Apple is challenging a UK court order demanding they create a "backdoor" into an encrypted iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist. They argue that complying would compromise the security of all their devices and set a dangerous precedent globally, potentially forcing them to create similar backdoors for other governments. Apple claims the Investigatory Powers Act, under which the order was issued, doesn't authorize such demands and violates their human rights. They're seeking judicial review of the order, arguing existing tools are sufficient for the investigation.
Meta is arguing that its platform hosting pirated books isn't illegal because they claim there's no evidence they're "seeding" (actively uploading and distributing) the copyrighted material. They contend they're merely "leeching" (downloading), which they argue isn't copyright infringement. This defense comes as publishers sue Meta for hosting and facilitating access to vast quantities of pirated books on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, claiming significant financial harm. Meta asserts that publishers haven't demonstrated that the company is contributing to the distribution of the infringing content beyond simply allowing users to access it.
Hacker News users discuss Meta's defense against accusations of book piracy, with many expressing skepticism towards Meta's "we're just a leech" argument. Several commenters point out the flaw in this logic, arguing that downloading constitutes an implicit form of seeding, as portions of the file are often shared with other peers during the download process. Others highlight the potential hypocrisy of Meta's position, given their aggressive stance against copyright infringement on their own platforms. Some users also question the article's interpretation of the legal arguments, and suggest that Meta's stance may be more nuanced than portrayed. A few commenters draw parallels to previous piracy cases involving other companies. Overall, the consensus leans towards disbelief in Meta's defense and anticipates further legal challenges.
Nintendo has been granted a new patent related to its free-to-play mobile game, Pokémon GO, which strengthens their case against the upcoming monster-collecting game, Palworld. This patent covers specific gameplay mechanics related to location-based creature encounters and capturing. While the original lawsuit against Palworld's developer, Pocketpair, focused on similarities in character design and overall gameplay concepts, this new patent provides more concrete grounds for infringement claims. Nintendo is also actively pursuing further patents related to Pokémon GO, suggesting a continued aggressive stance in protecting their intellectual property and potentially strengthening their legal battle against Palworld.
Hacker News users discuss Nintendo's aggressive patenting strategy regarding features seemingly inspired by Pokémon in the upcoming game Palworld. Several commenters express skepticism about the validity and enforceability of these patents, particularly regarding "catching creatures" and "creature following," which are considered common game mechanics. Some argue that these broad patents stifle creativity and innovation within the gaming industry. Others point out the irony of Nintendo patenting mechanics they themselves may have borrowed or adapted from earlier games. The discussion also touches upon the potential legal challenges and costs involved for an indie studio like Pocketpair, the developers of Palworld, to fight these patents. Some predict that Palworld will likely have to alter its gameplay significantly to avoid infringement. A few users speculate about the motivation behind Nintendo's actions, questioning whether it's genuine concern for intellectual property protection or a strategic move to suppress a potential competitor.
A US judge ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, establishing a significant precedent in AI copyright law. The ruling affirmed that Westlaw, Reuters' legal research platform, doesn't infringe copyright by using data from rival legal databases like Casetext to train its generative AI models. The judge found the copied material constituted fair use because the AI uses the data differently than the original databases, transforming the information into new formats and features. This decision indicates that using copyrighted data for AI training might be permissible if the resulting AI product offers a distinct and transformative function compared to the original source material.
HN commenters generally agree that Westlaw's terms of service likely prohibit scraping, regardless of copyright implications. Several point out that training data is generally considered fair use, and question whether the judge's decision will hold up on appeal. Some suggest the ruling might create a chilling effect on open-source LLMs, while others argue that large companies will simply absorb the licensing costs. A few commenters see this as a positive outcome, forcing AI companies to pay for the data they use. The discussion also touches upon the potential for increased competition and innovation if smaller players can access data more affordably than licensing Westlaw's content.
Former tech CEO and founder of online invitation company Evite, Al Lieb, is suing to have records of his 2016 domestic violence arrest expunged from the internet. Despite charges being dropped and the case dismissed, Lieb argues that the persistent online presence of his arrest record unfairly damages his reputation and career prospects. He's targeting websites like Mugshots.com that publish arrest information, claiming they profit from this information and refuse to remove it even after legal proceedings conclude. Lieb believes individuals have a right to privacy and to move on from past mistakes when charges are dropped.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the legal and ethical implications of attempting to remove public arrest records from the internet. Several express skepticism about the plaintiff's chances of success, citing the importance of public access to such information and the established difficulty of removing content once it's online (the Streisand effect is mentioned). Some debate the merits of his arguments regarding potential harm to his reputation and career, while others suggest alternative strategies like focusing on SEO to bury the negative information. A few comments highlight the tension between individual privacy rights and the public's right to know, with some arguing that the nature of the alleged crime should influence the decision of whether to unseal or remove the record. There's also discussion about the potential for abuse if such removals become commonplace, with concerns about powerful individuals manipulating public perception. A common thread is the acknowledgment that the internet has fundamentally changed the landscape of information accessibility and permanence.
Qualcomm has prevailed in a significant licensing dispute with Arm. A confidential arbitration ruling affirmed Qualcomm's right to continue licensing Arm's instruction set architecture for its Nuvia-designed chips under existing agreements. This victory allows Qualcomm to proceed with its plans to incorporate these custom-designed processors into its products, potentially disrupting the server chip market. Arm had argued that the licenses were non-transferable after Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, but the arbitrator disagreed. Financial details of the ruling remain undisclosed.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the implications of Qualcomm's legal victory over Arm. Several express concern that this decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing companies to sub-license core technology they don't fully own, stifling innovation and competition. Some speculate this could push other chip designers to RISC-V, an open-source alternative to Arm's architecture. Others question the long-term viability of Arm's business model if they cannot control their own licensing. Some commenters see this as a specific attack on Nuvia's (acquired by Qualcomm) custom core designs, with Qualcomm leveraging their market power. Finally, a few express skepticism about the reporting and suggest waiting for further details to emerge.
Summary of Comments ( 210 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43270079
HN commenters are largely skeptical of Apple's claims, pointing out that Apple already complies with lawful intercept requests in other countries and questioning whether this case is truly about a "backdoor" or simply about the scope and process of existing surveillance capabilities. Some suspect Apple is using this lawsuit as a PR move to bolster its privacy image, especially given the lack of technical details provided. Others suggest Apple is trying to establish legal precedent to push back against increasing government surveillance overreach. A few commenters express concern over the UK's Investigatory Powers Act and its implications for privacy and security. Several highlight the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, with no easy answers in sight. There's also discussion about the technical feasibility and potential risks of implementing such a system, including the possibility of it being exploited by malicious actors.
The Hacker News post "Apple takes UK to court over 'backdoor' order" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43270079) has a modest number of comments, generating a discussion primarily focused on the technical and legal challenges of implementing and enforcing client-side scanning.
Several commenters express skepticism about the practicality of client-side scanning, arguing that it's inherently insecure and easily bypassed by determined attackers. One commenter highlights the "cat and mouse game" nature of such security measures, pointing out that criminals will inevitably find ways to circumvent these systems. Another commenter questions the effectiveness of these measures in preventing terrorism, suggesting that terrorists are likely to use alternative, more secure communication methods. The potential for false positives and the erosion of privacy are also raised as significant concerns.
There's a discussion about the legal and ethical implications of compelling companies to build backdoors into their products. One commenter argues that such orders set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for authoritarian governments to demand access to encrypted communications. The conflict between national security and individual privacy is a recurring theme, with commenters debating the appropriate balance between these competing interests. Some commenters suggest that the focus should be on improving existing investigative techniques rather than compromising the security of all users.
Technical details of implementing client-side scanning are also discussed, with commenters speculating about the potential methods Apple could employ and their limitations. The possibility of using on-device machine learning models to detect illegal content is mentioned, along with the challenges of maintaining accuracy and preventing manipulation of these models.
One commenter raises the issue of jurisdiction and the potential for conflicts between different countries' laws, noting the complexities of enforcing such orders in a globalized world.
While there isn't a single, overwhelmingly compelling comment that dominates the discussion, the collective thread highlights the significant technical, legal, and ethical concerns surrounding client-side scanning and government-mandated backdoors. The commenters generally express skepticism about the efficacy and safety of such measures, emphasizing the potential for abuse and the negative impact on privacy and security.