紐約時報的 The Privacy Project 分析了這二十年來 Google 的隱私條款

紐約時報The Privacy Project 分析了 Google 在這二十年來的 Privacy Policy (英文版),可以看出網路廣告產業的變化,以及為什麼變得極力蒐集個資與使用者行為:「Google’s 4,000-Word Privacy Policy Is a Secret History of the Internet」。整篇看起來有點長,可以先看裡面的小標題,然後看一下列出來的條文差異,把不同時間的重點都列出來了。

最早期的轉變是「針對性」:

1999-2004
No longer talks about users ‘in aggregate’

1999 年的版本強調了整體性,後來因為針對性廣告而被拿掉:

1999
Google may share information about users with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. However, we only talk about our users in aggregate, not as individuals. For example, we may disclose how frequently the average Google user visits Google, or which other query words are most often used with the query word "Microsoft."

接下來的是蒐集的項目大幅增加,讓分析更準確:

2005-2011
Google shares more data for better targeting

然後是更多產品線互相使用使用者行為資訊:

2012-2017
Its complicated business requires a more complicated policy

接下來是因為法規而配合修改條文 (最有名的就是 GDPR):

2018-PRESENT
Policy adjusts to meet stricter regulation

Amazon 需要對賣出去的產品造成的傷害負責

前幾天還蠻引人注目的案件,Amazon 被判決要對平台商家透過 Amazon 平台賣出去的產品負責:「Federal appeals court says Amazon is liable for third-party sellers' products」。

這個案例裡面是消費者透過 Amazon 的平台,向上架的商家購買 hoverboard (懸浮滑板?),結果把消費者家給搞爆了:

Last year, a judge in Tennessee ruled the company was not liable for damages caused by a defective hoverboard that exploded, burning down a family's house.

目前最新的判決中指出,Amazon 在合約裡面簽訂消費者必須透過 Amazon 的平台跟賣家溝通,使得賣家與消費者之間沒有直接的管道可以處理爭議,所以 Amazon 不能免責:

"Amazon fails to account for the fact that under the Agreement, third-party vendors can communicate with the customers only through Amazon," the ruling states. "This enables third-party vendors to conceal themselves from the customer, leaving customers injured by defective products with no direct recourse to the third-party vendor."

這個判決看起來會影響蠻大的,因為這些條款就是希望維持平台業者可以從中獲利,現在反過來殺傷自身... 看起來上訴是跑不掉的?等幾個月後再回來看...

Square 在使用條款裡禁止 AGPLv3+ 的軟體

雖然 AGPL 系列的確不是什麼好貨色,也的確有不少人批評過,但 Square 直接透過自家的平台服務攻擊 AGPLv3+ 就很稀奇了?

在「Square’s terms of service forbid use of AGPL-licensed software in online stores (squareup.com)」這邊看到的,公告的條款 (尚未生效) 是「Additional Point of Sale Terms of Service」這個站台,出自於這段:

B. Content Restrictions. In addition to the restrictions set forth in these Additional Product Terms, the General Terms and Payment Terms, you will not:

[...]

15. use, under any circumstance, any open source software subject to the GNU Affero General Public License v.3, or greater;

是直接指名而不是誤殺,不知道是發生什麼事情...

現在 Hacker News 上有些人猜測是律師團認為 AGPL 會反過來影響 Square 自己的程式碼也被感染?反正現在變成 PR 事件了,加上資訊也不足,先蹲著看...

Facebook 員工爆料內部密碼存了明碼

Krebs on Security 這邊看到的:「Facebook Stored Hundreds of Millions of User Passwords in Plain Text for Years」,Facebook 官方的回應在「Keeping Passwords Secure」這邊。

幾個重點,第一個是範圍,目前已經有看到 2012 的資料都有在內:

The Facebook source said the investigation so far indicates between 200 million and 600 million Facebook users may have had their account passwords stored in plain text and searchable by more than 20,000 Facebook employees. The source said Facebook is still trying to determine how many passwords were exposed and for how long, but so far the inquiry has uncovered archives with plain text user passwords dating back to 2012.

另外的重點是這些資料已經被內部拿來大量搜尋 (喔喔):

My Facebook insider said access logs showed some 2,000 engineers or developers made approximately nine million internal queries for data elements that contained plain text user passwords.

另外是 Legal 與 PR 都已經啟動處理了,對外新聞稿會美化數字,降低傷害:

“The longer we go into this analysis the more comfortable the legal people [at Facebook] are going with the lower bounds” of affected users, the source said. “Right now they’re working on an effort to reduce that number even more by only counting things we have currently in our data warehouse.”

另外也會淡化後續的程序:

Renfro said the company planned to alert affected Facebook users, but that no password resets would be required.

去年的另外一則新聞可以交叉看:「Facebook’s security chief is leaving, and no one’s going to replace him」:

Instead of building out a dedicated security team, Facebook has dissolved it and is instead embedding security engineers within its other divisions. “We are not naming a new CSO, since earlier this year we embedded our security engineers, analysts, investigators, and other specialists in our product and engineering teams to better address the emerging security threats we face,” a Facebook spokesman said in an email. Facebook will “continue to evaluate what kind of structure works best” to protect users’ security, he said.

看起來又要再換一次密碼了... (還好已經習慣用 Password Manager,所以每個站都有不同密碼?)

喔對,另外補充一個概念,當他們說「我們沒有證據有人存取了...」的時候,比較正確的表達應該是「我們沒有稽核這塊... 所以沒有證據」。

Facebook 花錢向使用者購買他們的行為記錄

這則從 Nuzzel 上看到的,國外討論得很凶:「Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them」。

Facebook 付錢給使用者,要他們安裝 VPN (以及 Root CA,看起來是為了聽 HTTPS 內容),然後從上面蒐集資料,這本身就不是什麼好聽的行為了,但更嚴重的問題在於包括了未成年人:

Since 2016, Facebook has been paying users ages 13 to 35 up to $20 per month plus referral fees to sell their privacy by installing the iOS or Android “Facebook Research” app. Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. The program is administered through beta testing services Applause, BetaBound and uTest to cloak Facebook’s involvement, and is referred to in some documentation as “Project Atlas” — a fitting name for Facebook’s effort to map new trends and rivals around the globe.

這個計畫在 iOS 平台下架了,但 Android 平台看起來還是會繼續:

[Update 11:20pm PT: Facebook now tells TechCrunch it will shut down the iOS version of its Research app in the wake of our report. The rest of this article has been updated to reflect this development.]

Facebook’s Research program will continue to run on Android. We’re still awaiting comment from Apple on whether Facebook officially violated its policy and if it asked Facebook to stop the program. As was the case with Facebook removing Onavo Protect from the App Store last year, Facebook may have been privately told by Apple to voluntarily remove it.

未成年人部份應該會是重點,拉板凳出來看...

原來 Oracle 與 Microsoft 裡的條款是這樣來的...

看到「That time Larry Ellison allegedly tried to have a professor fired for benchmarking Oracle」這篇文章的講古,想起很久前就有聽過 Microsoft 有這樣的條款 (禁止未經原廠同意公開 benchmark 結果),原來是 Oracle 在三十幾年前創出來的?而且這種條款還有專有名詞「DeWitt Clauses」,出自當初被搞的教授 David DeWitt...

Microsoft 的條款是這樣:

You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test … without Microsoft’s prior written approval

Oracle 的則是:

You may not disclose results of any Program benchmark tests without Oracle’s prior consent

IBM 的反而在 license 裡面直接允許:

Licensee may disclose the results of any benchmark test of the Program or its subcomponents to any third party provided that Licensee (A) publicly discloses the complete methodology used in the benchmark test (for example, hardware and software setup, installation procedure and configuration files), (B) performs Licensee’s benchmark testing running the Program in its Specified Operating Environment using the latest applicable updates, patches and fixes available for the Program from IBM or third parties that provide IBM products (“Third Parties”), and © follows any and all performance tuning and “best practices” guidance available in the Program’s documentation and on IBM’s support web sites for the Program…

Yahoo! 與 Mozilla 針對預設搜尋引擎的事情戰起來了...

Mozilla 先前終止與 Yahoo! 的合作後 (在 Firefox 內預設使用 Yahoo! 的搜尋引擎),Yahoo! 提告以及 Mozilla 還手的消息在最近被 Mozilla 揭露:「Mozilla Files Cross-Complaint Against Yahoo Holdings and Oath」。

Yahoo! 提告的檔案 (PDF) 在「2017-12-01-Yahoo-Redacted-Complaint.pdf」,Mozilla 還手的檔案 (PDF) 則是在「2017-12-05-Mozilla-Redacted-X-Complaint-with-Exhibits-and-POS.pdf」這邊。

Firefox 57 釋出時,Mozilla 就把預設的搜尋引擎改回 Google (參考「Mozilla terminates its deal with Yahoo and makes Google the default in Firefox again」),不過當時 Firefox 57 更大的消息是推出了 Quantum,讓瀏覽器的速度拉到可以跟目前的霸主 Google Chrome 競爭的程度,所以就沒有太多人注意到這件事情...

過了幾個禮拜消息比較退燒後,被告以及反過來告的消息出來後,才注意到原來換了搜尋引擎... XD

旁邊搖旗吶喊沒什麼用,就拉板凳出來看吧...

Apache Foundation 宣佈禁止使用 Facebook BSD+Patents 的軟體

在「RocksDB Integrations」這邊討論到 RocksDBFacebook 所使用的 Facebook BSD+Patents License。

不過因為 RocksDB 最近在換 license (從 Facebook BSD+Patents 換到 Apache License, Version 2.0),移除了 PATENTS 內的限制,需要看 PATENTS 的舊檔案可以在 PATENTS 這邊看到。

Chris Mattmann 正式發出決議禁用 Facebook BSD+Patents License。(參考最後)

另外也提到了 Facebook 是故意埋下這些限制:

Note also Roy's comment that he has discussed the matter with FB's counsel and the word is that the FB license is intentionally incompatible. It is hard to make the argument that it is compatible after hearing that. Pragmatically speaking, regardless of any semantic shaving being done, having a statement like that from the source of the license is very daunting. If they think it is incompatible, we need to not try to wheedle and convince ourselves it is not.

這個 license 之後應該會有更多挑戰...

Hi,

As some of you may know, recently the Facebook BSD+patents license has been
moved to Category X (https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x).
Please see LEGAL-303 [1] for a discussion of this. The license is also referred
to as the ROCKSDB license, even though Facebook BSD+patents is its more
industry standard name.

This has impacted some projects, to date based on LEGAL-303
and the detective work of Todd Lipcon:

Samza, Flink, Marmotta, Kafka and Bahir

(perhaps more)

Please take notice of the following policy:

o No new project, sub-project or codebase, which has not
  used Facebook BSD+patents licensed jars (or similar), are allowed to use
  them. In other words, if you haven't been using them, you
  aren't allowed to start. It is Cat-X.

o If you have been using it, and have done so in a *release*,
  you have a temporary exclusion from the Cat-X classification thru
  August 31, 2017. At that point in time, ANY and ALL usage
  of these Facebook BSD+patents licensed artifacts are DISALLOWED. You must
  either find a suitably licensed replacement, or do without.
  There will be NO exceptions.

o Any situation not covered by the above is an implicit
  DISALLOWAL of usage.

Also please note that in the 2nd situation (where a temporary
exclusion has been granted), you MUST ensure that NOTICE explicitly
notifies the end-user that a Facebook BSD+patents licensed artifact exists. They
may not be aware of it up to now, and that MUST be addressed.

If there are any questions, please ask on the legal-discuss@a.o
list.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Chris Mattmann
VP Legal Affairs

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303

線上測試 SQL Injection 喔喔喔

在「An SQL Injection Attack Is a Legal Company Name in the UK」這邊看到英國的這家公司:「; DROP TABLE "COMPANIES";-- LTD」,根本就是在幫大家測試 XDDD

當然,大家也都馬上聯想到這則 xkcd 漫畫:「Exploits of a Mom」。

來招喚 QQ 姊翻譯這則 xkcd 漫畫?

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...