P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Peer to Peer
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29-04-20, 07:09 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - May 2nd, ’20

Since 2002































May 2nd, 2020




Regal Owner Cineworld Chimes In On ‘Trolls World Tour’ Controversy: “We Will Not Be Showing Movies That Fail To Respect The Windows”
Nancy Tartaglione

Following yesterday’s flurry of dramatic exchanges involving AMC, the National Association of Theatre Owners and Universal, Regal Entertainment owner Cineworld Group has now added its voice to the chorus of windows controversy surrounding Trolls World Tour. The world’s second biggest circuit says its policy with respect to the window “is clear, well known in the industry and is part of our commercial deal with our movie suppliers… We make it clear again that we will not be showing movies that fail to respect the windows.” Cineworld also calls Universal’s decision to opt for a PVOD release on the DreamWorks Animation sequel, “completely inappropriate,” adding that it “certainly has nothing to do with good faith business practice, partnership and transparency.” (See full statement below.)

Cineworld CEO Mooky Greidinger had previously been outspoken to Deadline about the Hollywood major’s move.

Today’s news comes after AMC boss Adam Aron yesterday fired off a letter to Universal Studios Chairman Donna Langley in response to NBC Universal CEO Jeff Shell’s statements in the Wall Street Journal regarding the $95M PVOD success of Trolls World Tour. Shell had told the paper, “As soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats,” indicating a day-and-date theatrical-VOD shift.

This prompted Aron to shoot back, “Going forward, AMC will not license any Universal movies in any of our 1,000 theatres globally on these terms.” And that goes for AMC sites in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East. Aron extended the sentiment to “any movie maker who unilaterally abandons current windowing practices absent good faith negotiations between us, so that as distributor and exhibitor both benefit and neither are hurt from such changes.”

Ahead of the AMC chief’s letter, NATO had smacked Universal for its chest-thumping over Trolls 2, and then Universal released its own statement, suggesting NATO was in cahoots with AMC over the chain’s refusal to play its titles.

The studio’s missive said they “absolutely believe in the theatrical experience and made no statement to the contrary.” But, added Uni, “As we stated earlier, going forward, we expect to release future films directly to theatres, as well as on PVOD when that distribution outlet makes sense.”

Universal ended its note expressing disappointment in “this seemingly coordinated attempt from AMC and NATO to confuse our position and our actions.”

Here is Cineworld’s statement in full from today:

Cineworld’s policy with respect to the window is clear, well known in the industry and is part of our commercial deal with our movie suppliers. We invest heavily in our cinemas across the globe and this allows the movie studios to provide customers all around the world to watch the movies in the best experience. There is no argument that the big screen is the best way to watch a movie.

Universal unilaterally chose to break our understanding and did so at the height of the Covid-19 crisis when our business is closed, more than 35,000 employees are at home and when we do not yet have a clear date for the reopening of our cinemas.

Universal’s move is completely inappropriate and certainly has nothing to do with good faith business practice, partnership and transparency.

Mooky Greidinger, Cineworld’s CEO approached Brian Roberts, the Chairman of Comcast, back in 19th of March (after Universal announced that Trolls 2 would be released in breach of the window) and told him among other things that:

“Nice words from your team are worthless if we cannot trust you as a partner. The message that the media has portrayed is: “Hollywood breaks the window” – well, this is not true! All our partners called us in timely manner and told us that in the current situation they want to shorten window for movies that were already released as cinemas are closing, most importantly, they all reassured us that there will be no change to their window policy once the cinema business returned. Unfortunately I missed similar message in Universal’s announcement… not only did Universal provide no commitment for the future window – but Universal was the only studio that tried to take advantage of the current crisis and provide a ‘day-and-date’ release of a movie that was not yet released”.

Cineworld’s roots go back 90 years in the industry and it was always open to showing any movie as long as the rules were kept and not changed by one sided moves. Today we make it clear again that we will not be showing movies that fail to respect the windows as it does not make any economic sense for us.

We have full confidence in the industry’s current business model. No one should forget that the theatrical side of this industry generated an all-time record income of $42 billion last year and the movie distributors’ share of this was about $20 billion.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...161718584.html





More People are Pirating Movies During the Coronavirus Lockdown
Sarah Whitten

• During the last seven days of March, there was a 43% spike in Americans visiting sites that pirate movies compared with the last seven days of February.
• Italy, which went under lockdown orders on March 9, saw visits to piracy sites spike 66%.
• Last year, the Global Innovation Policy Center estimated that worldwide online piracy costs the U.S. economy between $29.2 billion and $71 billion in lost revenue each year.

Streaming services have seen a major surge in subscriber growth during the coronavirus pandemic, but the outbreak is also driving more people to use pirated movie websites.

New data from Muso, a piracy tracking firm, found that during the last seven days of March, there was a 43% spike in Americans visiting sites that pirate movies compared with the last seven days of February.

“This unprecedented increase in visits to online film piracy sites in the last week of March reveals that as more countries enforced lockdowns and required citizens to self-isolate, demand for content via piracy grew exponentially,” the company said in a statement.

Notably, Italy, which went under lockdown orders on March 9, saw visits to piracy sites spike 66%.

“Piracy or unlicensed consumption trends are closely linked to paid-for or licensed content,” Andy Chatterley, CEO of Muso, said in a statement. “So, just as Netflix has seen large subscriber gains, we have seen a significant spike in visits to film piracy sites.”

Last year, the Global Innovation Policy Center estimated that worldwide online piracy costs the U.S. economy at least $29.2 billion in lost revenue each year. That figure could be as high as $71 billion, the center, which is part of the United States Chamber of Commerce, reported. That’s a revenue reduction of between 11% and 24%, it said.

And that was before the coronavirus pandemic increased consumers’ use of film pirating websites.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/more...-lockdown.html





Branson 'Robbed' the Sex Pistols: Punk Band's Manager Malcolm McLaren Accused 'Insidious and Idiotic' Virgin Records Boss for 'Pilfering and Pirating' the Band's Album in Letters Uncovered 40 Years On

• The punk rock band were signed to Branson's Virgin Records during late 1970s
• Letters written by McLaren on December 2, 1977, are now set to go up for auction
• McLaren slammed Branson for releasing a new record in Europe before the UK

James Wood

Sex Pistols' manager Malcolm McLaren branded Richard Branson 'insidious and idiotic' in letters which have been unearthed after 40 years.

The punk rock band was signed to Virgin Records at the time but McLaren accused Branson's record label of 'pilfering and pirating' their notorious album, Never Mind The B***ocks.

He claimed in the 1977 letter that Branson had supplied unlicensed music shops in Europe with the record before it was released in the UK to 'make a quick profit'.

The two letters are being sold by a former Virgin employee at auction at a time when Branson has come in for criticism for asking the UK government to bail out Virgin Atlantic despite being worth $4.2billion.

The punk rock band were signed to Virgin Records at the time but McLaren accused Branson's (pictured in 1979) record label of 'pilfering and pirating' their famous studio album

Barclay Records' deal meant the French release of the eagerly awaited 'Never Mind the B***ocks, Here's the Sex Pistols' was to be a week earlier than Virgin's release.

Branson is said to have been concerned about imports flooding the UK and European market and released it earlier than planned. Pictured: The Sex Pistols in 2000

The two letters (one, pictured) are being sold by a former Virgin employee at auction at a time when Branson has come in for criticism for asking the UK government to bail out Virgin Atlantic despite being worth $4.2bn

One of the letters was written by McLaren to Branson while the second, which referenced the Virgin boss, was to Barclay Records which had the rights to sell the album in France.

They were written on the same of December 2, 1977.

Barclay Records' deal meant the French release of the eagerly awaited 'Never Mind the B***ocks, Here's the Sex Pistols' was to be a week earlier than Virgin's release.

Branson is said to have been concerned about imports flooding the UK and European market and released it earlier than planned.

A furious McLaren then fired off his letter to Branson.

He wrote: 'I am very concerned with your insidious methods of laying the blame of a massive export of albums to the U.S on me.

'In Italy, in Holland, in Scandinavia - we have received reports that the album pressed by Virgin was in their shops before it was even released here.

'Your attempts to stall delivery to your European licensees in order to, it appears, make a quick profit from pilfering and pirating exports into these countries, has damaged our chances of success here.'

He claimed in the 1977 letter that Branson had supplied unlicensed music shops in Europe with the record before it was released in the UK to 'make a quick profit'

One of the letters was written by McLaren to Branson while the second, which referenced the Virgin boss, was to Barclay Records which had the rights to sell the album in France

In his letter to Eddie Barclay, McLaren accused him of hastily producing an 'ugly' album cover in order to get the album out early in France

The music impresario wrote: 'And don't for one minute believe that I support that idiotic and insidious Richard Branson.'

Both letters are being sold by Omega Auctions of Newton le Willows, Merseyside. They have given them a guide price of £500.

Paul Fairweather, of Omega, said: 'The argument between Malcolm McLaren and Richard Branson is a known thing within the music industry.

'McLaren was a person who didn't mince his words and fell out with quite a lot of people and Richard Branson was one of those.'

Dan Hampson, of Omega, added: 'This is from the collection of the relatives of a music journalist who worked at Virgin Records and later at the Glitterbest - Malcolm McLaren's company offices.

'The family have been sorting through the archive and decided to let the letter go.

'Anything with links to the Sex Pistols is always popular, and the market is as strong as it ever was for Punk memorabilia.

'It has never been published before and remains in very good condition.

'I'd say Richard Branson being in the headlines certainly won't do any harm as far as the sale is concerned.'

The sale takes place next Tuesday.

A Virgin Group spokesperson said: 'McLaren loved to ruffle feathers at record labels to create controversy, it was one of the many quirks of working with the Sex Pistols.

'McLaren and the band had burned their bridges at other labels, but Richard and Virgin Records knew they were worth the risk.

'To launch their album, the Sex Pistols played on a boat cruising the Thames, a satirical take on the Queen's waterside Silver Jubilee procession.

'This became an iconic moment as they launched into 'Anarchy in the UK' opposite Parliament and the rest, as they say, is history.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uncovered.html





Georgia Loses Legal Code Copyright Clash at Supreme Court

• Cross-ideological 5-4 lineup for justices in intellectual property dispute
• State warned ruling could “blow up” other states’ copyright regimes

Jordan S. Rubin

Georgia lost a close U.S. Supreme Court case over the state’s ability to copyright its annotated legal code, in a ruling that dissenting justices said would shock states with similar arrangements.

Copyright protection doesn’t extend to the annotations in the state’s official annotated code, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 5-4 majority on Monday that crossed ideological lines. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts.

The state’s lawyer warned at the oral argument that a ruling against it would “blow up” not only Georgia’s copyright regime but similar ones in about a third of the states with similar setups.

Indeed, the ruling “will likely come as a shock to the 25 other jurisdictions—22 States, 2 Territories, and the District of Columbia—that rely on arrangements similar to Georgia’s to produce annotated codes,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito and partially by Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote her own dissent, joined by Breyer.

An array of outside interest groups had also weighed in on the case, ranging from small-firm lawyers looking to maintain access to a coalition of states looking to uphold existing business arrangements.

No One Can Own the Law

The copyright clash stemmed from Georgia’s suit against Public.Resource.Org, a group that advocates for public access.

The state’s annotated legal code is published by private company LexisNexis Group, pursuant to an agreement with the state that gives the company exclusive publication rights. But Georgia claims the copyright and sued Public Resource for infringement when the non-profit tried to publish the code on its own.

There would be nothing to argue about if it were only the statutes at stake, because the government edicts doctrine would bar the state’s claim.

But the annotations, which includes things like commentaries, case notations, and editor’s notes, don’t have the force of law.

That raised tricky questions for the justices about how to apply the doctrine here. In a divided ruling, the high court sided against the state, citing the Georgia legislature’s involvement.

Though the annotations were prepared by a private company, the annotated code is assembled by a state entity composed mostly of legislators, funded through legislative appropriations, and staffed by a legislative office, Roberts observed.

“Because Georgia’s annotations are authored by an arm of the legislature in the course of its legislative duties,” he wrote, “the government edicts doctrine puts them outside the reach of copyright protection.”

The “animating principle” behind the doctrine, the chief justice wrote, “is that no one can own the law.”

The case is Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., U.S., 18-1150.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...-supreme-court





The Cybersecurity 202: There's Finally a Supreme Court Battle Coming Over the Nation’s Main Hacking Law
Joseph Marks

The Supreme Court is finally considering whether to rein in the nation’s sweeping anti-hacking law, which cybersecurity pros say is decades out of date and ill-suited to the modern Internet.

The justices agreed to hear a case this fall that argues law enforcement and prosecutors have routinely applied the law too broadly and used it to criminalize not just hacking into websites but also far more innocuous behavior – such as lying about your name or location while signing up on a website or otherwise violating the site’s terms of service.
If the court agrees to narrow how prosecutors can use the law, it would be a huge victory for security researchers.

They routinely skirt websites’ strict terms of service when they investigate them for bugs that cybercriminals could exploit.

It would also make the Internet far safer, they say. That's because current interpretations of the 1986 law, known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse act (CFAA), have made researchers wary of revealing bugs they find because they fear getting in trouble with police or with companies, which can also sue under the law in civil courts.

“Computer researchers are constantly afraid that a security test they run is going to run them afoul of the law,” Tor Ekeland, an attorney who specializes in defending people accused of violating the CFAA, told me. “This law makes the Internet less safe because it chills legitimate information security research and it’s bad for the economy because it chills innovation.”

The fight centers on whether the law should apply just to hacking or more broadly to breaking rules on a computer.

That’s a distinction that didn’t matter much when the law was drafted in the mid-1980s. But it makes a huge difference now when people routinely spend hours each day visiting a slew of websites that all have their own terms of service that most people never read.

“It’s making a crime out of ordinary breaches of computer restrictions and terms of service that people likely don’t even know about and if they did would have no reason to think would be a federal crime,” Jeffrey L. Fisher, a Stanford University law professor who is the lead attorney in the case before the high court, told me.

That case focuses on a former Georgia police officer, Nathan Van Buren, who was convicted under the law in 2017 after he allegedly sold information from a police database to an acquaintance for $6,000. The information was allegedly focused on helping the acquaintance figure out whether a local stripper was actually an undercover cop.

CFAA critics say that takes the anti-hacking law too far because Van Buren didn’t actually hack into anything. He just broke the rules for a database that he was legitimately allowed to use.

Fisher was an attorney on two other cases in the past six years in which the Supreme Court tackled pressing technology issues and limited police authorities. In Riley v. California in 2014, the court required a warrant for most police searches of cellphone contents. In Carpenter v. United States in 2018, the justices limited how police can use cellphone location data to track suspects.

Fisher said he believes that the justices will also be ready in this case to roll back police powers that no longer make sense given modern technology.
Federal appellate districts have split over how broadly to read the law.

Courts in New York, California and several other states generally require that a person actually hack into a computer by using stolen information or exploiting a bug in the system to be prosecuted under the law, while courts in states including Georgia and Florida have convicted people in cases such as Van Buren's where there’s no clear hacking.

Van Buren's lawyers are essentially asking the Supreme Court to settle the argument.

“This is important because the law either says very few people are criminals under CFAA or almost everyone is a criminal under CFAA,” Jeffrey L. Vagle, a Georgia State University law professor who focuses on cybersecurity law, told me. “This question has been unanswered for years and now it’s about time that it gets answered.”

The Justice Department says there’s no need to rein in the law.

In a filing with the high court, the agency points to 2014 guidance that directs prosecutors to exercise discretion whenever charging people under the CFAA and to consider factors including whether their actions caused major economic damage or were part of a broader criminal enterprise.

Prosecution “may not be warranted” if someone merely violated a site’s terms of service, that guidance warns.

They also say that requiring that direct hacking into a computer be the only way a person can be prosecuted under the law ignores the vast array of fraud and other crimes people commit on the modern Internet.

“To call this just an anti-hacking law is an over simplification,” said Mark Krotoski, a former national coordinator for the Justice Department’s Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property program who’s now an attorney at the law firm Morgan Lewis.

CFAA critics, however, say the law gives prosecutors far too much leeway.

“This is about whether a statute should be drafted so broadly that everyone is committing crimes all the time and the government gets to choose who to prosecute,” Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told me.

Critics argue that there might be good reason for the government to prosecute Van Buren's case – but using the CFAA is the wrong way to do it.

“The argument in this case is that in order to make sure there’s something to cover a government employee misusing a database we need an argument covering all misuses of every computer in every context, and that’s a problem,” Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of law who focuses on computer crimes, said.

The Justice Department even charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the law – his crime was allegedly giving advice to one of the site’s main leakers Chelsea Manning about how to crack a Defense Department password to gather more information. Kerr said that's another example of how expansively prosecutors have applied the law.

One of the best-known CFAA prosecutions was of the Internet activist Aaron Swartz.

Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts charged him in 2011 for allegedly downloading millions of articles from the JSTOR academic repository in violation of its terms of service. Swartz committed suicide two years later while he was awaiting trial and his case became a rallying cry for Internet reformers and lawmakers eager to update the CFAA.

“[Congress] just didn’t understand what the ramifications were in 1986 and I’m not sure they could have considering how long ago it was,” Vagle said. “But we’ve lived with the ramifications ever since and some of them have been tragic.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ff140c1cc5f51/





PreVeil's Encrypted Email and File Sharing receive PC Magazine's Editors' Choice Award
PRWeb

PreVeil has been awarded PC Magazine's Editors' Choice award for top encrypted email and file sharing solution.This review confirms PreVeil as the industry-leading provider of enterprise-grade encrypted email and file sharing.

PreVeil is proud to announce that it has been awarded PC Magazine's Editors' Choice award for top encrypted email and file sharing solution. Reviewer Neil Rubenking gave the platform 4.5 stars out of a possible 5, and an overall review of Excellent. This review confirms PreVeil as the industry-leading provider of enterprise-grade encrypted email and file sharing.

PC Magazine lauded PreVeil's email and secure encrypted file sharing for their use of "weapons-grade encryption" for both business and individual users. With end-to-end encryption, PreVeil is able to ensure that only the sender and recipient can ever read the information being shared – and no one else. PreVeil uses public and private keys – not vulnerable passwords – to provide this protection. Data is never decrypted on the server. Even if attackers successfully breach the server, all they will get is gibberish.

As PC Magazine notes in the article:

"Any serious encryption solution needs to operate with zero knowledge. That means that the provider has no possible way to access your data. Only you hold the key, and only you can decrypt your personal data".

PC Magazine also praised PreVeil's platform for its ease of use. PreVeil makes it easy to add encrypted email to your existing solution such as Outlook, Gmail or Apple Mail. It is also simple to add a copy of your encrypted account to your other devices such as your mobile phone or tablet. Users don't have to change to a new email address and can easily update a new device if their original device is lost or stolen.

"We are delighted to be named Number One," said PreVeil co-founder and chairman, Sanjeev Verma. "The business world is really waking up. We've seen an irony that billions around the world use end-to-end encryption with WhatsApp for routine messaging, but many companies have not had that same level of security when they handle their most sensitive data. PreVeil changes that. Companies can now email, store and share their most sensitive information with powerful end-to-end encryption that is easy to deploy and even easier to use. We are gratified at this recognition from PC Magazine."

By combining strong encryption and ease of use, PreVeil's platform is suitable for protecting the most important business data while also complying with government regulations. This mix makes it a perfect choice for the world's leading aerospace and defense companies as well as smaller suppliers that seek to achieve CMMC compliance. The rigorous security also makes it a great solution for financial, health and educational organizations that need to secure their communications with colleagues as well as clients.
https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleas...s-choice-award





Judge Orders FCC to Hand Over IP Addresses Linked to Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Dell Cameron

A Manhattan federal judge has ruled the Federal Communications Commission must provide two reporters access to server logs that may provide new insight into the allegations of fraud stemming from agency’s 2017 net neutrality rollback.

A pair of New York Times reporters—Nicholas Confessore and Gabriel Dance—sued the FCC under the Freedom of Information Act after it refused their request to view copies of the logs. The logs will show, among other details, the originating IP addresses behind the millions of public comments sent to the agency ahead of the December 2017 net neutrality vote.

The FCC attempted to quash the paper’s request but failed to persuade District Judge Lorna Schofield, who wrote that, despite the privacy concerns raised by the agency, releasing the logs may help clarify whether fraudulent activity interfered with the comment period, as well as whether the agency’s decision-making process is “vulnerable to corruption.”

The FCC argued in court that making the millions of IP addresses contained in the logs publicly accessible would constitute an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” And while Schofield didn’t entirely disagree, she said the agency had failed to adequately spell out how anyone would be harmed by the disclosure.

Regardless, Schofield said she also decided to weigh any hypothetical harm against the potential value of the information to the public. “In this case, the public interest in disclosure is great because the importance of the comment process to agency rulemaking is great,” she said, adding: “If genuine public comment is drowned out by a fraudulent facsimile, then the notice-and-comment process has failed.”

The FCC did not respond to a request for comment.

The Times’ lawsuit follows reporting by Gizmodo that exposed multiple attempts by the FCC to manufacture stories about hackers attacking its comment system. In reality, the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) crashed, both in 2015 and 2017, after Last Week Tonight host John Oliver instructed millions of his viewers to flood the agency with pro-net neutrality comments.

For over a year, the FCC claimed to have proof that distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks were behind the comment system issues. In August 2018, however, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai finally admitted that wasn’t true. After an inspector general report found no evidence of an attack, Pai sought to pin the blame on his staff—and, for some reason, former President Barack Obama.

The FCC’s push to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules resulted in more than 22 million comments being filed. (As part of its rulemaking process, the agency is required to solicit comments from the public.) Repeated investigations have found that many of the comments appear to be fake. Last year, Gizmodo traced numerous seemingly fake comments to dark money groups—including some with links to the Trump campaign—many of which had been uploaded by CQ Roll Call, a Washington D.C.-based media firm.

Dozens of people whose names and addresses appeared alongside identical anti-net neutrality comments on the FCC’s website told Gizmodo they had no memory of filing the comments. Some, in fact, said they had never even heard of the term “net neutrality.”

The server logs won by the Times may aid reporters in shining a light on the culprit (or culprits) responsible for the fake comments, which have already spurred investigations at the U.S. Justice Department and the New York attorney general’s office. Court records show Times reporters were, at least initially, focused on a report that claimed nearly half a million comments could be tied to Russian email accounts.

Pai stated in an agency memo in 2018 that it was a “fact” that Russian accounts were behind the half-million comments. His attorneys, meanwhile, were arguing the exact opposite in court.
https://gizmodo.com/judge-orders-fcc...-fa-1843202071





Eight-Year-Old Discovers iPhone Screen Time Workaround to Watch More YouTube

Looks like it might be time for Apple to start paying kids to test its software releases.
Matthew Wille

Just when you think you've seen everything: an eight-year-old has discovered a way to watch YouTube past Apple's Screen Time limits by using the iMessage App Store. Redditor Jsmith4523 noticed that his sister was still watching YouTube, despite having used her allotted daily time on the app. It turns out she’d developed a pretty simple trick to keep browsing videos: just access YouTube through the iMessage App Store.

Kids do the darndest things, especially when in pursuit of extra time on the internet. As one commenter on the Reddit thread notes, the only real way to limit your kid’s screen time is to lock the phone away somewhere safe. Even then they’ll probably figure out a way to sneak the phone out unseen.

Not the first kid-located workaround — Parents have been trying to keep their kids off the internet for as long as the internet has been in our houses. And kids have been finding ways around those locks for just as long.

Apple’s parental controls aren’t perfect. When the company released Communications Limits at the end of last year, parents were finally able to block contact with unknown numbers. Kids quickly found a workaround to that one: just add the number to the iPhone’s contacts and chat away. You could even just ask Siri on a connected Apple Watch to dial an unknown number and she’d take care of it for you.

Bugs or just creative kids? — The line between a software bug and an imaginative child taking initiative is blurry, to say the least. Apple’s Screen Time feature does a pretty good job of blocking content in almost every situation.

For example, the Reddit post specifies that the eight-year-old in question was unable to access YouTube on the iPhone’s Safari app or even in the iMessage version of YouTube. The kid had to go to some lengths to figure out that she could access YouTube by searching for it in the iMessage App Store.

But iOS 13 has been Apple’s buggiest release in a long time. Apple has said in the past it’s overhauled the way it develops and tests its software for the upcoming iOS 14 release — hopefully the COVID-19 pandemic hasn’t ruined those plans.

Maybe the best move for Apple would be to hire kids to test out upcoming iOS releases. After all, they’re probably best suited for the job, given how good they are at pushing the limits of parental controls.
https://www.inputmag.com/tech/eight-...h-more-youtube

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

April 25th, April18th, April 11th, April 4th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public."
- Hugo Black
__________________
Thanks For Sharing
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 16th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-07-11 06:43 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 9th, '11 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 06-07-11 05:36 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 30th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 27-01-10 07:49 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 16th, '10 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 13-01-10 09:02 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 5th, '09 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 0 02-12-09 08:32 AM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)