In what has been a long period of relative low activity, FDA’s OPDP has taken the opportunity to remind us that low enforcement does not mean no enforcement when it comes to promotional speech by pharmaceutical companies. This past June … Continue reading →

For those working closely with the development of new medicines for FDA approval, it can be informative respecting the future to look back at recent activity and take note of any potential changes from years past. Now, with no more … Continue reading →

This week: A Blue Angels Mustang, a new Magnum and a big hello to Augusta, Ga.

Plus: The Rascal Flatts Corvette, Chevy solar power charging stations and the rest of the week's automotive news.

Plus: Chrysler minivans recall, the SRT High Performance Tour and Fiat 500 by Gucci.

Plus: Cadillac Ciel Concept, weekend car events and more.

Rex agreed to purchase planes for $US2 million, paying a $200,000 deposit but failed to make further payments in 2020

Over US missile deployment in Japan, Moscow and Beijing will jointly engage in 'double counteraction,' says Zakharova

Transport for London said it was contacting around 5,000 customers whose bank account data may have been accessed

Women, children among casualties with six of the victims being staff members of UNRWA including the shelter's manager

Journalists looked to report inside the Kursk region after a Ukrainian cross-border incursion

Blinken promised to review Kyiv's long-standing request for using Western-supplied weapons to strike Russian targets

Top court and electoral, military officials among 16 targetted as US aims to push Maduro into negotiations

More than 100 people remain missing, while some 800 people have been injured

Critics of Italy's Piracy Shield are not difficult to find but, with its powerful and influential proponents rarely far away, getting heard is a considerable challenge. Not to mention getting anything done. After calling for the platform's suspension and meeting resistance in the wake of the recent Google Drive blocking blunder, AGCOM board member Elisa Giomi has gone public with a laundry list of concerns. It pulls zero punches.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. claims that a pirate IPTV seller adopted a novel marketing strategy to support a business with 450,000 subscribers . According to the plaintiffs, the owner of the service "held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer" to "mitigate potential concerns" over the unlawfulness of his business. A theoretical damages claim of more than a billion dollars, plus an allegation of wiretapping, makes this case a little more spicy than most.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

After 15+ years of blackholing IP addresses and making the Domain Name System tell more lies than Pinocchio, some may wonder whether site-blocking is harming prospects of a future open internet. Confirmation that piracy blocking tests are now being conducted at the internet's core routers isn't a surprise. It's only the internet's spinal column, so what could possibly go wrong?

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Cloudflare is urging the EU Commission to exclude the company from its upcoming Piracy Watch List, despite requests from several rightsholder groups for its inclusion. The American company says it's committed to addressing piracy concerns but not at the expense of user privacy and security. Instead, the European Commission should ensure that its Piracy Watch List does not become a tool for advocating policy changes.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

After DAZN received a warning for the blunder that saw Google Drive blocked in Italy, a company behind a smart TV video player app had a DAZN-initiated blocking decision revoked after a successful appeal. That may seem like a win, but the finer details reveal a legal framework that favors rightsholders so strongly, online services incurring liability for the actions of users seems inevitable.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Several major record labels are asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc in their piracy lawsuit against Grande Communications. They argue that the court erred in holding that piracy damages should be calculated per album, rather than per song. They argue that this decision, which will lower the $47 million damages award, doesn't reflect the way that music is commercialized today.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Korean authorities have shut down the popular video piracy service TVWIKI, which had millions of users. A special unit of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism arrested the alleged operator, who is also believed to be connected to other streaming platforms. These include OKTOON, which was also pulled offline, and piracy giant NoonooTV, which voluntarily threw in the towel last year.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Google is facing criticism in Spain and Italy for alleged anti-piracy failures. The latest claim accuses Google of ignoring notices that aim to remove pirate IPTV providers from search results. So here's the thing: why would a company take down 10 billion URLs from search but suddenly start acting differently? The public labeling of Google as "grossly negligent" deserves context too; two weeks ago, Google's diligence prevented one of its accusers from deindexing its own website.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

While technology is key for digital transformation in healthcare, the human element is equally, if not more, important

Zim Afro T10 will kick off on 21 September at 1pm local time

He has been unemployed since his abrupt departure in May from Chelsea

He helps England sink Finland in World Cup qualifier

Green Shirts set to face traditional rivals, India, in final pool match on Saturday

Posts circulating on social media claim that politician and lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan has accused two senior Supreme Court judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, of facilitating a political party.

The claim is false.

On October 23, a user on X posted a...

Demi Moore glams up in all black for 'Landman' premiere

Demi Moore recently attended the premiere of her upcoming series Landman in Los Angeles, California.

The 62-year-old actress, as reported by PEOPLE, attended the upcoming series' premiere at Paramount Theatre on Tuesday night,...

Prince William has reportedly put forward a set of strict conditions for peace talks with Prince Harry upon Kate Middleton’s persistence.

According to Heat Magazine, the Duke of Sussex has been making attempts to reconcile with the Prince of Wales but Meghan Markle is trying to...

John Krasinski, who has recently been named the 2024’s “Sexiest Man Alive” by People, shared the response of his wife and actress, Emily Blunt, upon hearing the news.

In an interview with People Magazine, the 45-year-old actor said that his wife, whom he has been...

Meghan Markle sparked another controversy after she wore a poppy that slightly differed from that of Prince Harry's in a recent video addressing children's digital safety.

A journalist has pointed out that the Duchess of Sussex’s poppy lacked leaves on the stalk, resembling...

Buckingham Palace releases new statement amid Queen Camilla health scare

Buckingham Palace made a special announcement, revealing that Queen Camilla has resumed her public duties after a brief health-related hiatus.

The Queen Consort stepped back from Royal duties after she was...

Margot Robbie, Tom Ackerley showcase happiness after ‘long time' desire comes true

Margot Robbie and Tom Ackerley are “settling” into their roles after becoming parents for the first time.

A source who is close to the couple candidly shared with People how the...

Meghan Markle planning silent sacrifice for Prince Harry's cold war this Christmas

Insights into what Meghan Markle has planned for the Uk this Christmas have just been brought to light.

Information about this plan has been brought to light by an inside source that is close to...

Karla Sofia Gascon responds to 'Emilia Pérez' audience's unexpected reaction

Emilia Perez actress Karla Sofía Gascón opened up about how the audience did not recognize her in the movie.

In the movie, the 52-year-old actress plays the role of Mexican cartel...

It is a national tragedy and we will award him the status of national hero, says G-B CM

Karachi’s coastline is deteriorating due to plastic and sewage waste, putting marine life at serious risk.

The report further showed that the additional SHO had been previously found guilty of framing a man in a fake case

Debate on Rs55.42b supplementary budget completed

NA speaker chairs parliamentary committee meeting to discuss issues facing province

Faraz lost control of car due to speeding, rammed into tree

Health department to restart contact tracing for coronavirus

Nawaz Sharif has been kept in check with a scare, otherwise he would have fled long ago, says PTI founder

Privacy: In the analog world of our parents, as an ordinary citizen and not under surveillance because of being a suspect of a crime, it was taken for granted that you could walk around a city without authorities tracking you at the footstep level. Our children don’t have this right anymore in their digital world.

Not even the dystopias of the 1950s — Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, Colossus, and so on, managed to dream up the horrors of this element: the fact that every citizen is now carrying a governmental tracking device. They’re not just carrying one, they even bought it themselves. Not even Brave New World could have imagined this horror.

It started out innocently, of course. It always does. With the new “portable phones” — which, at this point, meant something like “not chained to the floor” — authorities discovered that people would still call the Emergency Services number (112, 911, et cetera) from their mobile phones, but not always be capable of giving their location themselves, something that the phone network was now capable of doing. So authorities mandated that the phone networks be technically capable of always giving a subscriber’s location, just in case they would call Emergency Services. In the United States, this was known as the E911 regulation (“Enhanced 9-1-1”).

This was in 2005. Things went bad very quickly from there. Imagine that just 12 years ago, we still had the right to roam around freely without authorities being capable of tracking our every footstep – this was no more than just over a decade ago!

Before this point, governments supplied you with services so that you would be able to know your location, as had been the tradition since the naval lighthouse, but not so that they would be able to know your location. There’s a crucial difference here. And as always, the first breach was one of providing citizen services — in this case, emergency medical services — that only the most prescient dystopians would oppose.

What’s happened since?

Entire cities are using wi-fi passive tracking to track people at the individual, realtime, and sub-footstep level in the entire city center.

Train stations and airports, which used to be safe havens of anonymity in the analog world of our parents, have signs saying they employ realtime passive wi-fi and bluetooth tracking of everybody even coming close, and are connecting their tracking to personal identifying data. Correction: they have signs about it in the best case but do it regardless.

People’s location are tracked in at least three different… not ways, but categories of ways:

Active: You carry a sensor of your location (GPS sensor, Glonass receiver, cell tower triangulator, or even visual identifier through the camera). You use the sensors to find your location, at one point in time or continuously. The government takes itself the right to read the contents of your active sensors.

Passive: You take no action, but are still transmitting your location to the government continuously through a third party. In this category, we find cell tower triangulation as well as passive wi-fi and bluetooth tracking that require no action on behalf of a user’s phone other than being on.

Hybrid: The government finds your location in occasional pings through active dragnets and ongoing technical fishing expeditions. This would not only include cellphone-related techniques, but also face recognition connected to urban CCTV networks.

Privacy of location is one of the Seven Privacies, and we can calmly say that without active countermeasures, it’s been completely lost in the transition from analog to digital. Our parents had privacy of location, especially in busy places like airports and train stations. Our children don’t have privacy of location, not in general, and particularly not in places like airports and train stations that were the safest havens of our analog parents.

How do we reinstate Privacy of Location today? It was taken for granted just 12 years ago.

Privacy: Ross Ulbricht handed in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last week, highlighting an important Analog Equivalent Privacy Right in the process: Just because you’re using equipment that makes a third party aware of your circumstances, does that really nullify any expectation of privacy?

In most constitutions, there’s a protection of privacy of some kind. In the European Charter of Human Rights, this is specified as having the right to private and family life, home, and correspondence. In the U.S. Constitution, it’s framed slightly differently, but with the same outcome: it’s a ban for the government to invade privacy without good cause (“unreasonable search and seizure”).

U.S. Courts have long held, that if you have voluntarily given up some part of your digitally-stored privacy to a third party, then you can no longer expect to have privacy in that area. When looking at analog equivalence for privacy rights, this doctrine is atrocious, and in order to understand just how atrocious, we need to go back to the dawn of the manual telephone switchboards.

At the beginning of the telephone age, switchboards were fully manual. When you requested a telephone call, a manual switchboard operator would manually connect the wire from your telephone to the wire of the receiver’s telephone, and crank a mechanism that would make that telephone ring. The operators could hear every call if they wanted and knew who had been talking to whom and when.

Did you give up your privacy to a third party when using this manual telephone service? Yes, arguably, you did. Under the digital doctrine applied now, phonecalls would have no privacy at all, under any circumstance. But as we know, phonecalls are private. In fact, the phonecall operators were oathsworn to never utter the smallest part of what they learned on the job about people’s private dealings — so seriously was privacy considered, even by the companies running the switchboards.

Interestingly enough, this “third-party surrender of privacy” doctrine seems to have appeared the moment the last switchboard operator left their job for today’s automated phone-circuit switches. This was as late as 1983, just at the dawn of digital consumer-level technology such as the Commodore 64.

This false equivalence alone should be sufficient to scuttle the doctrine of “voluntarily” surrendering privacy to a third party in the digital world, and therefore giving up expectation of privacy: the equivalence in the analog world was the direct opposite.

But there’s more to the analog equivalent of third-party-service privacy. Somewhere in this concept is the notion that you’re voluntarily choosing to give up your privacy, as an active informed act — in particular, an act that stands out of the ordinary, since the Constitutions of the world are very clear that the ordinary default case is that you have an expectation of privacy.

In other words, since people’s everyday lives are covered by expectations of privacy, there must be something outside of the ordinary that a government can claim gives it the right to take away somebody’s privacy. And this “outside the ordinary” has been that the people in question were carrying a cellphone, and so “voluntarily” gave up their right to privacy, as the cellphone gives away their location to the network operator by contacting cellphone towers.

But carrying a cellphone is expected behavior today. It is completely within the boundaries of “ordinary”. In terms of expectations, this doesn’t differ much from wearing jeans or a jacket. This leads us to the question; in the thought experiment that yesterday’s jeans manufacturers had been able to pinpoint your location, had it been reasonable for the government to argue that you give up any expectation of privacy when you’re wearing jeans?

No. No, of course it hadn’t.

It’s not like you’re carrying a wilderness tracking device for the express purpose of rescue services to find you during a dangerous hike. In such a circumstance, it could be argued that you’re voluntarily carrying a locator device. But not when carrying something that everybody is expected to carry — indeed, something that everybody must carry in order to even function in today’s society.

When the only alternative to having your Constitutionally-guaranteed privacy is exile from modern society, a government should have a really thin case. Especially when the analog equivalent — analog phone switchboards — was never fair game in any case.

People deserve Analog Equivalent Privacy Rights.

Until a government recognizes this and voluntarily surrenders a power it has taken itself, which isn’t something people should hold their breath over, privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: In the last article, we focused on how people are tracked today when using credit cards instead of cash. But few pay attention to the fact that we’re tracked when using cash today, too.

Few people pay attention to the little sign on the revolving door on Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands. It says that wi-fi and bluetooth tracking of every single individual is taking place in the airport.

What sets Schiphol Airport apart isn’t that they track individual people’s movements to the sub-footstep level in a commercial area. (It’s for commercial purposes, not security purposes.) No, what sets Schiphol apart is that they bother to tell people about it. (The Netherlands tend to take privacy seriously, as does Germany, and for the same reason.)

Locator beacons are practically a standard in bigger commercial areas now. They ping your phone using wi-fi and bluetooth, and using signal strength triangulation, a grid of locator beacons is able to show how every single individual is moving in realtime at the sub-footstep level. This is used to “optimize marketing” — in other words, find ways to trick people’s brains to spend resources they otherwise wouldn’t have. Our own loss of privacy is being turned against us, as it always is.

Where do people stop for a while, what catches their attention, what doesn’t catch their attention, what’s a roadblock for more sales?

These are legitimate questions. However, taking away people’s privacy in order to answer those questions is not a legitimate method to answer them.

This kind of mass individual tracking has even been deployed at city levels, which happened in complete silence until the Privacy Oversight Board of a remote government sounded the alarms. The city of Västerås got the green light to continue tracking once some formal criteria were met.

Yes, this kind of people tracking is documented to have been already rolled out citywide in at least one small city in a remote part of the world (Västerås, Sweden). With the government’s Privacy Oversight Board having shrugged and said “fine, whatever”, don’t expect this to stay in the small town of Västerås. Correction, wrong tense: don’t expect it to have stayed in just Västerås, where it was greenlit three years ago.

Our analog parents had the ability to walk around untracked in the city and street of their choice, without it being used or held against them. It’s not unreasonable that our digital children should have the same ability.

There’s one other way to buy things with cash which avoids this kind of tracking, and that’s paying cash-on-delivery when ordering something online or over the phone to your door — in which case your purchase is also logged and recorded, just in another type of system.

This isn’t only used against the ordinary citizen for marketing purposes, of course. It’s used against the ordinary citizen for every conceivable purpose. But we’ll be returning to that in a later article in the series.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: We’ve seen how our digital children’s privacy is violated in everything they buy with cash or credit, in a way our analog parents would have balked at. But even worse: our digital children’s privacy is also violated by tracking what they don’t buy — either actively decline or just plain walk away from.

Amazon just opened its first “Amazon Go” store, where you just pick things into a bag and leave, without ever going through a checkout process. As part of the introduction of this concept, Amazon points out that you can pick something off the shelves, at which point it’ll register in your purchase — and change your mind and put it back, at which point you’ll be registered and logged as having not purchased the item.

Sure, you’re not paying for something you changed your mind about, which is the point of the video presentation. But it’s not just about the deduction from your total amount to pay: Amazon also knows you considered buying it and eventually didn’t, and will be using that data.

Our digital children are tracked this way on a daily basis, if not an hourly basis. Our analog parents never were.

When we’re shopping for anything online, there are even simple plugins for the most common merchant solutions with the business terms “funnel analysis” — where in the so-called “purchase funnel” our digital children choose to leave the process of purchasing something — or “cart abandonment analysis”.

We can’t even simply walk away from something anymore without it being recorded, logged, and cataloged for later use against us.

But so-called “cart abandonment” is only one part of the bigger issue of tracking what we’re interested in in the age of our digital children, but didn’t buy. There is no shortage of people today who would swear they were just discussing a very specific type of product with their phone present (say, “black leather skirts”) and all of a sudden, advertising for that very specific type of product would pop up all over Facebook and/or Amazon ads. Is this really due to some company listening for keywords through the phone? Maybe, maybe not. All we know since Snowden is that if it’s technically possible to invade privacy, it is already happening.

(We have to assume here these people still need to learn how to install a simple adblocker. But still.)

At the worst ad-dense places, like (but not limited to) airports, there are eyeball trackers to find out which ads you look at. They don’t yet change to match your interests, as per Minority Report, but that’s already present on your phone and on your desktop, and so wouldn’t be foreign to see in public soon, either.

In the world of our analog parents, we weren’t registered and tracked when we bought something.

In the world of our digital children, we’re registered and tracked even when we don’t buy something.

Privacy: Our analog parents’ dating preferences were considered a most private of matters. For our digital children, their dating preferences is a wholesale harvesting opportunity for marketing purposes. How did this terrifying shift come to be?

I believe the first big harvester of dating preferences was the innocent-looking site hotornot.com 18 years ago, a site that more seemed like the after-hours side work of a frustrated highschooler than a clever marketing ploy. It simply allowed people to rate their subjective perceived attractiveness of a photograph, and to upload photographs for such rating. (The two founders of this alleged highschool side project netted $10 million each for it when the site was sold.)

Then the scene exploded, with both user-funded and advertising-funded dating sites, all of which cataloged people’s dating preferences to the smallest detail.

Large-scale pornography sites, like PornHub, also started cataloging people’s porn preferences, and contiously make interesting infographics about geographical differences in preferences. (The link is safe for work, it’s data and maps in the form of a news story on Inverse, not on Pornhub directly.) It’s particularly interesting, as Pornhub is able to break down preferences quite specifically by age, location, gender, income brackets, and so on.

Do you know anyone who told Pornhub any of that data? No, I don’t either. And still, they are able to pinpoint who likes what with quite some precision, precision that comes from somewhere.

And then, of course, we have the social networks (which may or may not be responsible for that tracking, by the way).

It’s been reported that Facebook can tell if you’re gay or not with as little as three likes. Three. And they don’t have to be related to dating preferences or lifestyle preferences — they can be any random selections that just map up well with bigger patterns.

This is bad enough in itself, on the basis that it’s private data. At a very minimum, our digital childrens’ preferences should be their own, just like their favorite ice cream.

But a dating preferences are not just a preference like choosing your flavor of ice cream, is it? It should be, but it isn’t at this moment in time. It could also be something you’re born with. Something that people even get killed for if they’re born with the wrong preference.

It is still illegal to be born homosexual in 73 out of 192 countries, and out of these 73, eleven prescribe the death penalty for being born this way. A mere 23 out of 192 countries have full marriage equality.

Further, although the policy direction is quite one-way toward more tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion at this point in time, that doesn’t mean the policy trend can’t reverse for a number of reasons, most of them very bad. People who felt comfortable in expressing themselves can again become persecuted.

Genocide is almost always based on public data collected with benevolent intent.

This is why privacy is the last line of defense, not the first. And this last line of defense, which held fast for our analog parents, has been breached for our digital children. That matter isn’t taken nearly seriously enough.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.