Life is hard enough in the anime industry these days as it is ( as several stories posted here have mentioned recently ), even in top notch studios like KyoAni.
> It’s a crucial task to contain the spread of Ebola in Goma, home to more than 2 million people and the largest city to confirm a case of the disease since the epidemic here began nearly a year ago.
It can be as complicated or as simple as you want to make it. Can be used locally only or deployed on a server. Single self-contained html file, can be encrypted too.
At this point, using any service from Google makes no sense, really. On top of many other reasons, zero trust in the service surviving ( or just reaching ! ) a two year period at least.
It is not that simple. I do not use it. Yet someone can upload an image I send them, or my photograph without my knowledge. It needs to be strictly regulated.
I m looking forward to the time when facebook is banned, people turn to proper decentralized alternatives, and panic when they realize they can no longer delete their pics from the net
My understanding is, that people have been falsely led to believe the opposite. The rise of snapchat ( a total hack in terms of keeping things impermanent), various promises from social media companies, and the constant insinuation by news articles that it is possible to be private on the internet have created a totally false belief. People used to be conscious about what they put online, nowadays it doesnt seem they are.
While all that has happened, I don't think, that's the reason for people's behavior. So many people (also smart people) just don't care about privacy #nothingtohide.
And, secondly, nowadays the web is a lot more crowded, all the less technically minded people go online with a very sparse understanding of the web. Early adopters had a different demographic than the current userbase.
The less tech minded usually do what the more tech minded tell them. The problem is we 've lulled people with "security", green lock icons. We all know that all security is temporary, but we also chose to appeal to people's natural need for safety. The point is even the best digital security measure is nowhere near good old physical security.
that won't happen. Something that is decentralised but still runs on public infrastructure can be blocked or legal entities can be held accountable. Something that is floating around in the "dark web" or some obscure private server is for practical purposes not accessible to vast amount of users.
You don't need to look to the future. We already have p2p solutions and encryption that if hacked together could serve as some sort of decentralised storage. The public doesn't use it.
> We already have p2p solutions and encryption that if hacked together could serve as some sort of decentralised storage. The public doesn't use it.
The public doesn't use it because it hasn't been hacked together and that for all intents and purpose the experience has more friction than what is available today.
Just think of the real world analogue. I give you access to my stuff. Maybe I lend it to you, maybe I let you crash at my place. That doesn't let you do whatever you want. If I lend you my car and you take it to a car crusher, that's messed up and regulations protect it.
That's conflating two different problems. The issue of someone posting something without permission is one, and what Facebook does with what it distributes is another, entirely different second issue. We are discussing the second.
Is it dystopian to regulate that sites cannot host and distribute pedophile content for instance ? Regulations are needed, in the internet as much as anywhere else.
yes, and it's crazy annoying! some of us have very old facebook accounts from back when it all started. nowadays photos of you showing up at events are being tagged by friends and relative. soon the machine would have learned enough on its own to start tagging you by itself. that passive social media activity is stunning and amazing to witness happen...
Yes as an example of this: our daughter's school gives a form where you can indicate where photos of her can be used. This is probably required by the GDPR, but it is nice of them to do it anyway, and they try to hold up their end. We never give permission to anyone to share pictures of our daughter on social media. We believe she has the right to choose what she publishes when she is grown up.
So, the school photographer comes. It's the usual think where they make pictures, and you can order some copies. This year they only made class photos. They send you some link where you can log in to see a watermarked version of the photo, you can then order a digital copy or a printed copy.
However, they also put a Facebook share link on the page where people can share the class photo with one click. I am sure there are a lot of parents who do not even think about the rights and wishes of other parents and just share the photo.
So, we are in a bad situation where we explicitly disallow people to upload photos of our daughter, but not can people upload pictures anyway against our wishes, companies are actively pushing people to do so.
All the tracking and unwanted uploads of personal information (though friends' address books), photos, etc. without any explicit permission is a disgrace. I hope that the EU keeps hitting these companies with the GDPR until they respect people's privacy. Sure, if you decide to share your life with Google, Facebook, and a countless tracking companies, that's up to you. But this unwanted slurping of every bit of information has to end.
By posting the photo to Facebook in the first place, you are giving them near unlimited freedom to do with it as they will according to their usage policies.
They are distributing the picture so you are free to file a DMCA takedown request and they would have to take it down unless your claim is obviously invalid. Embedding extra data has nothing to do with it.
Wouldn't that depend on what they use this data for, what it is, and whether they keep it regardless of taking the file down if requested ? ( GDPR, etc. )
I don't use any of their services myself, nor do I suggest infringement.
I ask what is the legal situation for a copyright holder, given users likely are not aware of this data being added to a file; what the data exactly is, where or if this data is kept by them independently of the file itself, what is it used for, GDPR implications, etc.
Copyright applies to published works. Which in this case would be an image. Owning the rights to an image is a legal issue that is not concerned with representation.
So if the images is converted to digital form, then compressed then decompressed, then printed out then usually it would be considered the same image.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20190718/k10011997571000.ht... ( Japanese. )