steven n.

bigmushroom said:
This is fanboy propaganda in the same way that the article deliberately blurred the distinction between Apis and implementing code.

Google didn't use the Java API to save time developing Android (they could have easily renamed function names and changed them slightly) but in order to make it easy for third party to develop for the platform. It's not clear why an API developer should own the human capital that stored in form of muscle memory in the heads of thousands of developers if they profited handsomely already from these developers writing code for them.

Finally, Apple stands on the shoulder of Giants like anyone else. Objective c is based on c and it's standard is heavily influenced by the c library. Swift's library is also obviously based on the countless libraries that came before. This is taken for granted: I have never seen the creators of C go around and Sue anyone I sight for repurpursing their libraries.

Sure, Google "only steals". I guess that's why these hadoop companies reimplemented MapReduce and the Google file system from the seminal 2005 paper and created Hadoop out of it. That's the reason why kubernetes (developed by Google) has become the container orchestrator of choice. That's why tensor flow is opensourced by google and the tool of choice for deep learning. That's why Node uses the V8 JavaScript engine to develop a huge ecosystem around it. That's why countless academics use syntaxnet (Google too) for creating syntactic parse trees. Etc. Etc.

Bending your mind like a pretzel to write stuff that fits your anti Google crusade isn't healthy.

id fileData;
fileData = [NSString stringWithContentsOfFile:@"MyDataFile];

FILE *inFile;
unsigned char *fileData;
size_t fileSize;

inFile = fopen("MyDataFile", "r");
fseek(inFile, (size_t)0, SEEK_END);
fileSize = ftell(inFile);
fileData = malloc(fileSize + 1);
fseek(inFile, (size_t)0, SEEK_START);
fread(fileData, fileSize, 1, inFile);

bkkcanuck said:

Rayz2016 said:

bkkcanuck said:

I disagree with the Federal Court.  

API is just the interface (e.g. add(operand1, operand2) - i.e. no implementation to that - and implementation is basically 99%+ of the code).

Being able to use an API for compatibility purposes is no different than for example Open Office being able to implement the file format for Word.  The need for competition outweighs the argument as an API protected IP.   Google's implementation uses the API (common) and then the implementation code which is probably more than 99% of the code base.  As long as Google did not copy the code itself the API itself should be fair use.  Languages and APIs should not be able to be protected as API.  

The court has already previously ruled that you cannot protect interfaces for hardware for the purposes of locking out the competition on things like printer cartridges etc.  An API is not much different than the software equivalent.  

Actually, Google did copy code from Java. That's how the case first got started, but that's not really the point. The Java license permits this as fair use, and many of us have made a good living from Java and have given back by helping out on other projects and with occasional bug fixes. If fork a new version of Java, however, and then make a commercial product based around this fork then you are expected to buy a license. IBM did, and so did Microsoft.

Please provide some backup for this statement - I have read quite a few articles and the code that was "copied" was always the API (outline) i.e. java.util.BigDecimal.<method> - no implementation code.  

gatorguy said:

steven n. said:

gatorguy said:

Perhaps that's the best solution to a bad situation. No backdoors per-se but a dedicated part of the secure enclave that can still be used to access a customer's device in the event of a security emergency or otherwise lawful order. 

It's becoming pretty darn clear that denying access to those tasked with protecting the citizens of a country isn't going to last. China already demands the encryption keys as does Russia. Apple still finds a way to do business in both despite having to "share". I believe there are calls in the EU too besides in the US which is the topic here. Somehow and fairly soon there's going to be a mandated solution that not everyone will be happy with. The consumer-facing companies using encryption can either partner with lawmakers to arrive at the least damaging solution or risk having one chosen for them. IMO it's going to happen anyway. 

So in other words, no on device protection.

But basically, the China law does NOT require companies hand over encryption keys though it does require technical assistance. More disinformation?

You didn't read very carefully. The second sentence clearly says it's on-device, as does the AI article. 

Anyway, no encryption service is allowed within China that cannot be decrypted at the behest of Chinese authorities in order to protect their citizenry. Fact. Apple themselves makes it clear in their legal disclosure to affected Chinese customers that both they AND GCBD (yes specifically called out) have the same access to Chinese users iCloud data. Fact. I'm sure you read the statement. Wordplay doesn't make it less true.

Same holds true in Russia as Telegram now understands after losing their last-ditch legal effort to avoid it, and they were one of the last, if not the last holdouts. AFAIK Apple still operates secure "encrypted" services there. How can that be?
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/encryption-backdoor-russia-fsb-bill-passes/

gatorguy said:

Perhaps that's the best solution to a bad situation. No backdoors per-se but a dedicated part of the secure enclave that can still be used to access a customer's device in the event of a security emergency or otherwise lawful order. 

It's becoming pretty darn clear that denying access to those tasked with protecting the citizens of a country isn't going to last. China already demands the encryption keys as does Russia. Apple still finds a way to do business in both despite having to "share". I believe there are calls in the EU too besides in the US which is the topic here. Somehow and fairly soon there's going to be a mandated solution that not everyone will be happy with. The consumer-facing companies using encryption can either partner with lawmakers to arrive at the least damaging solution or risk having one chosen for them. IMO it's going to happen anyway. 

gatorguy said:

steven n. said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

maestro64 said:

If you have not listen to the Apple insider pod cast on this subject, you should.

 Everyone wants too blame Facebook since it is easier to blame someone else, but most need to look no further than their own mirror. I never bought in to the Facebook thing and always felt it would be bad. I also valued my privacy over getting free things. 

I learned a few things from the pod cast, basically anyone who is pissed off your own information may have been used against you, you have to remember you got something free and you gave facebook the right to use your information the way they like. They never had to ask you if it was okay to allow third parts to use your information, you gave up that right by creating that account.

If you want to protect your information. Then stop using free stuff, and pay for your services.

Paying for something doesn't make the "selling you" issue go away.

Between retailers sharing your purchases, banks/credit card providers sharing your financial history, your cellular provider sharing your use data, the government sharing your driving, ownership, and legal history, pharmacy's sharing your prescription history, schools sharing your education history, and recent sharing issues even within Apple (China and likely Russia too, data sharing with publishers within Apple News and targeted ads within the App Store, and the new Apple supported Cloud Act that eases and simplifies the sharing of personal data with "friendlies") this whole conversation about "privacy" is little more than marketing fluff IMHO.

All those paid services don't "protect your privacy" if the provider sees value in sharing it, economically or politically, more so than in keeping it to themselves. Words are easy. Actions are just a tad more difficult. 

Please. The sum total of everything you listed pales in comparison to what Google or Facebook know about you. Also funny how you slip Apple into your list to imply they are somehow on the same level. They aren't.

This is going to come back to bite Google and Facebook in the ass. Hard. It was only a matter of time before something happened that would bring privacy issues and data collection out into the public eye. Apple is going to come out of this smelling like a rose while Google and Facebook will smell like the piles of horseshit they are.

Sum of all of them pales in comparison to Google? Have you ever bothered to look at what Google thinks they know about you? Probably not IMHO but you can anytime it tickles your fancy. Then you don't have to make stuff up, you can base it on actual knowledge.

Instead it looks to me like you prefer the lazy (or is it disingenuous) route to FUD-rush, that an evil Google with evil intent factually knows more about your personal life than Experion, or Acxiom, or TransUnion, or a hundred other data aggregators who mine, partner, and outright pay for access to everything from your sexual and religious bent, to your psychological and medical conditions, to the layout of your home and your neighbors homes, to the demographics of your entire extended family and more? They aren't in it to place an ad based on anonymised baskets of web visitors like Google is. They're in it to sell pure data, your TV and on-line viewing habits, your banking and employment and income, where you go, what you do, what you eat... Just selling your personal data for any purpose the buyer wishes to use it for.

 Facebook? I'm not sure what they know or the extent of it, that's one I need to pull my data profile from before claiming anything based on any actual knowledge of it. I would suspect they know far more personal verified information in general than Google considering how they collect it but I could be wrong.

 So before posting things that may or may not be true but you want to present as fact, why not do the forum a favor and look and when it's simply your opinion make it more clear? IMHO we all have far more to fear from the Acxiom's and Equifax's of the world than an online ad purveyor. Your minimizing the privacy danger isn't particularly helpful to a common consumers understanding, nor is inferring that Apple has entirely clean hands and if you just faithfully trust them then your world is safe from intrusions on your personal life. There is no privacy safe house anymore,  particularly so in a digital world.

Google CEO: "We Know Where You Are. We Know Where You've Been. We Can More Or Less Know What You're Thinking About." - Eric S.

You either work at Google in PR or have totally swallowed the kool-aid and truly think they are 100% altruistic with no hidden profit motives (drug sales anyone?). Google absolutely knows more about you than Experion, or Acxiom, or TransUnion with no doubt. You made an errant assumption about the "evil Google" putting words into people's writing that simply did not exist.

Companies offering things for "free" have to make money somewhere and Google is no different. Personally, I prefer a business relationship where I pay money (something of value) and get something of value in return. Data collection companies line Experion, or Acxiom, or Facebook, or TransUnion, or Google, or Twitter I don't trust nearly as much. They don't serve my interests but the interests of a third party that may be adversarial to my interests.

This FB/CA issue shows just how clearly these companies need to be tightly regulated on what data they collect, how you get access to it, how it gets destroyed if needed, and who gets access.

So before posting things that may or may not be true but you want to present as fact, why not do the forum a favor and look and when it's simply your opinion make it more clear?

I do know for a fact that Google does not know exactly who I am, nor do they probably care IMO. They think I listen to music I don't, that I'm much younger than they suppose, and that I have hobbies I don't. Why do I say it doesn't really matter? Because all that DOES matter is that the person at the keyboard with eyes on the screen has some interest in the ads put in front of them and proves Google's effectiveness to an advertiser.