Clearview seems to keep finding itself stuck in a bit of a forked stick. Countries want it to follow local privacy laws by removing citizens' data - which seems impossibly complex to do with the vaguely undifferentiated mass of scraped data they've collected.
But, their business proposition is that they can successfully identify people from images,with minimal false positives. So, an inability to trawl their dataset and remove entries with a really important identifier seems like a big problem with their product. They get to either comply, or admit they suck.
Since the big thing these days is for universities to establish international cooperatives with other schools or even full blown satellite campuses, geoblocking is going to play merry hell with library IT departments. As bad as it is for collaboration in general, the visiting professor whose VPN resolves to a foreign IP is gonna be pissed when they can't participate in a departmental discussion
One of the biggest reasons why insecure products get bought is because consumers have been assured that things sold commercially are expected to be safe. Speaking of which - why is the DHS and FCC taking the lead when we have a Consumer Product Safety Commission? Do IoT devices have to catch fire or smother children to be eligible for scrutiny?
Execs that advocate for automatic systems that can intelligently and consistently identify infringing content really aren't thinking it through. If things like ContentID aren't adequately doing the job (not that they care about the unacceptably high false positive rate) then extra smarts that add better judgement essentially puts them out of a job.
The ability to identify copied work is pretty much the same as being able to identify original work - the entire point of the music industry isn't it?
It would certainly be up a courts to interpret (potentially badly) but the one ultimately in control of real encryption is the person with the password. Since compelling people to divulge passwords has generally been found to be unconstitutional, I don't know if this section really accomplishes anything other than more theater and potential litigation ammunition
Moosehead Brewery will inevitably challenge the use of the pheromone-laden liquid that hunters sprinkle to attract prey. Moose piss is quite expensive, but as Moosehead will show in filings demonstrating potential confusion in the marketplace, their cheap brew is substantially similar!
It's scary that the justification for escalating to more intrusive methods is 'we didn't find out what we wanted to know'. In a sane world, there would be an element of proportionality that weighed the importance of the expected findings against the invasion of privacy.
I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe a neutral third party would _judge_ what sort of action the situation would_warrant_
If your device pings the access point to see if there's a network, that's enough to establish your location even without establishing a connection. By default most wifi enabled devices like to introduce themselves to every router within shouting distance.
Body cameras are far from being universally adopted and in many cases the cameras are imposed on problem departments as a PR move. Cameras adopted as accountability theater sure can't be expected to halt a worsening departmental culture.
Censorship progression: A user anonymously posts a copied article and down goes the site. A user maliciously posts that article in order to take down the site. User-derived content goes away because of the liability.
Someone claims copyright over part or all of a legitimate article, taking down the site while the claim is adjudicated.
Finally, news and commentary posted without attribution out of fear of reprisals is attacked as copyright infringement and nobody can safely lodge a counterclaim of authorship.
So, the possibility of an insecurity that the government can exploit means that a suspected individual has no defense, since they left themselves open - but an insecure chain of evidence doesn't mean the government's effort isn't suspect since the expectation is that their insecurities wouldn't have been exploited? There's some cognitive dissonance in that.
Sure some crimes are so heinous that they require more aggressive investigation, but aggressive used to mean greater manpower and resources, not breaking the rules.
News organizations are following the same path as dead tree papers, and inevitably to the same conclusion
First there were newspaper inserts that I promptly threw away
Then there were ads wrapped around the outside, and special sections interspersed throughout paper that quickly followed the inserts to the recycle bin
Then the actual news began being crowded off the page by ads... and I quit reading newspapers
If there's any way the ruling stands (or even if publicity rights end up being exempted from the safe harbor) there goes a big chunk of Facebook's business model. Copyright takedown notices are ever so slightly easier to adjudicate since there's at least some guidelines about what a copyright is and who owns it. Publicity rights can be stretched to include anything that has a picture, or name of ANYONE.
Thankfully the most hated man in Washington, "Lucifer in the flesh" has made this his pet issue. That might be the best news yet for getting a bipartisan consensus in shooting this kind of crap down
By not insisting they know the details of the crack, that means they were willing to risk the destructible/modification of this all important evidence. Even if they got any useful information, it would've not been useful from a law enforcement perspective since whether they had to turn over the phone or not to unlock it, the chain of evidence would be tainted.
That pretty starkly illustrates their motives in wanting the phone unlocked in the first place. They probably had to pay more to NOT find out the details of the vulnerability since just revealing its existence would lower its market value, and it's likely that they reflexively asked for plenty of safeguards like exclusive ongoing access and complete secrecy.
As law enforcement and intelligence agencies monitor connections between suspects to establish cause for investigation (and membership no fly lists, detention, even assassination) does that mean that access to communications content will lead to exonerations and a greater evidence threshold for government sanctions against individuals? If you're the perfectly innocent cousin of a terrorist suspect and at most you've discussed lasagna recipes you'd be off the hook, no?
I don't know whether Netflix incurs greater costs when customers view more titles or use more data. If watching 5 episodes using the same amount of data as one HD play means that Netflix is on the hook for additional royalties then throttling may be more altruistic than it looks at first blush
Impossible business model
Clearview seems to keep finding itself stuck in a bit of a forked stick. Countries want it to follow local privacy laws by removing citizens' data - which seems impossibly complex to do with the vaguely undifferentiated mass of scraped data they've collected.
But, their business proposition is that they can successfully identify people from images,with minimal false positives. So, an inability to trawl their dataset and remove entries with a really important identifier seems like a big problem with their product. They get to either comply, or admit they suck.
"public records"
*The investigation is now closed*
All relevant documents have been destroyed as they were no longer needed for an active investigation
Prestigious international campuses
Memorable quote
"I would say that the FEC and men's nipples are probably comparable. There are things that are done that have some value, just like men's nipples"
Re: What could go wrong? Let me count the ways...
What people are used to
Magic technology
The ability to identify copied work is pretty much the same as being able to identify original work - the entire point of the music industry isn't it?
Encryption control
Big game hunters rejoice
(untitled comment)
I'm not sure how that would work. Maybe a neutral third party would _judge_ what sort of action the situation would_warrant_
Re: Re: Re:
Ineffective window dressing
Takedown
A user anonymously posts a copied article and down goes the site. A user maliciously posts that article in order to take down the site. User-derived content goes away because of the liability.
Someone claims copyright over part or all of a legitimate article, taking down the site while the claim is adjudicated.
Finally, news and commentary posted without attribution out of fear of reprisals is attacked as copyright infringement and nobody can safely lodge a counterclaim of authorship.
Both ways
Sure some crimes are so heinous that they require more aggressive investigation, but aggressive used to mean greater manpower and resources, not breaking the rules.
History repeating itself
First there were newspaper inserts that I promptly threw away
Then there were ads wrapped around the outside, and special sections interspersed throughout paper that quickly followed the inserts to the recycle bin
Then the actual news began being crowded off the page by ads... and I quit reading newspapers
Wow
Woohoo!
What a cost
That pretty starkly illustrates their motives in wanting the phone unlocked in the first place. They probably had to pay more to NOT find out the details of the vulnerability since just revealing its existence would lower its market value, and it's likely that they reflexively asked for plenty of safeguards like exclusive ongoing access and complete secrecy.
Access to user metadata not enough?
Haha... Of course not.
Depending on licensing arrangements. ..
More comments from Tom Mink >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tom Mink.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt