Heathrow fingered over prints as Apple bungles EULA
And don't use a gun for home improvement
Comments Apple cocked up the licence agreement for its Safari browser by forbidding installation on Windows PCs. The EULA only allowed users to install the browser on "a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." Apple quickly changed the licence agreement to say that you can install it on "each computer owned or controlled by you." But it can't exist on more than one computer at a time. What fun. We've included comments on both articles.
Apple-labeled computer? So, sticky label + marker pen = Valid Licence?
That's not impossible! You just have to install Windows on your Intel Mac.
Then you'd be compliant. And totally stupid.
My PC has a Golden Delicious sticker on it, does that comply with the EULA?
Actually, I'm fairly sure Apple can't legally offer Safari for Windows anyway.
Why? Well, it uses WebKit for Windows, which is based on the LGPL-licensed KHTML. Now, the LGPL requires that all libraries that the LGPL-licensed code depends on are also under the LGPL or a compatible license (except ones supplied with the OS or complier). This is to prevent unscrupulous companies circumventing the intention of the LGPL by sticking critical parts of the code in closed source libraries under nasty license terms.
Apple's Windows port of WebKit depends on several closed-source, non-redistributable libraries - specifically, Windows ports of Apple frameworks. Therefore, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the LGPL, they have no legal right to distribute it, and any major contributor to KHTML before the fork could take them to court, force them to cease distribution, and probably make some nice cash on the side.
(Also, Apple's license for these libraries is nasty - as far as I can tell, it forbids anyone who compiles the Windows version of Webkit themselves from redistributing their compiled version, since the libraries are statically linked and the license forbids redistribution in any form.)
So, I don't have to own the computer, but I can control it? Kind of puts a neat spin on allowing hackers to push the software for us, completely legally. Maybe it is a way for Apple to justify pushing this software to all of the Windows computers out there... All your PC are belong to us!
Isnt Safari free? What do Apple care about how many machines I install it on?
This is very frustrating as an IT admin. I have a very specific job of maintaining AND UPDATING ~ 1400 PCs day in and day out, and the idea that Apple sliding their browser into the "critical updates" screen is like MS adding "ONE CARE" to their "critical updates" list. And to forget to change your EULA to reflect these new changes is simply catching Jobs with his pants down in an effort to increase the popularity of his software. If I had previously installed Safari and confirmed our cold fusion backends were approved for SAFARI browsing, then I would not be so upset.
*siiiigh* And now my phone is ringing off the hook... Time for a pub break....
US airport control staff have begun inspecting the contents of passengers' laptops. This raises concerns over privacy and whether one can truly be held responsible for everything on their machine. You didn't like it one bit:
Which user are they going to log on as? If I create a new user (no admin rights) and log on as that then its not going to give them much at all is it?
As its a work's laptop I can always say that I do not have admin privs (or access to the administrator account) so they can't see anything that doesn't belong to the user they've logged on as.
I guess they'd just seize my computer and lock me up
What would happen if you have information on your laptop that is under a Non Disclosure Agreement ?
Letting the customs see it will violate the NDA not letting the customs look through it would be making yourself a likely candidate for government harassing untill you give in.
If you run an operating system that has some sort of security then you could:
1. Create a dummy account containing a number of unimportant files. Give this account the minimum number of privileges.
2. Use this account when stopped at the border with your laptop and asked to start the machine.
3. When asked to provide access to other files, you can reasonably claim not to have sys admin rights and refer the enquirer to your corporate IT department (if you have one), hoping that they aren't going to bother. Of course, they might bother and corporate IT might give them the sys admin password over the phone, but how likely is that?
Anon rodent says: "Terrorists win, again"—if you still believe this is all about terrorism.
While you focus primarily on personal privacy issues, what about business? You might be returning from a field-research trip, some conference, contract negotiations or whatever, your computer might be filled to the brim with critical business or even NDA-material, or maybe your latest novel or critical analysis of modern-day fashism that makes government X look bad. Now would you please hand that over, decrypted, for reasons of national security, to be copied, analyzed, stored?
Invasive searches like the ones described lead to people no longer carrying any data of any value whatsoever, thereby curbing travellers' work efficiency -> "Terrorists win". So if you bother to take along a computer at all, you will have all data on some secure remote sever, and you will rather not put the server data (and no encryption, no hidden partitions, no nothing) on the machine but in your head. If you believe in secure remote severs that is. Now if that machine got inspected, you would be suspicious as hell, and you know what happens to suspicious people who will not admit. They get special treatments, sometimes even a free vacation in an interesting place. Like Syria. So you might better fill your machine with some random "identity" bull in order to make it look "pure". Thereby, being denied privacy essentially promotes a culture of lies and deception. I am not even touching on the inherently connected issues of classism and racism that determine who is searched and who is not.
Sponsored: The Nuts and Bolts of Ransomware in 2016