Soon, people using Tor will automatically be suspected. A bit like any bit torrent activity is supposed to be pirating.
3439 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I really would like to point out that if Google bounced every request to the ICO, they would automatically get attacked for bogging down the system and trying yet again to worm their way out of obeying the ECJ's ruling. I'm sure the last thing Google wants is to piss off the European regulators some more.
You seem to imply that Google in effect steals its weather data from around the web… However, a bit of searching reveals that Google gets its data from Weather Underground: http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/features_list.html#weather
It is reasonable to assume that they do pay for it.
This is not the issue. The issue is, should Google show data on top of the page, or should it have the user click on one of the result links? The first is easier for the user, and the second is better for competition. But in the end, the reason competition is considered good is only to ensure the user gets good service. This is why Almunia said once "My mission is to protect competition to the benefit of consumers, not competitors."
"Existing users with the app can continue to use it, but no features will be added and new users will not be able to install the app"
I'd assume that installed apps stay installed after updates…? But let's say that in three-four years, it will simply stop working properly with Android Popsicle.
I've never met an employee with kids that does more hours than an employee that doesn't have children
You might not have looked closely; it's called confirmation bias. In any case, as a different data point, the guy who works the longest hours in my team is a father.
OT, I can believe that having some leeway makes you more happy and productive. However, I'd say that working at home full-time (the way it was accepted at Yahoo before Marisa Meyer) only works well for very few people in a small number of positions.
Wow. I sure hope I can keep my current job, because apparently if I lose it, I'll be back to getting paid $10 an hour since I can't possibly know anything about anything that's not confidential information about my current company which I'm not allowed to reveal.
It's hard on new CEOs poached from rival companies. They know nothing about their new jobs either.
I'm not sure how the app works, but the "auction off" part seems to imply the original parking place user chooses in exchange of money who is allowed to use it after they're gone.
I don't see any way this can be claimed to be an exchange of information. If somebody happens to be there waiting, they shpuld get the parking place. No one gets to say otherwise.
The right to be forgotten apparently means that, though archives of old embarrassing data may still exist and be available, they should not be too easy to find.
So the websites are allowed to keep showing the data, but Google is not allowed to display them in results.
It does seem strange! But I'd like to offer a parallel: Anybody who sees you in the street is allowed to recognize you and tweet your position. However, it would probably be illegal to build a countrywide network of cameras with facial recognition system that would allow anybody to query for your position. Unless the government does it.
Well yes, DVRs are legal; but offering to everybody to use your DVR is not. Just like you can watch a DVD you own in your home, but you are not allowed to project it on a huge screen in public. That's what the "not for public performance" warning means. Or you can watch a football match at home, but not record it and put it on YouTube.
I'm actually surprised this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It feels perfectly logical to me.
Sorry, this is FUD.
Content ID is not just for the big 3 who have a special arrangement. If you'll remember, one of the famous cases of over-flagging was a NASA video removed because some outfit called Scripps Local News was claiming to own the copyright. They're not in the big 3 of anything.
In theory Google has a content ID system that could block the unlicensed uploads - but nobody can compel it to use the system
Huh? Is that a claim that Google is not taking down videos through Content ID?? That I remember, most of the complaints about that system is overflagging videos for content that should be in the public domain, or is not even owned by the claiming entity. I have never heard of content producers complaining that the Content ID system is not working… And God knows they know how to complain when they feel like it.
If somebody wants the information to be known, it is probably trivial to regularly have an article published about the matter, and it is almost certainly impossible to stop this from happening. I believe this whole right to be forgotten can only work when nobody really cares except for the person in question.
> YouTube works because stuff gets uploaded and viewed globally before anyone has a chance to object
I take it you haven't heard about ContentId? Producers don't have to find all the uploads. They just tell YouTube which music belongs to them, and YouTube blocks all pirate uploads automatically… If that is the wish of the producer. More often that not, though, the pirate uploads are allowed to stay, but the ad revenue goes to the producer.
According to the article, the Canadian judge has ordered Google to stop showing these results to anybody in the world, not just to Canadians. Because most of the business made by the companies is made outside of Canada.
Also, technically, it is the Chinese government firewall that is filtering the results in China, not Google.
Dear Google, following Chinese law, our Chinese judge orders you to remove the following pages from your index worldwide:
I really don't think Google is going to be able to just bounce all requests to the courts. It would be way too easy for to many companies to reject all legal requests, force claimants to pay for a lawyer, bog up the legal system, and ultimately not do it.
Engineers have trouble to understand this, but laws do not work like computers programs. Using bugs and loopholes to game the system and violate the spirit of the law is punished.
I think the flaw in this particular ruling can be more clearly explained as: "China would like nobody to be able to search for the Tienanmen incident". Should it be censored for the whole world because Google happens to also do business in China…? According to this Canadian judge, it should.
I believe that most of the confusion is due to the fact that the new rule has just been decided, and nobody knows exactly what will happen. Here in the comments of the Reg, I have seen people opining that Google will ignore all the applications, refuse them all, or even accept them all. And Google themselves probably don't really know.
That said, I'm wondering how this can all work. Unless Google accepts practically all the applications, the data protection authorities are going to receive every day hundreds of complaints of people who got rejected by Google. I rather doubt they really want or even have the resources to go through all of it.
Completely comfortable. Honestly, why would you trust this new version any less than the last? Did you check line by line the code of the previous version and make sure nothing was sent to the NSA? If so, you can do the same with this one again, right?
Do tell us of all the backdoors you find.
On one hand German unions tend to be reasonable and not make crazy requests.
On the other hand, I suspect they consider Amazon like a "rich US company" that can afford to pay its employees more… Which would almost be the case were it not for the fact that Amazon uses razor-thin margins in order to grow its market share.
I'm curious to see the answer from Amazon, but they seem quite used to playing hardball.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019