Li­brary of Congress ends its Twit­ter ar­chiv­ing project

Sheer vol­ume of ma­te­rial is too much to han­dle

The Standard Journal - - LOCAL -

The Li­brary of Congress has aban­doned a project to ar­chive ev­ery post made on Twit­ter. It blames the sheer num­ber of “tweets” now be­ing made, along with an in­creas­ing re­liance on images and videos.

The li­brary is the world’s largest and col­lects all man­ner of doc­u­ments from news­pa­pers to gov­ern­ment forms. As a gen­eral rule it, doesn’t aim to col­lect all pos­si­ble data from a source but made an ex­cep­tion for Twit­ter in 2010.

At that point it reached an agree­ment with Twit­ter to get a copy of its com­plete ar­chive of posts, then dat­ing back to 2006. The idea was to “doc­u­ment the emer­gence of on­line so­cial me­dia for fu­ture gen­er­a­tions.” As well as main­tain­ing a com­plete col­lec­tion by con­tin­u­ing to add new posts to the ar­chive, the li­brary also aimed to find a better way to or­ga­nize the ar­chive, par­tic­u­larly to make it eas­ier to see all the con­tent from a spe­cific day.

A pa­per from the li­brary ex­plain­ing the change of heart says it con­tin­u­ously re­views the doc­u­ments and data it ar­chives. It says it’s de­cided to stop ar­chiv­ing the data at the end of the year, giv­ing it a com­plete record of the first 12 years of the site.

Ap­ple ad­mits older iPhone mod­els pur­posely slowed

Ap­ple has ad­mit­ted it de­lib­er­ately slowed down older iPhones, say­ing the move im­proved per­for­mance. This ends years of spec­u­la­tion, but sparked a flurry of law­suits.

How­ever, a more re­cent study found that what ap­peared to be a clear de­te­ri­o­ra­tion in iPhone 6 hand­sets when they moved from iOS 10.2.0 to 10.2.1. How­ever, hand­sets which got a new bat­tery re­gained much of their for­mer per­for­mance. (Source: techcrunch.com)

Ap­ple has now con­firmed this, say­ing the update will “smooth out the in­stan­ta­neous peaks” in pro­ces­sor use that could trig­ger the shut­down. It says it’s also done the same with the iPhone 7 and will likely do so with other mod­els if and when needed.

More char­i­ta­ble crit­ics have said that even if Ap­ple was act­ing to help users, it blun­dered by not telling them about the change and there­fore fu­el­ing the con­spir­acy the­o­ries that sug­gested ul­te­rior mo­tives.

The law­suits claim the update and slow­down was a breach of “im­plied con­tract” be­cause Ap­ple didn’t warn users about the pos­si­bil­ity of such a move when they orig­i­nally bought the phones. The claimants also say the slow­down has caused them eco­nomic dam­ages. (Source: states­man.com)

Win­dows 7 se­cu­rity up­dates

to end Jan­uary 2020

In­fopack­ets Reader Jerry K. writes: I’ve read that the Win­dows 10 free up­grade ends at the end of this year. I have Win­dows 7 on my main PC and my wife has Win­dows 8 on her lap­top. In all, I find Win­dows 7 eas­ier to use.

Google tracked user lo­ca­tion

even when GPS turned off

Google has ad­mit­ted it tracked the lo­ca­tion of cell­phone users even when they had lo­ca­tion ser­vices switched off. It says it’s now stopped an 11-month pro­gram de­signed to im­prove “mes­sage de­liv­ery.”

Hav­ing l oca­tion s er­vices switched on al­lows an An­droid phone to col­lect in­for­ma­tion about a user’s lo­ca­tion, com­monly com­bin­ing GPS data, de­tails of nearby WiFi net­works, and the lo­ca­tion of nearby cell­phone tow­ers - all of which can be de­tected by a phone.

Google - and third party app mak­ers - use this data for tools such as map­ping, nav­i­ga­tion and find­ing nearby out­lets of a par­tic­u­lar chain of stores or restau­rants. Some users dis­able the GPS lo­ca­tion set­ting ei­ther for pri­vacy rea­sons or to re­duce bat­tery drain.

How­ever, tech site “Quartz” has now re­vealed that Google has been col­lect­ing cell­phone tower ad­dresses since the start of this year, even when lo­ca­tion ser­vices is switched off.

Google didn’t keep

lo­ca­tion data

Google says it col­lected the data be­cause it was “us­ing Cell ID codes as an ad­di­tional sig­nal to fur­ther im­prove the speed and per­for­mance of mes­sage de­liv­ery.” It didn’t elab­o­rate on how this would work. Ac­cord­ing to Google, it never used the lo­ca­tion data and in­stead im­me­di­ately dis­carded it.

As Google didn’t store the data, the ef­fects may be lim­ited. For ex­am­ple, it means there’s no le­gal risks of po­lice de­mand­ing Google hand over de­tails of a per­son’s move­ments as an al­ter­na­tive to get­ting that in­for­ma­tion from phone ser­vice providers. There was the se­cu­rity risk that the data might have been in­ter­cepted whilst be­ing trans­mit­ted to Google, though Google says it was done in en­crypted form. (Source: thev­erge.com)

Per­haps the big­gest prob­lem is the po­ten­tial lack of trust from peo­ple who rea­son­ably ex­pected their lo­ca­tion was not be­ing tracked, par­tic­u­larly those who had safety or pri­vacy rea­sons to switch lo­ca­tion track­ing off.

In­no­cent man dies in Swat­ting in­ci­dent trig­gered

by Call of Duty play­ers

An in­no­cent man was shot dead last week on De­cem­ber 28, in a swat­ting in­ci­dent that ap­pears to have taken place af­ter two Call of Duty play­ers got into an ar­gu­ment on­line.

The two got into a fight af­ter their team lost a game against an op­pos­ing clan. The rea­son things heated up was be­cause the team also lost a $1.50 bet.

The gam­ing com­mu­nity claims that M1ruh­cle acted tough and con­tacted the swat­ter, giv­ing him a false home ad­dress and dar­ing the swat­ter to send po­lice to his home.

Po­lice sent a SWAT unit ready for a hostage sit­u­a­tion to the caller’s ad­dress.

“A male came to the front door,” Liv­ingston told The Wi­chita Ea­gle. “As he came to the front door, one of our of­fi­cers dis­charged his weapon.”

Fam­ily mem­bers told KWCH12 that po­lice told the man to come out with his hands up and then shot him.

The man, later iden­ti­fied as An­drew Thomas Finch, 28, died at a lo­cal hospi­tal. The fam­ily said he did not play on­line games and did not own a gun. Finch was the fa­ther of two chil­dren, ages seven and al­most two.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.