Posts by Paul Frankheimer

Re: Misleading article

At no point in these flawed apps would I expect the people using the apps to have an opportunity to set up their own keys.

Of course that should not be something that a user has to do himself, it should be done by the app on the *user's phone*. However it should be a key unique to that user's phone (or maybe account) which is generated when the user installs the app and signs up for the service or links the app to the service.

You're quoting the right paragraph. However the conclusion is not entirely correct. Basically the BaaS services are providing a service to the app developer. The app developer has an ID and a key which he can use to access his service on the BaaS. The app developer is then responsible for developing an app which doesn't allow app user A to access app user B's account and data. The BaaS provider (e.g. Amazon AWS) doesn't give the app developer a user management solution. If they did and that was broken, the problem would be much bigger than the quoted 0,5% of apps.

Hum?

If MS would release a non-crap App for Hotmail on Android, it would certainly show their willingness to compete.

Nice

This is good news. Especially the fact that it can be republished also on a non-Google, non-BL platform like Europeana. Google seems to get more permissive with the license arrangements it offers to libraries and this is a good thing.

LD_LIBARY_PATH

adamsh:

Yes, it's mitigated by the fact that on Solaris it's not possible to run anything with elevated privileges, but the potential to run something which you didn't want is still there. but in case, you will not want to change LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include the current directory. You could wreak havoc by replacing e.g. libcmdutils.so with something nasty. And since we're talking about viruses/trojans, as soon as you execute for one user you can assume there is an exploit which allows privilege escalation.

However, the case is moot since you would never change LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include an untrusted directory or the current directory, just like the current directory is not in the PATH.

So many misleading statements

- "The project certainly isn't Freetard friendly. In fact, it demands money for access to material that's free to view today in Colindale"

It will still remain free to view in Colindale. It's an added access, not replacing the old one. It seems like you prefer to wad through microfilm rather than use full text search and instant access to issues by date.

- "It's questionable whether the Library has the rights to the stuff it is digitizing"

The Library doesn't say it has all the rights to all the stuff. Hence the periods that are potentially in copyright are handled by them through negotiations with the publishers.

- "While it has a historical exclusive license, this doesn't cover online rights"

It certainly has no "historical exclusive license". That term doesn't even make sense. It holds paper and microfilm copies of historical newspapers that probably few other places in the world have. The content before 1860 is almost certainly in the public domain (written at 20 years old, author died at 100, copyright elapses this year). Anyone who has the paper copy can scan it, republish it, etc.

- "This is not simply being done for posterity, nor to make free access for library users easier, but also for commercial gain via a paid‐for website."

Free for library users directly (provided they go the BL reading rooms), free after 10 years for everyone. This sentence is just wrong.

- "The move is strongly opposed by major publishers"

The major publishers are the only ones who could potentially lose out. The small publishers (not to mention that a great majority of pre-1900 publishers don't exist anymore) are too small to do digitization and selling the back-catalog themselves. If the big publishers are opposed, then the BL will not digitize their in-copyright periods. However I even doubt that they are opposed. This guy makes so many false statements that I really doubt he actually spoke to the big publishers and got their answer as opposed to talking out of his behind.

- "Earlier this year the Library vowed to archive the UK web - again, a load of other people's stuff"

Apparently this guy doesn't like history or checking sources. Since there is constantly stuff disappearing from the web and since the web has de facto become an important medium in the life of people, the country and democracy, it's quite important that in 100 year's time researchers will still be able to retrace what happened in the world after 2000. Archiving doesn't mean it's made available to the internet 5 minutes later with a BL logo. It means saving the stuff so that it's still around when the original websites are not around anymore.

If the Library doesn't archive the web and keep it, it will disappear. Archive.org is an alternative, but too sparse in many instances. In any case, this guy is probably dead against archive.org as well.

- "There are many other alternative approaches that can benefit us punters as well as the creators, without creating permanent jobs for the bureaucrats. We'll explore some of these next week".

Oh. I'm certainly interested how you want to save 19th century newspapers from falling to dust and get them be more accessible to the public. If it's about yesterday's newspaper, I don't care.