Bose 販賣用戶隱私被告

Unroll 在旁邊燒的時候 (參考 Uber 戰火蔓延到 Unroll),Bose 也不甘寂寞決定跟上科技業的潮流:「Bose headphones spy on listeners: lawsuit」。

Bose 直接將他們 app 收集到的資訊拿出來賣:

Bose Corp spies on its wireless headphone customers by using an app that tracks the music, podcasts and other audio they listen to, and violates their privacy rights by selling the information without permission, a lawsuit charged.

這次打算控告的產品包括這些 (這邊提到的 Zak 是原告):

Zak is seeking millions of dollars of damages for buyers of headphones and speakers, including QuietComfort 35, QuietControl 30, SoundLink Around-Ear Wireless Headphones II, SoundLink Color II, SoundSport Wireless and SoundSport Pulse Wireless.

編號可以記一下,之後可以拿來追蹤:

The case is Zak v Bose Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-02928.

歐盟法院認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責

歐盟法院 (The Court of Justice of the European Union) 認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責:「EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable For Pirate Users」。

不過這是有一些前提的,法院認為應該要符合這幾個要件,營運方才不要負責。基本上完全沒有 filter 限制的無線網路會符合這些條件:

The Court further notes that in order for such ‘mere conduit’ services to be exempt from third party liability, three cumulative conditions must be met:

– The provider must not have initiated the transmission
– It must not have selected the recipient of the transmission
– It must neither have selected nor modified the information contained in the transmission.

帶這並不代表丟著不管,而是在發生後要求改善:

In an effort to strike a balance between protecting a service provider from third party liability and the rights of IP owners, the Court ruled that providers can be required to end infringement.

“[T]he directive does not preclude the copyright holder from seeking before a national authority or court to have such a service provider ordered to end, or prevent, any infringement of copyright committed by its customers,” the Court found.

One such measure could include the obtaining of an injunction which would force an operator to password-protect his open WiFi network in order to deter infringement.

但法院並不同意直接監控:

On a more positive note, the Court rejected the notion of monitoring networks for infringement or taking more aggressive actions where unnecessary.

“[T]he directive expressly rules out the adoption of a measure to monitor information transmitted via a given network. Similarly, a measure consisting in terminating the internet connection completely without considering the adoption of measures less restrictive of the connection provider’s freedom to conduct a business would not be capable of reconciling the abovementioned conflicting rights,” the Court concludes.

網路對現在的言論自由非常重要,所以只有在確認侵犯他人權益的情況下才採取必要措施,歐盟法院這樣判大概是覺得這樣吧...

美國政府應該已經取得大量原始程式碼,而且 CEO 不知情

Bruce Schneier 這邊看到的:「Companies Handing Source Code Over to Governments」。

直接對員工下法院命令,並且不得告知任何其他人有這個命令 (包括 CEO):

These orders are so highly classified that simply acknowledging an order's existence is illegal, even a company's chief executive or members of the board may not be told. Only those who are necessary to execute the order would know, and would be subject to the same secrecy provisions.

跟中國企業的情況類似。

在美國「製造槍枝的方法」是否受到管制?

有了 3D Printer 後,就有人用 3D Printer 設計槍枝,而 Defense Distributed 則是當中頗有名的藍圖,而作者把這份藍圖給丟出來讓大家用。

美國憲法第二修正案保障人民持有並攜帶武器的權利不得被侵犯,但「散佈製造槍枝的方法」是否也是被第二修正案保護,則還在打官司決定:「Does it violate federal export law if a website publishes CAD files of firearms?」。

目前看起來要打到巡迴庭...

19 歲的英國寫了個機器人程式產生上訴文件,半年成功消滅了一億的罰單

看起來是用 template 加上一些問題組合成的:「A 19-year-old made a free robot lawyer that has appealed $3 million in parking tickets」、「A teenager has saved motorists over £2 million by creating a website to appeal parking fines」。

會問一些問題,然後產生一份文件讓你上訴:

Once you sign in, a chat screen pops up. To learn about your case, the bot asks questions like "Were you the one driving?" and "Was it hard to understand the parking signs?" It then spits out an appeal letter, which you mail to the court. If the robot is completely confused, it tells you how to contact Browder directly.

網站名稱叫做 www.donotpay.co.uk 也很清楚目的 XDDD

英國法院認為 GCHQ 偷黑別人機器是合法的

出自「Tribunal rules computer hacking by GCHQ is not illegal」這篇報導。在 Edward Snowden 爆料美國與英國政府都在幹黑的後,Privacy International 就提出訴訟控告 GCHQ,但前幾天法院認定這樣是合法的:

Campaigners Privacy International have lost a legal challenge claiming the spying post's hacking operations are too intrusive and break European law.

The case was launched after revelations by US whistleblower Edward Snowden about the extent of US and UK spying.

接下來的戰場會變成在 Investigatory Powers Bill 上面?還是會繼續有上訴?

法國法院認為 Facebook 條款違反消費者保護法令

在「France says Facebook must face French law in nudity censorship case」這邊提到法院認為 Facebook 的使用條款中要求必須在加州法院解決的條件,使得法國的使用者難以提出訴訟,違反法國的消費者保護法令而無效:

The Terms of Service add, "The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.”

The appeals court agreed that Facebook’s Terms of Service were “abusive” and "violated French consumer law by making it difficult for people in France to sue,” according to the BBC.

引用的 BBC 報導可以在「Paris court rules against Facebook in French nudity case」這邊看到:

The Paris high court decided that the company's argument was "abusive" and violated French consumer law, by making it difficult for people in France to sue.

Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為「合理使用」

Google 的書本掃描服務被認定為合理使用:「Google's Book-Scanning Project Ruled to Be Legal `Fair Use'」。

“Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses,” U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote on behalf of the court. “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”

看起來是一路打到第二巡迴上訴法院了?(負責紐約地區)

GNU GPLv2 的判例

OSNews 上看到 GNU GPLv2 在美國的判例:「The GNU GPL to be tested in court」。

引用的報導在「GPLv2 goes to court: More decisions from the Versata tarpit」這篇,裡面有幾個角色:

  • Ximpleware:撰寫了一套 XML parser,同時以 GPLv2 與商用版權釋出。
  • Versata:在自家產品 DCM software 使用了 Ximpleware 的 XML parser,依照後面的訴訟,看起來是沒有付錢買商用版本。而 DCM software 裡面沒有引用 GPLv2 條款,同時也當然沒有公開程式碼。
  • Ameriprise:付錢給 Versata 購買 DCM software 使用權的公司,另外取得 Versata 的授權,可以找外包商修改 Versata 的 DCM software。
  • Infosys:Ameriprise 的外包商。

起因在於 Versata 不爽 Infosys 拿他們的軟體開發同性質的軟體,結果告下去後這件事情牽扯到 GPLv2 的授權問題。

然後 Ximpleware 也跳出來告了所有人,還因為專利關係,告了 Versata 的其他客戶。

問題分成兩塊討論,一塊是 copyright,另外一塊是 patent。看了一下文章的說明,案子似乎還沒結束,但已經有些結論出來了。

在 copyright 的部份,法院要求明年二月底前必須上 patch 修正問題。也就是 GPLv2 的感染力是有效的,如果你不打算服從就要賠錢,然後把 GPLv2 程式碼拔乾淨。

而 patent 的部份有點複雜啊... Ximpleware 的控訴都不成立,不過理由沒有看懂 @_@

等有更多時間再來看其他的說明研究...