not That i want to kick the can down the road, but the ultimate solution (barring actually fighting for our privileges over the systems we buy) is to have that second phone, and control it either via vnc, or via a kvm which presents vnc. I know, its really absurd, complexity wise, what with tunneling and figuring out where to house said setup.
However, the latter is ultimately transparent to the phone, outside of allowing a second monitor/hid to be connected to it. You could, given a VNC client then go ahead and control it via laptop or another phone.
It's not a solution because VNC is already nerfed and will be the first thing to go, if people try to embrace the idea.
Providers of all the service types aren't driving this because they believe locked down phones are a Good Thing. They're driving this because they explicitly don't want you to do the very things you'd want to do with your VNC idea.
What would you want instead? If a company truly followed best practices and was as secure as was reasonably expected, then was it their fault a zero-day was exploited? And if not what consequence should there be for the actions of a bad actor?
There MUST be consequences for data breaches. It simply can't go on like this. There have to be rules & regulations for how personal data is stored.
How many of you have received notices in the mail your data has been leaked and the only restitution is a free year long credit check? Then maybe a few years down the road you get $20 from a class action lawsuit.
Last year alone, both AT&T and my health care company were breached and all my data was leaked, including details of my personal medical history.
This kind of thing just can't continue. There has to be someone to set standards for how your personal and "private" information is stored or it won't be possible to know who is who going forward in the future. Even state DMV's have been breached.[1] Imagine a point in the future where identity theft has become so rampant that a US ID card or passport can't be trusted because anyone anywhere at anytime can steal another person's identity with ease because everyone's data is out there and available for purchase through some black market.
It's a dystopian thought, but a lot of things from dystopian fiction that I only thought would continue to be fiction seem to be coming to pass on a regular basis these days.
> There have to be rules & regulations for how personal data is stored.
Totally agreed.
> There MUST be consequences for data breaches.
Even if you're following those rules and regulations? I think the general idea of malpractice applies here. People do their best, but you can't prevent every unknown. So as long as you're not a complete idiot or acting in bad faith, it's not your fault. Punishing people for a bad actor's actions wouldn't do anything but make it even harder to enter a market.
Preventing data breaches is a lost cause. For one, most everyone's PII is already on the net. Plugging that hole is like patching the Titanic. We're already sunk. What we need is a way to prevent identity theft. Possibly a way to help people more easily recover from it as well. The US has the FDIC in case a bank implodes. We need something like that, but for all my accounts when some guy in Russia takes out five mortgages on my property.
Or, we need to radically rethink PII. We're still using ink signatures on paper to sign for contracts for Pete's sake. I should have to crytographically sign a house mortgage, not make some hand drawn glyph that nobody can read and anybody could fake. Of course, that comes with other problems such as Big Brother having more data about me, but this reply is long enough.
E.x. if the data breached was not critical to legal retention requirements, the penalty is more severe. (Ofc this assumes good definition of what is critical for legal retention).
At the very least it would encourage companies to keep such data less or for shorter times to minimize damage.
I think some of this is just the typical bluster of company press releases / earnings reports. Can't ever show weakness or the shareholders will leave. Can't ever show doubt or the stock price will drop.
Nevertheless, I've been wondering of late. How will we know when AGI is accomplished? In the books or movies, it's always been handwaved or described in a way that made it seem like it was obvious to all. For example, in The Matrix there's the line "We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI." It was a very obvious event that nobody could question in that story. In reality though? I'm starting to think it's just going to be more of a gradual thing, like increasing the resolution of our TVs until you can't tell it's not a window any longer.
It's certainly not an specific thing that can be accomplished. AGI is a useful name for a badly defined concept, but any objective application of it (like in a contract) is just stupid things done by people that could barely be described as having the natural variety of GI.
Lots of people realized it long ago. Hell, the Monopoly board game was meant as a cautionary tale. The fact that it's been repurposed as a way for MB to rake in tons of cash says something, I think.
And Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, it is fair to complain that they don’t just put Ghana in the title. It is not that the title is unacceptable but it is just wrong and weird
Maybe the English-speaking world. I think most people couldn't place Canada on a map. More people than Ghana or any African country, certainly, but that's because it's more famous. GDP is more correlated to this than population or landmass.
I'm not justifying anything. I also think it's more polite to say "Ghana" rather than "Africa". I just don't agree with the arguments.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world, so if you know that it's in the north and, um, not Russia, you stand a pretty good chance at picking it out. (Doubly so if you just know it's in the Americas.)
Now, if you asked the same about Pakistan or Nigeria (#5 and #6 in terms of population, but far smaller and with far shorter sea borders), I'd bet that far fewer people would be able to pinpoint those with the same accuracy (whether in the English-speaking world or not).
I am fairly certain that most people in the non-English speaking world will also be able to place Canada on the map - I'd assume the French know exactly where Canada is. But I digress; it's not about placing a country on a map. It's more about we know that Canada is a separate country, and it has an identity distinct from other countries in its continent.
This goes beyond mere politeness; that you used this word is a bit suggestive. Refusing to acknowledge an identity is far more than just a lack of politeness.
> They obviously didn't ask for that, and it was focused on them without their permission, and yet, here we are....
The rule is: if you're in public you have no expectation of privacy.
I think a debate on that rule would be interesting. My thought is that if I can't take a picture unless there's absolutely nobody else in the FOV, then that basically prohibits the vast majority of photographs.
I also am a fan of the "expectation of privacy" rule.
That's primarily because it makes it absolutely clear the public always has the right to record officials doing their job. So if you see a policeman murdering George Floyd in the street, or fellow shopper pushing an old woman out of the way, or a parent screaming abuse at an umpire, or even just someone littering in a national park there is no doubt you are allowed to record it.
Yes, this means towards more surveillance, but it's a counter balance to the surveillance state. The state and large corporations put cameras everywhere. It seems odd to me that people get really upset by taking photos of them when there are likely numerous CCTV cameras already doing that 24 hours a day, in not so public places like offices. The "anyone can take photos in a public place" rule means Joe Citizen gets the same rights as the corporations and governments take for themselves.
I'm in the minority though. The best illustration I've seen of the was a man take a photo of the cheer leaders at a big football game. He leaned over the fence and put his camera on the ground, taking the photo as the girl kicked her leg into the air. His actions where caught on the TV camera that was broadcasting that same girls crouch around the nation. The police prosecuted him because of the huge outcry. I'm can't recall what the outcome in court was, but I couldn't see how he could be breaking the photography rules given my country has the "expectation of privacy" rule.
> I feel like BDFLs are akin to the concept of village elders; they're not immune to corruption or scandal, but they often have this beloved status that can paper over a lot of cracks.
I think a lot of this is due to how so much is a scandal these days, for better and worse. (I'm obviously going to keep politics as much out of my response as possible.)
A few decades ago, people could have political views without ostracizing roughly 50% of the global population, or generally causing a ruckus at the holiday family dinner. (Obviously politics + holiday dinners has been an issue for a long time, but back then it was just something people tried to sweep under the rug. Now? Holiday dinners are getting cancelled or families are splitting up.)
It used to be that a scandal in the OSS community required you killing your wife (thinking back to ReiserFS). Now, a remark on Twitter is all it takes.
Again, I am absolutely not taking sides here. I'm just noticing a difference in the times, and agreeing that it is indeed interesting to watch.
No, I agree. That said, I think a lot of that particular shift is down to a) increased individualism b) an emphasis on the healing power of personal boundaries and c) the rejection of unity as an overriding good.
People are far more happy to cling to the tribe they choose, and the tribe that has their back, over the tribe they were born to. Then, there are those who see that trend as dangerous to society (where, in many cases, society is really just a proxy for their own power or social status - ironically as viewed through their own chosen tribes more than the tribe they were born to)
That is to say, I don't think it's the political views that are splitting the families. Individuals have decided that care for each other should come secondary to those political views. I feel like there used to be a certain amount of care in the "sweeping under the rug" - it was the tribe against the world, it was protecting the family image as much as it was protecting the individual from society. These days, being a thing "in private" means being a thing alone, and that's no longer a compelling thought when external tribes are willing to embrace you.
Which probably applies to software tribes just as much as family ones.
>A few decades ago, people could have political views without ostracizing roughly 50% of the global population
This is ahistorical.
Not only was it the norm forever to ostracize entire sections of your society (protestant vs catholic and lots of other religions, black vs white, any form of non-hetero behavior, the Roma people and any form of outsider)
It often was the law
Americans shot their family members over whether we should own black people or not.
My french and white ancestors were expelled to Louisiana, intermarried with black people, and then when the US bought the french land, they introduced laws that made such families illegal.
Reagan made a hobby of publicly claiming his coworkers were communist. Thought that maybe we should be allowed to form unions? 100 years ago that was enough to get you investigated by the senate. Americans voted for him so hard the Democratic party is still floundering to have support. "We should allow unions" or "we should regulate companies" is still half-verbotten.
Do you know how many kids are still kicked out of their homes for the crime of being born gay?
This idea of "You used to be able to hold diverse opinions in public" is outright wrong. This past never existed.
Weird Christians in the US have tried to cancel things like Harry Potter and halloween for gods sake. They took a teacher to trial for teaching evolution. They made playing pen and paper RPGs a sin! When preachers molested kids, they shunned the kids
Being too chummy with another guy in public was a scandal! Being a woman who wanted an education was a scandal! Getting pregnant out of wedlock was a scandal that would tear apart families. Getting divorced was verbotten. Expressing support for social policy could get you fired, or murdered
Bush Jr literally said "You're either with us or against us" about supporting a criminal war and America pitched a globally public fit when other countries did not pledge allegiance.
