The Linkielist

Linking ideas with the world

The Linkielist

Bill Barr to destroy antitrust case vs Google by forcing DoJ complaint filed before case is ready but before Trump re-election voting

Posted on by

Several interested parties in the U.S. government have been looking to put Google’s head on a spike, and while undoubtedly there’s been some degree of jockeying between them for which will ultimately get the credit, they’ve been proceeding with care and caution in the interest of building an ironclad case against a particularly canny opponent. Leave it to Bill Barr—who in a better world would instead star in a live-action remake of Droopy Dog— to take all that hard work and piss it away.

Per reporting in the New York Times, “Justice Department officials told lawyers involved in the antitrust inquiry into Alphabet […] to wrap up their work by the end of September.” These lawyers apparently viewed the new, abrupt deadline—against an enormously powerful company with nearly unlimited resources to throw at a comprehensive legal defense—as “arbitrary.”

In all likeliness it’s anything but arbitrary. As we near the general election in November, the Trump camp is looking for a win to hang its hat on. We’ve already seen the president decide—seemingly mid-interview with Axios’s Jonathan Swan—to cut the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan by half, and likewise claim during his keynote speech at the RNC that he will release a covid-19 vaccine. Not coincidentally, both of these miraculous claims are projected (by Trump and seemingly only Trump) to come to fruition around November. Breaking up Google, which is increasingly a source of ire for Republicans and Democrats (albeit for wildly different reasons) appears to be a gambit by Barr to find that win—or at least the appearance of one.

We’ve reached out to Google and the Department of Justice for comment and will update if we hear back.

As mentioned, the DOJ isn’t the only game in town where fining, regulating, or otherwise frustrating Google’s market dominance is concerned. A coalition of 50 state attorneys general is also probing the company, while the FTC, the House’s Antitrust Subcommittee, and the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee have ongoing investigations more broadly into the practices of big tech. All have been gathering evidence for a year or more, which is what makes Barr’s hastiness particularly egregious. Per the Times:

Some lawyers in the department worry that Mr. Barr’s determination to bring a complaint this month could weaken their case and ultimately strengthen Google’s hand, according to interviews with 15 lawyers who worked on the case or were briefed on the department’s strategy […] Many career staff members in the antitrust division, including more than a dozen who were hired during the Trump administration, considered the evidence solid that Google’s search and advertising businesses violated antitrust law. But some told associates that Mr. Barr was forcing them to come up with “half-baked” cases so he could unveil a complaint by Sept. 30.

As is the case with most would-be totalitarians, the appearance of strength for Trump is often pursued at the expense of actually wielding power effectively. If true, Barr’s reported plan to jump the gun on a Google antitrust case is a prime example. By looking the part and going after Google now, he would be likely to undermine the other existing cases against the company. If, say, Google manages to dodge claims by the DOJ of a monopoly on web search advertising (of which it controls more than 90% of the market), that becomes precedent the FTC or House needs to overcome to prove said monopoly exists.

Regulating big tech—and regulating it in a smart and comprehensive way—would be a steep uphill climb in the best of political climates. Leave it to Trump and his lackeys to carve that hill into a sheer cliff face and slather it in grease. Maybe someone else will clean it up.

Source: Report: DOJ Puts to File Google Antitrust Case in September

After Facebook Balks, Apple Delays “Privacy” (ie only Apple spies on you) Feature

Posted on by

In June, Apple unveiled plans for an iOS 14 privacy update that forces developers to gather users’ consent before tracking their activities across third-party apps and websites. Needless to say, giving users more control over how their information is gathered and trafficked is expected to bruise advertisers—especially Facebook, which uses that information to narrow its targeting functions.

As the initial autumn deadline closed in, Facebook protested last week that the change could render Facebook’s Audience Network—its ad service offered to third-party apps—“so ineffective on iOS 14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS 14 in the future.” The company claimed that blocking personalization is expected to cut Audience Network revenue by half or more, and that the move would hurt the over 19,000 developers who work with Facebook, many of which are “small businesses that depend on ads to support their livelihood.”

Apple’s messaging to users, as illustrated in the latest promo images for iOS 14, doesn’t give surveillance a nice ring. It will tell you bluntly that such-and-such app “would like permission to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies.” Apple pointed out to Gizmodo that it still embraces in-app advertising and does not prohibit tracking. In fact, Facebook can still gather that data (using Apple’s advertiser ID), if it’s willing to ask iOS users to agree to be tracked (using that scary messaging.) But both Apple and Facebook know that the data collection business operates more smoothly when begging for forgiveness later rather than asking permission now. If not, companies wouldn’t have mastered the art of doublespeak and constructed labyrinthine settings menus.

Apple, on the other hand, will still be able to benefit from gathering your information in various ways without asking permission because Apple doesn’t necessarily need to share or gather your information with data brokers and outside companies—your data is already growing organically within Apple’s walled garden. For example, Apple might show you an ad for a weight loss app in the App Store based on the fact that you read an article from a lifestyle publication in the Apple News app—a function which is automatically enabled, and can be toggled off, under “Apple Advertising.” Similarly, Apple says that developers can use data gained from activity within their own apps through Apple’s vendor-specific identifier. (Apple says that the “tracking” prompt would still show up if Apple-created apps intend to share information beyond Apple.)

But it’s hard to imagine a competing vendor that would have access to such a sprawling network of native data, aside from Google, which has its own devices and browser and advertiser ID. And sticking the notification on Facebook polishes Apple’s self-fashioned reputation a big tech company which values privacy. (It is not.)

[…]

Apple says that now apps won’t need to ask users permission to be tracked until 2021, “to give developers time to make necessary changes.” Apple will also require developers to submit details on the data their apps collect—including “sensitive information” such as race, sexual orientation, disability, and political affiliation—which will be published in the App Store later this year.

Source: After Facebook Balks, Apple Delays Privacy Feature

Facebook finally joins responsible disclosure for bugs they find

Posted on by

Facebook has published its first Vulnerability Disclosure Policy and given itself grounds to blab the existence of bugs to the world if it thinks that’s the right thing to do.

“Facebook may occasionally find critical security bugs or vulnerabilities in third-party code and systems, including open source software,” the company writes. “When that happens, our priority is to see these issues promptly fixed, while making sure that people impacted are informed so that they can protect themselves by deploying a patch or updating their systems.”

The Social Network™ has made itself the arbiter of what needs to be disclosed and when it needs to be disclosed. The company’s policy is to contact “the appropriate responsible party” and give them 21 days to respond.

“Facebook will evaluate based on our interpretation of the risk to people.”

“If we don’t hear back within 21 days after reporting, Facebook reserves the right to disclose the vulnerability,” the policy says, adding: “If within 90 days after reporting there is no fix or update indicating the issue is being addressed in a reasonable manner, Facebook will disclose the vulnerability.”

But the company has also outlined exceptions to those rules, with acceleration of disclosure if a bug is already being exploited and slowing down news “If a project’s release cycle dictates a longer window.”

The third reason is:

“If a fix is ready and has been validated, but the project owner unnecessarily delays rolling out the fix, we might initiate the disclosure prior to the 90-day deadline when the delay might adversely impact the public.”

Facebook “will evaluate each issue on a case-by-case basis based on our interpretation of the risk to people.”

The policy isn’t wildly difficult from that used by Google’s Project Zero, which also discloses bugs after 90 days and also offers extensions under some circumstances.

Source: Facebook to blab bugs it finds if it thinks code owners aren’t fixing fast enough • The Register

The Big Tesla Hack: A hacker gained control over the entire fleet, but fortunately he’s a good guy

Posted on by

In July 2017, Tesla CEO Elon Musk got on stage at the National Governors Association in Rhode Island and confirmed that a “fleet-wide hack” is one of Tesla’s biggest concerns as the automaker moves to autonomous vehicles.

He even presented a strange scenario that could happen in an autonomous future:

“In principle, if someone was able to say hack all the autonomous Teslas, they could say – I mean just as a prank – they could say ‘send them all to Rhode Island’ [laugh] – across the United States… and that would be the end of Tesla and there would be a lot of angry people in Rhode Island.”

What Musk knew that the public didn’t was that Tesla got a taste of that actually happening just a few months prior to his talk.

The Big Tesla Hack

Back in 2017, Jason Hughes was already well known in the Tesla community under his WK057 alias on the forums.

He was an early member of the Tesla “root access” community, a group of Tesla owners who would hack their own cars to get more control over them and even unlock unreleased features.

[…]

After Tesla started to give customers access to more data about Supercharger stations, mainly the ability to see how many chargers were currently available at a specific charging station through its navigation app, Hughes decided to poke around and see if he could expose the data.

He told Electrek:

“I found a hole in the server-side of that mechanism that allowed me to basically get data for every Supercharger worldwide about once every few minutes.”

The hacker shared the data on the Tesla Motors Club forum, and the automaker seemingly wasn’t happy about it.

Someone who appeared to be working at Tesla posted anonymously about how they didn’t want the data out there.

Hughes responded that he would be happy to discuss it with them.

20 minutes later, he was on a conference call with the head of the Supercharger network and the head of software security at Tesla.

They kindly explained to him that they would prefer for him not to share the data, which was technically accessible through the vehicles. Hughes then agreed to stop scraping and sharing the Supercharger data.

After reporting his server exploit through Tesla’s bug reporting service, he received a $5,000 reward for exposing the vulnerability.

With now having more experience with Tesla’s servers and knowing that their network wasn’t the most secure, to say the least, he decided to go hunting for more bug bounties.

After some poking around, he managed to find a bunch of small vulnerabilities.

The hacker told Electrek:

“I realized a few of these things could be chained together, the official term is a bug chain, to gain more access to other things on their network. Eventually, I managed to access a sort of repository of server images on their network, one of which was ‘Mothership’.”

Mothership is the name of Tesla’s home server used to communicate with its customer fleet.

Any kind of remote commands or diagnostic information from the car to Tesla goes through “Mothership.”

After downloading and dissecting the data found in the repository, Hughes started using his car’s VPN connection to poke at Mothership. He eventually landed on a developer network connection.

That’s when he found a bug in Mothership itself that enabled him to authenticate as if it was coming from any car in Tesla’s fleet.

All he needed was a vehicle’s VIN number, and he had access to all of those through Tesla’s “tesladex” database thanks to his complete control of Mothership, and he could get information about any car in the fleet and even send commands to those cars.

At the time, I gave Hughes the VIN number of my own Tesla Model S, and he was able to give me its exact location and any other information about my own vehicle.

[…]

Hughes couldn’t really send Tesla cars driving around everywhere like Tesla’s CEO described in a strange scenario few months later, but he could “Summon” them.

In 2016, Tesla released its Summon feature, which enables Tesla owners to remotely move their cars forward or backward a few dozen feet without anyone in them.

[…]

the automaker awarded him a special $50,000 bug report reward — several times higher than the max official bug reward limit:

Source: The Big Tesla Hack: A hacker gained control over the entire fleet, but fortunately he’s a good guy – Electrek

Academic Study Says Open Source Has Peaked: But Why?

Posted on by

Open source runs the world. That’s for supercomputers, where Linux powers all of the top 500 machines in the world, for smartphones, where Android has a global market share of around 75%, and for everything in between, as Wired points out:

When you stream the latest Netflix show, you fire up servers on Amazon Web Services, most of which run on Linux. When an F-16 fighter takes off, three Kubernetes clusters run to keep the jet’s software running. When you visit a website, any website, chances are it’s run on Node.js. These foundational technologies — Linux, Kubernetes, Node.js — and many others that silently permeate our lives have one thing in common: open source.

Ubiquity can engender complacency: because open source is indispensable for modern digital life, the assumption is that it will always be there, always supported, always developed. That makes new research looking at what the longer-term trends are in open source development welcome. It builds on work carried out by three earlier studies, in 2003, 2007 and 2007, but using a much larger data set:

This study replicates the measurements of project-specific quantities suggested by the three prior studies (lines of code, lifecycle state), but also reproduce the measurements by new measurands (contributors, commits) on an enlarged and updated data set of 180 million commits contributed to more than 224,000 open source projects in the last 25 years. In this way, we evaluate existing growth models and help to mature the knowledge of open source by addressing both internal and external validity.

The new work uses data from Open Hub, which enables the researchers to collect commit information across different source code hosts like GitHub, Gitlab, BitBucket, and SourceForge. Some impressive figures emerge. For example, at the end of 2018, open source projects contained 17,586,490,655 lines of code, made up of 14,588,351,457 lines of source code and 2,998,139,198 lines of comments. In the last 25 years, 224,342 open source projects received 180,937,525 commits in total. Not bad for what began as a ragtag bunch of coders sharing stuff for fun. But there are also some more troubling results. The researchers found that most open source projects are inactive, and that most inactive projects never receive a contribution again.

Looking at the longer-term trends, an initial, transient exponential growth was found until 2009 for commits and contributors, until 2011 for the number of available projects, and until 2013 for available lines of code. Thereafter, all those metrics reached a plateau, or declined. In one sense, that’s hardly a surprise. In the real world, exponential growth has to stop at some point. The real question is whether open source has peaked purely because it has reached its natural limits, or whether they are other problems that could have been avoided.

For example, a widespread concern in the open source community is that companies may have deployed free code in their products with great enthusiasm, but they have worried less about giving back and supporting all the people who write it. Such an approach may work in the short term, but ultimately destroys the software commons they depend on. That’s just as foolish as over-exploiting the environmental commons with no thought for long-term sustainability. As the Wired article mentioned above points out, it’s not just bad for companies and the digital ecosystem, it’s bad for the US too. In the context of the current trade war with China, “the core values of open source — transparency, openness, and collaboration — play to America’s strengths”. The new research might be an indication that the open source community, which has selflessly given so much for decades, is showing signs of altruism fatigue. Now would be a good time for companies to start giving back by supporting open source projects to a much greater degree than they have so far.

Source: Academic Study Says Open Source Has Peaked: But Why? | Techdirt

I spoke of this in 2017

Private Intel Firm Buys Location Data to Track People to their ‘Doorstep’ sourced from innocuous seeming apps

Posted on by

A threat intelligence firm called HYAS, a private company that tries to prevent or investigates hacks against its clients, is buying location data harvested from ordinary apps installed on peoples’ phones around the world, and using it to unmask hackers. The company is a business, not a law enforcement agency, and claims to be able to track people to their “doorstep.”

The news highlights the complex supply chain and sale of location data, traveling from apps whose users are in some cases unaware that the software is selling their location, through to data brokers, and finally to end clients who use the data itself. The news also shows that while some location firms repeatedly reassure the public that their data is focused on the high level, aggregated, pseudonymous tracking of groups of people, some companies do buy and use location data from a largely unregulated market explicitly for the purpose of identifying specific individuals.

HYAS’ location data comes from X-Mode, a company that started with an app named “Drunk Mode,” designed to prevent college students from making drunk phone calls and has since pivoted to selling user data from a wide swath of apps. Apps that mention X-Mode in their privacy policies include Perfect365, a beauty app, and other innocuous looking apps such as an MP3 file converter.

“As a TI [threat intelligence] tool it’s incredible, but ethically it stinks,” a source in the threat intelligence industry who received a demo of HYAS’ product told Motherboard. Motherboard granted the source anonymity as they weren’t authorized by their company to speak to the press.

[…]

HYAS differs in that it provides a concrete example of a company deliberately sourcing mobile phone location data with the intention of identifying and pinpointing particular people and providing that service to its own clients. Independently of Motherboard, the office of Senator Ron Wyden, which has been investigating the location data market, also discovered HYAS was using mobile location data. A Wyden aide said they had spoken with HYAS about the use of the data. HYAS said the mobile location data is used to unmask people who may be using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to hide their identity, according to the Wyden aide.

In a webinar uploaded to HYAS’ website, Todd Thiemann, VP of marketing at the company, describes how HYAS used location data to track a suspected hacker.

“We found out it was the city of Abuja, and on a city block in an apartment building that you can see down there below,” he says during the webinar. “We found the command and control domain used for the compromised employees, and used this threat actor’s login into the registrar, along with our geolocation granular mobile data to confirm right down to his house. We also got his first and last name, and verified his cellphone with a Nigerian mobile operator.”

hyas-webinar.png

A screenshot of a webinar given by HYAS, in which the company explains how it has used mobile application location data.

On its website, HYAS claims to have some Fortune 25 companies, large tech firms, as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies as clients.

[…]

Customers can include banks who want to get a heads-up on whether a freshly dumped cache of stolen credit card data belongs to them; a retailer trying to protect themselves from hackers; or a business checking if any of their employees’ login details are being traded by cybercriminals.

Some threat intelligence companies also sell services to government agencies, including the FBI, DHS, and Secret Service. The Department of Justice oftens acknowledges the work of particular threat intelligence companies in the department’s announcement of charges or indictments against hackers and other types of criminals.

But some other members of the threat intelligence industry criticized HYAS’ use of mobile app location data. The CEO of another threat intelligence firm told Motherboard that their company does not use the same sort of information that HYAS does.

The threat intelligence source who originally alerted Motherboard to HYAS recalled “being super shook at how they collected it,” referring to the location data.

A senior employee of a third threat intelligence firm said that location data is not hard to buy.

[…]

Motherboard found several location data companies that list HYAS in their privacy policies. One of those is X-Mode, a company that plants its own code into ordinary smartphone apps to then harvest location information. An X-Mode spokesperson told Motherboard in an email that the company’s data collecting code, or software development kit (SDK), is in over 400 apps and gathers information on 60 million global monthly users on average. X-Mode also develops some of its own apps which use location data, including parental monitoring app PlanC and fitness tracker Burn App.

“Whatever your need, the XDK Visualizer is here to show you that our signature SDK is too legit to quit (literally, it’s always on),” the description for another of X-Code’s own apps, which visualizes the company’s data collection to attract clients, reads.

“They’re like many location trackers but seem more aggressive to be honest,” Will Strafach, founder of the app Guardian, which alerts users to other apps accessing their location data, told Motherboard in an online chat. In January, X-Mode acquired the assets of Location Sciences, another location firm, expanding X-Mode’s dataset.

[…]

Motherboard then identified a number of apps whose own privacy policies mention X-Mode. They included Perfect365, a beauty-focused app that people can use to virtually try on different types of makeup with their device’s camera.

[…]

Various government agencies have bought access to location data from other companies. Last month, Motherboard found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) paid $476,000 to a firm that sells phone location data. CBP has used the data to scan parts of the U.S. border, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tried to use the same data to track criminal suspects but was unsuccessful.

Source: Private Intel Firm Buys Location Data to Track People to their ‘Doorstep’

Amazon Prime Air drone delivery fleet gets FAA approval

Posted on by

Amazon received federal approval to operate its fleet of Prime Air delivery drones, the Federal Aviation Administration said Monday, a milestone that allows the company to expand unmanned package delivery.

The approval will give Amazon broad privileges to “safely and efficiently deliver packages to customers,” the agency said. The certification comes under Part 135 of FAA regulations, which gives Amazon the ability to carry property on small drones “beyond the visual line of sight” of the operator.

Amazon said it will use the FAA’s certification to begin testing customer deliveries. The company said it went through rigorous training and submitted detailed evidence that its drone delivery operations are safe, including demonstrating the technology for FAA inspectors.

“This certification is an important step forward for Prime Air and indicates the FAA’s confidence in Amazon’s operating and safety procedures for an autonomous drone delivery service that will one day deliver packages to our customers around the world,” David Carbon, vice president of Prime Air, said in a statement. “We will continue to develop and refine our technology to fully integrate delivery drones into the airspace, and work closely with the FAA and other regulators around the world to realize our vision of 30 minute delivery.”

Amazon added that while the Prime Air fleet isn’t ready to immediately deploy package deliveries at scale, it’s actively flying and testing the technology.

[…]

Source: Amazon Prime Air drone delivery fleet gets FAA approval

How Face Shields and Valve Masks Fail to Stop Infectious Droplets, as Shown by Lasers

Posted on by

A new study using lasers suggests that face shields and masks outfitted with an exhaust valve aren’t particularly great at protecting others from tiny respiratory droplets containing contagious germs like the coronavirus that causes covid-19. These aerosols can spill through and around these types of face equipment, the study found, weakening their potential to keep users from spreading an infection to others

Mask wearing has been embraced by public health experts as one of the most impactful ways to reduce the chances of someone giving covid-19 to other people. To a lesser extent, masks seem to also lower the risk of wearers catching the coronavirus from others. And despite a noisy contingent of skeptics, particularly in the U.S., much of the public in countries around the world have adapted to wearing masks in situations where they’re around people outside their household.

But there are many different kinds of face coverings that have become popular. Two in particular are plastic face shields and N95-respirator masks that come with exhaust valves. N95 respirators filter inhaled air from the outside, significantly reducing the potential for catching a respiratory infection, while the valves are intended to make breathing out easier. Shields are less cumbersome on the user’s breathing but have large gaps on the bottom and sides that, presumably, would let germs enter and escape fairly easily. Medical professionals typically wear face shields in addition to masks and other protective equipment, as a way to prevent sneezed or coughed droplets from a patient from landing in their eyes and other parts of their face.

In this new study, published Tuesday in the journal Physics of Fluids, both face shields and valve masks were shown to be pretty bad at stopping the flow of aerosols.

Engineers at Florida Atlantic University created a sort of light show to visualize what happens to our exhalations while using these coverings. They lit up the area around a mannequin’s mouth with lasers, outfitted the dummy with either an exhaust-valve mask or face shield, then pumped a mixture of water and glycerin through its mouth, creating a synthetic fog with a similar consistency to the aerosol droplets emitted by a person while coughing and sneezing. In the dark, the lasers were able to eerily illuminate the path of these droplets as they left the mannequin’s mouth.

The results were plain to see. The face shield did blunt the initial forward burst from the mouth, but the aerosolized droplets were then easily dispersed to the sides and even behind the shield in still high concentrations. Though the concentration of droplets dissipated as they moved further from the mannequin’s mouth, they would likely still be able to cover a lot of ground before they evaporated under the right conditions, such as indoor places with little air flow. Exhaust-valve N95 masks were even less effective at blocking the forward movement of droplets, with the valve serving as an easy escape hatch.

The team also tested several brands of surgical and N95 masks. Though these masks weren’t foolproof either at blocking aerosols, with some masks performing worse than others, they were still overall more effective in limiting aerosol concentration than either the shield or valve masks.

The two brands of surgical masks tested out by the group proved more effective at blocking aerosols than either the face shield or valve N95 mask, though Brand A, seen above, was better than Brand B.
The two brands of surgical masks tested out by the group proved more effective at blocking aerosols than either the face shield or valve N95 mask, though Brand A, seen above, was better than Brand B.
Screenshot: Verma, et al/Phys. Fluids

“Overall, the visuals presented here indicate that face shields and masks with exhale valves may not be as effective as regular face masks in restricting the spread of aerosolized droplets,” the authors wrote. “Thus, despite the increased comfort that these alternatives offer, it may be preferable to use well-constructed plain masks.”

Source: How Face Shields and Valve Masks Fail to Stop Infectious Droplets, as Shown by Lasers

NB The study link itself has videos too

Engineers Have Figured Out How to Make Interactive Paper

Posted on by

Engineers at Purdue University have created a printing process by which you can coat paper or cardboard with “highly fluorinated molecules.” This then makes the coated paper dust, oil, and water-repellent, meaning you can then print multiple circuit layers onto the paper without smudging the ink. According to a paper the engineers published in Nano Energy, these “triboelectric areas” are then capable of “self-powered Bluetooth wireless communication.” That’s science-speak to say that paper printed and coated in this way doesn’t require external batteries as it generates electricity from contact with a user’s finger.

You can see a demonstration of how the tech works in these two videos. In the first video, Purdue engineers have a paper keypad that’s been treated with the aforementioned “omniphobic” coating. The paper keypad is then doused in some neon-green solution. In the second video, you can then see a person use the paper keypad to actually type on a laptop with a disabled keyboard.

In a third video, Purdue’s team printed a forward, back, mute, and volume bar on the back of a piece of paper. In it, you can see someone controlling audio playback by dragging their finger along the volume bar, as well as skipping forward and back in the music queue—some real David Blaine street magic-level shit.

While the tech itself is pretty cool, another neat aspect is that because it works on paper and cardboard, it would be relatively inexpensive, flexible, and quick to make. That makes it a good candidate for things like smart packaging.

“I envision this technology to facilitate the user interaction with food packaging, to verify if the food is safe to be consumed, or enabling users to sign the package that arrives at home by dragging their finger over the box to properly identify themselves as the owner of the package,” Ramses Martinez, an assistant professor at Purdue’s School of Industrial Engineering and one of the authors of the paper, said in a statement.

This isn’t the first time engineers have figured out novel uses for paper in electronics. A few months ago, researchers at the University of Missouri also created a paper-and-pencil medical wearable that could monitor things like heart rate, respiratory rate, glucose levels, body temperature, and sweat composition. In 2015, researchers from the University of Michigan created a stretchy conductor made of paper cut using the Japanese art of kirigami.

Purdue’s innovation is particularly interesting as it eliminates the need for external power sources, which makes applications like smart packaging less theoretical. That said, it’ll probably be a while before you can print your own paper Bluetooth keyboard.

Source: Engineers Have Figured Out How to Make Interactive Paper

COVID-19 tracing without an app? Google and Apple will ram it down your throat

Posted on by

Google and Apple have updated their COVID-19 contact-tracing tool to make it possible to notify users of potential exposures to the novel coronavirus without an app.

The new Exposure Notifications Express spec is baked into iOS 13.7, which emerged this week and will appear in an Android update due later this month.

This is not, repeat not, pervasive Bluetooth surveillance. The tool requires users to opt in, although public health authorities can use the tool to send notifications suggesting that residents do so.

Those who choose to participate agree to have their device use Bluetooth to search for other nearby opted-in devices, with an exchange of anonymised identifiers used to track encounters. If a user tests positive, and agrees to notify authorities, other users will be told that they are at risk and should act accordingly.

The update is designed to let health authorities use Bluetooth-powered contact-tracing without having to build their own apps. It’s still non-trivial to play, as the system requires one server to verify test results and another to run both contact-tracing apps and the app-free service.

Apple has published a succinct explainer here and Google has offered up code for notifications server on GitHub.

A couple of dozen US states have signed up for the new tool but other jurisdictions – among them India, Singapore and Australia – are persisting with their own approaches on the basis that the Apple/Google tech makes it harder for their manual contact-tracers to access information.

Source: COVID-19 tracing without an app? There’s an iOS and Android update for that • The Register

Considering the work both companies do with China and other friendly states, it would not surprise me that the “user opt in” feature becomes an “all users opt in without their knowing because the state is the people and the state knows best” feature in some places.

Philips Hue Bridge updates actually kills your old Bridge

Posted on by

Wow, I really really hate that this is a possibility. You spent money on hardware – not some monthly subscription service – where it’s really nice that they add more than just security updates but then: BANG! They kill the hardware, rendering it little more than scrappable junk. Suddenly, it won’t do any of the things it did only yesterday.

From the Bridge Release Notes:

June 22, 2020

Firmware 01043155 (Bridge V1)

With this update, the Hue Bridge v1 will not be supported any longer and continue to work only locally (without internet). This means the following: :

  • The Hue Bridge v1 will no longer receive updates, new features, or security patches.  
  • Away-from-home control and Home & Away will no longer be supported. 
  • Cloud-based voice control will no longer be supported. 
  • Login functionality for your Hue account — which gives you remote access to your lights — will be disabled. 
  • Third-party and partner functionalities, such as Google Voice and IFTTT, that are controlled via the cloud are no longer supported.

This is sick behaviour. If you’re buying into a cloud product, you can expect it if the company goes titsup, but not if this is an offline, local device.

Brain-Computer Interfaces: U.S. Military Applications and Implications, An Initial Assessment

Posted on by

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has invested in the development of technologies that allow the human brain to communicate directly with machines, including the development of implantable neural interfaces able to transfer data between the human brain and the digital world. This technology, known as brain-computer interface (BCI), may eventually be used to monitor a soldier’s cognitive workload, control a drone swarm, or link with a prosthetic, among other examples. Further technological advances could support human-machine decisionmaking, human-to-human communication, system control, performance enhancement and monitoring, and training. However, numerous policy, safety, legal, and ethical issues should be evaluated before the technology is widely deployed. With this report, the authors developed a methodology for studying potential applications for emerging technology. This included developing a national security game to explore the use of BCI in combat scenarios; convening experts in military operations, human performance, and neurology to explore how the technology might affect military tactics, which aspects may be most beneficial, and which aspects might present risks; and offering recommendations to policymakers. The research assessed current and potential BCI applications for the military to ensure that the technology responds to actual needs, practical realities, and legal and ethical considerations.

Source: Brain-Computer Interfaces: U.S. Military Applications and Implications, An Initial Assessment | RAND

Cory Doctorow’s New Book Explains ‘How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism’

Posted on by

Blogger/science fiction writer Cory Doctorow (also a former EFF staffer and activist) has just published How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism — a new book which he’s publishing free online.

In a world swamped with misinformation and monopolies, Doctorow says he’s knows what’s missing from our proposed solutions: If we’re going to break Big Tech’s death grip on our digital lives, we’re going to have to fight monopolies. That may sound pretty mundane and old-fashioned, something out of the New Deal era, while ending the use of automated behavioral modification feels like the plotline of a really cool cyberpunk novel… But trustbusters once strode the nation, brandishing law books, terrorizing robber barons, and shattering the illusion of monopolies’ all-powerful grip on our society. The trustbusting era could not begin until we found the political will — until the people convinced politicians they’d have their backs when they went up against the richest, most powerful men in the world. Could we find that political will again…?

That’s the good news: With a little bit of work and a little bit of coalition building, we have more than enough political will to break up Big Tech and every other concentrated industry besides. First we take Facebook, then we take AT&T/WarnerMedia. But here’s the bad news: Much of what we’re doing to tame Big Tech instead of breaking up the big companies also forecloses on the possibility of breaking them up later… Allowing the platforms to grow to their present size has given them a dominance that is nearly insurmountable — deputizing them with public duties to redress the pathologies created by their size makes it virtually impossible to reduce that size. Lather, rinse, repeat: If the platforms don’t get smaller, they will get larger, and as they get larger, they will create more problems, which will give rise to more public duties for the companies, which will make them bigger still.

We can work to fix the internet by breaking up Big Tech and depriving them of monopoly profits, or we can work to fix Big Tech by making them spend their monopoly profits on governance. But we can’t do both. We have to choose between a vibrant, open internet or a dominated, monopolized internet commanded by Big Tech giants that we struggle with constantly to get them to behave themselves…

Big Tech wired together a planetary, species-wide nervous system that, with the proper reforms and course corrections, is capable of seeing us through the existential challenge of our species and planet. Now it’s up to us to seize the means of computation, putting that electronic nervous system under democratic, accountable control.
With “free, fair, and open tech” we could then tackle our other urgent problems “from climate change to social change” — all with collective action, Doctorow argues. And “The internet is how we will recruit people to fight those fights, and how we will coordinate their labor.

“Tech is not a substitute for democratic accountability, the rule of law, fairness, or stability — but it’s a means to achieve these things.”

Source: Cory Doctorow’s New Book Explains ‘How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism’ – Slashdot

Cloudflare Blames CenturyLink for Sunday’s Internet Blackout – again

Posted on by

Widespread internet outages knocked down Cloudflare, the PlayStation Network, Xbox Live, Amazon, Hulu, and a slew of other sites on Sunday morning, and it’s apparently all because of a single internet service provider: CenturyLink.

Given that Cloudflare’s online security services are designed to keep websites up and running, when it went down, so did dozens of the popular sites and services that rely on it, including Discord, Feedly, and League of Legends. Cloudflare began seeing “an increased level of HTTP 5xx class errors” early Sunday morning, according to the company’s status page. It later tweeted that issues with a “third-party transit provider” were affecting all of Cloudflare’s data centers that use that provider.

CenturyLink confirmed on Twitter that its technicians were working to fix an IP outage, which was resolved shortly before noon.

“We are able to confirm that all services impacted by today’s IP outage have been restored. We understand how important these services are to our customers, and we sincerely apologize for the impact this outage caused,” the company tweeted.

DownDetector showed reports of internet connectivity problems coming in from across the U.S. and western Europe on Sunday morning. Cloudflare chief tech officer John Graham-Cumming told CNN that “the extent of the problem required manual intervention” in addition to its automated bug detection systems.

It’s not the first time most of the internet’s gone dark because of issues with CenturyLink’s services. A nationwide blackout in 2018 took down Verizon mobile data, ATMs, and, most worryingly, the 911 emergency line in several parts of America. In response, Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai announced a federal investigation into CenturyLink.

“When an emergency strikes, it’s critical that Americans are able to use 911 to reach those who can help,” Pai said at the time. “The CenturyLink service outage is therefore completely unacceptable, and its breadth and duration are particularly troubling.”

As annoying as this morning may have been, I suppose we can be thankful that the outage wasn’t that bad at least.

Source: Cloudflare Blames CenturyLink for Sunday’s Internet Blackout

Xiaomi’s under display camera tech is coming to phones next year

Posted on by

Under-display cameras do a neat trick, allowing manufacturers to build all-screen phones without complex pop-up selfie cameras. Now, Xiaomi has unveiled its third-generation of under-display cameras and promised that the technology will be coming to the mass market “next year.”

Cameras that live under the screen present two problems: creating a dark “hole” on the display above the camera while making selfie photos look hazy and dull. Xiaomi said its third-generation tech can “perfectly disguise the front camera under the phone’s screen without ruining the edge-to-edge display effect.” In other words, you get a seamless full-screen display with nary a punch hole, cutout or other blemish in sight, while matching regular front cameras for photo quality.

Xiaomi developed its own pixel grid arrangement that allows light to pass through the gap area of sub-pixels. At the same time, each single pixel has a complete RGB subpixel layout with no sacrifice in pixel density. All of that means that the display pixel density above the camera is the same as elsewhere on the screen, showing the “same brightness, color gamut and color accuracy.” Xiaomi also optimized the camera algorithm, claiming it performs the same as conventional front cameras.

Source: Xiaomi’s under display camera tech is coming to phones next year | Engadget

Visa Unveils More Powerful AI Tool That Approves or Denies Card Transactions

Posted on by

Visa Inc. said Wednesday it has developed a more advanced artificial intelligence system that can approve or decline credit and debit transactions on behalf of banks whose own networks are down.

The decision to approve or deny a transaction typically is made by the bank. But bank networks can crash because of natural disasters, buggy software or other reasons. Visa said its backup system will be available to banks who sign up for the service starting in October.

The technology is “an incredible first step in helping us reduce the impact of an outage,” said Rajat Taneja, president of technology for Visa. The financial services company is the largest U.S. card network, as measured both by the number of cards in circulation and by transactions.

The service, Smarter Stand-In Processing, uses a branch of AI called deep learning

[…]

Smarter STIP kicks in automatically if Visa’s network detects that the bank’s network is offline or unavailable.

The older version of STIP uses a rules-based machine learning model as the backup method to manage transactions for banks in the event of a network disruption. In this approach, Visa’s product team and the financial institution define the rules for the model to be able to determine whether a particular transaction should be approved.

“Although it was customized for different users, it was still not very precise,” said Carolina Barcenas, senior vice president and head of Visa Research.

Technologists don’t define rules for the Smarter STIP AI model. The new deep-learning model is more advanced because it is trained to sift through billions of data points of cardholder activity to define correlations on its own.

[…]

In tests, the deep-learning AI model was 95% accurate in mimicking the bank’s decision on whether to approve or decline a transaction, she said. The technology more than doubled the accuracy of the old method, according to the company. The two versions will continue to exist but the more advanced version will be available as a premium service for clients.

[…]

Source: Visa Unveils More Powerful AI Tool That Approves or Denies Card Transactions – WSJ

Powell’s says it won’t sell books on Amazon anymore: ‘We must take a stand’

Posted on by

Powell’s Books says it won’t sell on Amazon anymore, declaring that the online retail giant undermines communities by siphoning business from the real world and replacing it with internet commerce.

“For too long, we have watched the detrimental impact of Amazon’s business on our communities and the independent bookselling world,” CEO Emily Powell wrote in a note to customers Wednesday.

“The vitality of our neighbors and neighborhoods depends on the ability of local businesses to thrive,” Powell wrote. “We will not participate in undermining that vitality.”

Portland-based Powell’s is among the world’s largest bookstores and is the city’s signature retailer. But it’s dwarfed by the inventory available through Amazon’s website.

So Powell’s, like many other retailers, supplements its business by listing its products on Amazon’s own site – and giving Amazon a share of each sale.

That puts smaller retailers at an obvious disadvantage, given that they’re depending on a much larger competitor for an important share of their sales. But many feel they have no choice but to list on Amazon given that company’s dominant market position online.

Seattle-based Amazon did not respond to a request for comment and Powell’s declined to elaborate on Wednesday’s statement. However, Emily Powell told CNBC that Amazon had been a “big sales generator” for the Portland bookstore.

“It was hard to give up, sort of like smoking,” she said. “We knew we shouldn’t be doing it, but, you know, we sort of needed it from a sales perspective to keep going. We couldn’t face the possibility of not having that sales channel.”

The pandemic changed the landscape, Powell said, with Amazon prioritizing cleaning supplies and other essential goods — slowing the shipment of books. Powell said its Amazon sales slowed so she decided to focus on the bookstore’s own website.

“We just decided to make that a permanent business choice,” Powell said.

Source: Powell’s says it won’t sell books on Amazon anymore: ‘We must take a stand’ – oregonlive.com

Intel, HP, Tesla, etc protest to US monopoly watchdog: FTC vs Qualcomm case overturned to the surprise of all

Posted on by

Intel, HP, Tesla and a host of other tech giants have written to America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging it to appeal Qualcomm’s legal win against the watchdog in a row over patent fees.

The FTC had successfully sued Qualcomm, arguing the corporation rode roughshod over antitrust laws, only for that victory to be overturned earlier this month on appeal. Now the technology world’s big names want the regulator to fight that latest ruling.

The appeals court decision “undermines longstanding US law and policy and wrongly applies competition law,” the letter from 21 organizations argued. “If it becomes precedent, this decision would endanger domestic competitiveness, as well as weaken the ability of the FTC to protect consumers through future enforcement actions.”

Often derided as a toothless watchdog, the FTC found some courage in 2017 and took Qualcomm to court for abusing its its numerous critical patents to force companies to pay it inflated licensing fees before they were allowed to buy its chips.

The case put a spotlight on the double-dealing and backstabbing world of chips and mobile phones with claims of arrogant and bullying Qualcomm execs hassing big customers and that Apple top brass who agreed to undermine a rival technology in return for lower licensing rates.

The FTC won the case, with a strong decision from federal district Judge Lucy Koh accusing Qualcomm of having “strangled competition… and harmed rivals, OEMs and end consumers in the process.” But Qualcomm appealed and, to many people’s surprise, won.

Abusive or hypercompetitive?

Where the district court found that Qualcomm had abused its position and issued a permanent injunction against the company, the appeals court decided instead that Qualcomm had engaged in “hypercompetitive behavior.”

“Our job is not to condone or punish Qualcomm for its success, but rather to assess whether the FTC has met its burden under the rule of reason to show that Qualcomm’s practices have crossed the line to ‘conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself’,” the appeals court decided.

The panel also found that if Qualcomm did breach obligations to license its SEPs [standard-essential patent] on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, it would be a breach of contract issue, not an antitrust problem. And it found that the company’s “no license, no chips” policy did not impose a surcharge on the sales of chips by rivals, contradicting the lower court’s finding.

The 21 letter signatories, which also include Ford, Honda, Daimler and several industry associations, take issue with that decision and argue that the Ninth Circuit panel decision “misapplies competition law to the facts of the case, was particularly misguided in asserting that Qualcomm’s breach of its FRAND commitments did not impair rivals, controverts existing Ninth Circuit precedent, and undermines the critical role standards play in facilitating competition and innovation.”

They argue that the FTC should ask for an en banc meeting of the Ninth Circuit where 11 judges, rather than three, hear the case. Without that larger appeal, the FTC can only go to the Supreme Court and it’s far from certain it would hear the case, leaving the current decision to stand.

Stable genius

The letter warns that if that happens, it “could destabilize the standards ecosystem by encouraging the abuse of market power acquired through collaborative standard-setting” as well as “embolden foreign entities to refuse to license their standard essential patents (SEPs) to competitors in the United States.”

They also pointedly tells the FTC that if it doesn’t ,the agency would be undermining its own authority: “Because of the key role the FTC plays in protecting American consumers and competition, we urge you to consider how the panel’s decision impacts the FTC’s ability to carry out its mission, whether as to SEP issues or otherwise.

[…]

Source: Intel, HP, Tesla, etc protest to US monopoly watchdog: Are you just gonna let Qualcomm patent-tax us to death? • The Register

This Guy is Suing the Patent Office for Deciding an AI Can’t Invent Things

Posted on by

A computer scientist who created an artificial intelligence system capable of generating original inventions is suing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) over its decision earlier this year to reject two patent applications which list the algorithmic system, known as DABUS, as the inventor.

The lawsuit is the latest step in an effort by Stephen Thaler and an international group of lawyers and academics to win inventorship rights for non-human AI systems, a prospect that raises fundamental questions about what it means to be creative and also carries potentially paradigm-shifting implications for certain industries.

In July 2019, Thaler filed two patent applications in the US—one for an adjustable food container, the other for an emergency beacon—and listed the inventor as DABUS. He describes DABUS as a “creativity engine” composed of neural networks trained on a broad swath of data, and not designed to solve any particular problem. The USPTO rejected the applications, citing court decisions ruling that corporations, as opposed to individuals within corporations, cannot be legal inventors, and asserting that “conception—the touchstone of inventorship—must be performed by a natural person.”

British, German, and European Union patent regulators have also rejected Thaler’s applications, decisions he has appealed. Petitions for DABUS-invented patents are still pending in China, Japan, India, and several other countries.

“What we want is to have innovation. AI has been used to help generate innovation for decades and AI is getting better and better at doing these things, and people aren’t.” Ryan Abbott, a professor at the University of Surrey School of Law, who is representing Thaler in the suit, told Motherboard. “The law is not clear on whether you can have a patent if the AI does that sort of work, but if you can’t protect inventions coming out of AI, you’re going to under-produce them.”

[…]

Source: This Guy is Suing the Patent Office for Deciding an AI Can’t Invent Things

Um, almost the entire Scots Wikipedia was written by someone with no idea of the language – 10,000s of articles

Posted on by

In an extraordinary and somewhat devastating discovery, it turns out virtually the entire Scots version of Wikipedia, comprising more than 57,000 articles, was written, edited or overseen by a netizen who clearly had nae the slightest idea about the language.

The user is not only a prolific contributor, they are an administrator of sco.wikipedia.org, having created, modified or guided the vast majority of its pages in more than 200,000 edits. The result is tens of thousands of articles in English with occasional, and often ridiculous, letter changes – such as replacing a “y” with “ee.”

That’s right, someone doing a bad impression of a Scottish accent and then writing it down phonetically is the chief maintainer of the online encyclopedia’s Scots edition. And although this has been carrying on for the best part of a decade, the world was mostly oblivious to it all – until today, when one Redditor finally had enough of reading terrible Scots and decided to look behind the curtain.

“People embroiled in linguistic debates about Scots often use it as evidence that Scots isn’t a language, and if it was an accurate representation, they’d probably be right,” noted the Reddit sleuth, Ultach. “It uses almost no Scots vocabulary, what little it does use is usually incorrect, and the grammar always conforms to standard English, not Scots.”

[…]

Source: Um, almost the entire Scots Wikipedia was written by someone with no idea of the language – 10,000s of articles • The Register

Apple Has Finally Gotten Too Big for Its Britches – and even Kinja group is pissed off now

Posted on by

What started out as a battle between Apple and Epic over direct in-app purchases in Fortnite has evolved into an ill-advised, petty revenge scheme. On Sunday, Epic filed a new motion to bar Apple from revoking iOS and macOS support for its Unreal Engine while its other beef is ongoing.

To back up a bit, Apple and Epic have been sniping at each other since August 13, when Epic launched its own in-app direct payments system that skirted Apple’s famous 30% fee. Apple then struck back by removing Fortnite from the App Store. Epic countered with a spicy video and an anti-trust lawsuit—a timely barb given heightened scrutiny around Apple being a control freak over its App Store. Apple then responded saying Epic had been trying to get preferential treatment via a special deal—a claim Epic CEO publicly refuted. In the midst of this legal spat, Apple decided that this coming Friday, it would delete all of Epic’s developer accounts and cut off access to the Apple SDK, effectively shutting down third-party access to Epic’s Unreal Engine.

Epic’s latest filing is aimed at temporarily halting Apple from screwing over developers while they duke it out in court. Its argument is that not only is axing the developer accounts unnecessarily harsh, but pulling SDK support also hurts third-parties who have built on the Unreal Engine and have no skin in the legal games Apple and Epic are playing. (And, honestly, Epic doesn’t want to lose out on that money stream.)

Adding to the dogpile, Microsoft also filed a statement supporting Epic in which it echoed those sentiments. Microsoft’s Kevin Gammill, general manager of gaming developer experiences, writes, “Epic Games’ Unreal Engine is critical technology for numerous game creators, including Microsoft.” He goes on to explain that while some larger game companies might have the means to create their own proprietary game engines, most don’t and for them, licensing third-party engines is how they do their thing. “As a result,” Gammill writes, “Epic’s Unreal Engine is one of the most popular third-party engines available to game creators, and in Microsoft’s view there are very few other options available for creators to license with as many features and as much functionality as Unreal Engine across multiple platforms, including iOS.”

Now Microsoft isn’t being purely altruistic in sticking up for the little guy here. It’s got a stake in gaming, as well as its own ax to grind with Apple over cloud gaming. But also, it has an extremely valid point about the damage Apple is potentially doing to users and developers just so it can clap back at Epic. If Apple succeeds in cutting support to the Apple SDK, it’s not just Epic that gets fucked. Any game developer who’s made significant progress in building their stuff out on Unreal Engine faces the conundrum of not only losing lots of time and effort, but they’d also have to calculate whether to start all over on a new engine, leave out iOS and macOS users entirely, or just throw in the towel. It also means games that have already been released on iOS and macOS won’t receive critical security updates or bug fixes.

Let’s be real. Apple has little justification for this other than flexing on Epic for daring to challenge the App Store status quo. Oh, you want to change how we do things around here? You want to call us out for our 30% commission rate? You don’t know who you’re fucking with because whoops, what if we just… cripple your ability to license Unreal Engine, a pretty big chunk of your revenue stream? Oh, you don’t want us to do that? How ‘bout you learn your place and back down?

It’s a game of legal chicken, but it’s also baffling on Apple’s part considering it’s under fire for its alleged anti-trust tendencies. Whatever you think about its ongoing spat with Epic, Unreal Engine is a different, unrelated thing. Epic’s decision to introduce direct in-app purchases in Fortnite arguably does flout Apple’s App Store guidelines. It might even have a point that Epic decided to say “fuck you” in the flashiest and most clearly orchestrated way possible. Both parties deserve their day in court over it. But I must have missed how an argument over direct payment system relates to critical developer tools used by third-parties? What was Unreal Engine’s sin, other than being owned by Epic Games?

In trying to punish Epic, Apple is dangerously close to showing its entire monopolistic ass. It’s reached too far and frankly, undermined its defense that it’s not an anti-competitive asshole. In its boilerplate statement when this all began, Apple said its guidelines “create a level playing field for all developers.” It’s not creating a level playing field if you use your vast power to screw third-party developers because you want to make a point about the company they license software from. It’s hard to interpret this particular action as anything other than bullying and retaliatory.

This behavior isn’t limited to Epic Games either. Last week, Apple was threatening to block updates to the WordPress iOS app until the company enabled in-app purchases through Apple’s payment system. You know, so it could get that sweet 30% fee. At the time, WordPress promoted paid subscriptions within the app, but didn’t provide a way for users to buy those subscriptions via the app itself. Sure, Apple backed down over the weekend and even said “sorry” to WordPress. But it was an empty apology. According to CNET, Apple withdrew because WordPress removed any references in the app to outside payment options. WordPress’s Matt Mullenweg also told CNET that it had promised to build in-app purchase support within the next 30 days and then tweeted a word of warning to other developers in similar situations to do the same.

So it’s not just adding a direct payment system that will get you in Apple’s crosshairs. Even referencing that you can pay for a service but not including a means to buy within the iOS app will incur Apple’s wrath. This is arguably no longer about people violating reasonable App Store guidelines for “safety” purposes. This is about Apple hamfistedly reminding everyone to play by its rules, however, it chooses to interpret them on a given day, and always in its own favor. Apple, so used to acting with impunity, has lost all pretense of believing in fair play. If there’s any justice in the world, that’s how it’ll get the reckoning it deserves.

Source: Apple Has Finally Gotten Too Big for Its Britches

Which is quite amazing, considering that all the Kinja group websites’ reporting on this Apple incident has been heavily anti Epic and pro Apple

Apple apologises to WordPress for forcing in-app purchases and U-turns

Posted on by

Apple has clarified the situation with the WordPress iOS app, apologizing for the mistake of blocking developer updates to the app until they added in-app purchases, despite the app not including any functionality involving payments.

On Friday, it was reported the lack of app updates for the WordPress app were due to it being “locked” on the App Store. After three weeks of absence, developers of the app had agreed to implement some form of in-app purchase to the app to enable updates to go through again, among other possible solutions.

In a statement provided to AppleInsider on Saturday, Apple claims the issue with the app has been “resolved” overnight.

“Since the developer removed the display of their service payment options from the app, it is now a free stand-alone app and does not have to offer in-app purchases,” states Apple. “We have informed the developer and apologize for any confusion that we have caused.”

At the time the block came to light, it was suggested the app was blocked because it was possible for users to see a page within the app’s Help Center discussing upgrades to paid plans. This is in reference to WordPress.com’s paid hosting offerings, which are managed from the website, not the app.

While the app itself doesn’t offer any monetary transaction capabilities at all, it is believed the mention in the support page for the website version was a violation of App Store review guidelines

Source: Apple didn’t force in-app purchases on WordPress | Appleinsider

How Appleinsider managed to turn the above content into the above headline is a mystery to me.

Epic move: Judge says Apple can’t revoke Unreal Engine dev tools, asks ‘Where does the 30 per cent come from?’

Posted on by

A Federal US judge questioned why Apple takes a 30 per cent slice of developer revenues as she ruled that while Apple cannot cut off Epic’s access to iOS Unreal Engine development tools, she would not order the company to allow Fortnite to return to the App Store.

In the eight-page order [PDF], Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the Northern California district judge yesterday said that Unreal – used by hundreds of third-party devs for both console and mobile games inside and out of Apple’s App Store and dubbed by Microsoft at the weekend as a “critical technology” – was governed by a separate contract between the parties, the “Xcode and Apple [software development kits] Agreement”.

Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders

She said it was “relevant” that this was distinct from “Apple’s agreements with developers and the App Store guidelines”, which do not generally permit third-party developers to circumvent the IAP [in-app purchases] system”.

The move on 13 August that kicked this all off – the activation of “allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect in-app purchases directly” via its “Fortnite Mega Drop” – was described as “calculated” by the Northern California court judge.

Making that move, as we’ve previosuly mentioned, precluded Apple from taking its traditional 30 per cent cut and saw the developer booted out of the store, prompting it to fling an almost certainly pre-prepared sueball at Cupertino as the boot hit its face.

Epic’s original complaint alleged Apple is abusing its dominant position by seeking to “control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation”.

The split order was handed down late last night after some oral wrangling with Apple’s counsel over Zoom – dodging an authentication issue on the platform earlier that day.

The judge reportedly asked Apple lawyer Richard Doren at the Zoom hearing yesterday: “The question is, without competition: where does the 30 per cent (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is the consumer benefiting?”

To the last question, Doren, a partner at LA law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, replied that consumers could choose when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.

In the written order filed late yesterday, the judge noted:

While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero per cent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free.

The order will be a relief to Epic in that it won’t be cut off from Unreal Engine development on Apple’s operating systems; the judge noted the court had to weigh up whether an “injunction is in the public interest”.

She spoke of the “potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers”, adding that “not only has the underlying [SDK] agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders.”

Source: Epic move: Judge says Apple can’t revoke Unreal Engine dev tools, asks ‘Where does the 30 per cent come from?’ • The Register

US Border Patrol Says They Can Create Central Repository Of Traveler Emails, calendar, etc, Keep Them For 75 Years

Posted on by

The U.S. government has taken the opportunity during the global pandemic, when people aren’t traveling out of the country much, to roll out a new platform for storing information they believe they are entitled to take from people crossing the border. A new filing reveals how the U.S. Border Patrol will store data from traveler devices centrally, keeping it backed up and searchable for up to 75 years.

On July 30 the Department of Homeland Security published a privacy impact assessment detailing the electronic data that they may choose to collect from people crossing the border – and what happens to that data.

  • Border Patrol claims the right to search laptops, thumb drives, cell phones, and other
    devices capable of storing electronic information” and when they call it a ‘border search the can do this not just when you’re “crossing the U.S. border” in either direction (i.e. when you’re leaving, not just when you’re entering the country) but even “at the extended border” which generally means within 100 miles of the border, which encompasses where two-thirds of the U.S. population lives.
  • They needed an updated privacy impact assessment because of a new “enterprise-wide solution to manage and analyze certain types of information and metadata USBP collects from electronic devices” – and they they actually keep on file.

Border Patrol will “acquire a mirror copy of the data on the device” they take from a traveler and store it locally. Before uploading it to their network they check to make sure there’s no porn on it (so they search your devices to find porn first). Then once they’ve determined it’s “clean” they transfer the data first to an encrypted thumb drive and then to the Border Patrol-side system called PLX.

Examples of what they plan to keep from travelers’ devices include e-mails; videos and pictures; texts and chat messages; financial accounts and transactions; location history; web browser bookmarks; tasks list; calendar; call logs; contracts. Information is stored for 75 years although if it’s not related to any crime it may be deleted after 20 years.

The government emphasizes they’ve been collecting this information, what’s changed is simply that they’ll be storing it in a central system where everything “will now by accessible to a larger number of USBP agents with no nexus” to suspected illegal activity. They promise, though, to restrict access and train staff not to do anything they aren’t supposed to. And they don’t see risk to privacy because they’ve published a notice (that I’m now writing about) telling you how your privacy may be violated.

Electronic device searches have been on the rise. Between October 2008 and June 2010 6500 devices were searched. In 2016 there were 10,000 device searches, and 30,200 in 2017.

It’s not clear though that these searches are all actually legal. In November 2019 a federal judge in Boston ruled that forensic searches of cell phones require at least reasonable suspicion “that the devices contain contraband.”

Source: US Border Patrol Says They Can Create Central Repository Of Traveler Emails, Keep Them For 75 Years – View from the Wing

Microsoft sides with Epic over Apple developer ban, supports motion for temporary restraining order

Posted on by

Microsoft’s Kevin Gammill, general manager of Gaming Developer Experiences, called Epic’s Unreal Engine “critical technology” in a filing at the weekend [PDF] in support of Epic’s motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Apple from terminating its developer account.

Referring to the statement, Xbox supremo Phil Spencer tweeted yesterday to say “ensuring that Epic has access to the latest Apple technology is the right thing for gamer developers and gamers.”

Gammill’s argument is that Unreal Engine, a cross-platform runtime and development environment, is “critical technology for numerous game creators including Microsoft”, and that “there are few other options available for creators to license with as many features and as much functionality as Unreal Engine.”

“If Unreal Engine cannot support games for iOS or macOS, Microsoft would be required to choose between abandoning its customers and potential customers on the iOS and macOS platforms or choosing a different game engine when preparing to develop new games,” said Gammill in the filing. He added that it would also harm those with games in “later stages of development” using Unreal Engine, and already-launched games for which Unreal Engine could no longer be updated or receive security patches.

[…]

Source: Microsoft sides with Epic over Apple developer ban, supports motion for temporary restraining order • The Register