#EU android case

[world-store]

Google Planned to ‘Go Big in Europe’ After EU Android Case

 Google — under fire in court for allegedly resting on its laurels thanks to its 90% market dominance — only made an effort to beef up the quality of its search engine in the European Union after being hit by a record antitrust fine, according to internal documents revealed in the US Justice Department’s monopolization case against the tech giant. Alphabet Inc.’s Google planned to improve its…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Apple faces criminal sanctions for defying App Store antitrust order

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me at NEW ZEALAND'S UNITY BOOKS in AUCKLAND TODAY (May 2), and in WELLINGTON TOMORROW (May 3). More tour dates (Pittsburgh, PDX, London, Manchester) here.

Epic, makers of the wildly popular Fortnite video-game, have waged a one-company war against the "app tax" – the 15-30% rake that the mobile duopoly of Apple/Google take out of every penny we spend inside of apps.

Epic's own digital practices are hardly spotless: just this year, the company was caught cheating players – many of them children – with deceptive practices and had to refund over $72m:

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/fortnite-refunds

But in this fight, Epic is on the side of the angels. The 30% that Apple/Google sucks out of the mobile economy is a brutal tax, and not just on app makers. Patreon performers recently raised a stink when the company announced that it would be clawing back 30% of the money pledged by their supporters – that 30% surcharge is passed straight through to Apple/Google:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24218629/patreon-membership-ios-30-percent-apple-tax

From independent news outlets to crafters selling their work out of small storefronts, all the way up to massive entertainment services like Disney Plus and Fortnite, the mobile cartel takes 30% out of every dollar, a racket they maintain with onerous rules that ban apps from using their own payment processors, or even from encouraging users to click a link that brings them to a web-based payment screen.

30% is a gigantic markup on payment processing. It's ten times the going rate for payments in the USA, already one of the most expensive places in the world to transfer money from one party to another. In the EU, payment processing typically runs 1%…or less.

But crafters, Patreon podcasters and small-town newspapers are in no position to fight Google and Apple. Instead, we get Epic, a multi-billion-dollar company that's gone to the mattresses to fight these multi-trillion-dollar companies. Personally, I dote on billionaire-on-trillionaire violence.

Epic was wildly successful. It mopped up the floor with Google, securing an especially punitive award from a judge who was furious that Google had destroyed evidence:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/12/im-feeling-lucky/#hugger-mugger

Epic also won against Apple, though not as thoroughly as it had with Google, because Apple had the commonsense not to get up to the kind of shenanigans that make federal judges very, very mad. In the Google case, the court found that Google had acted as a monopolist and ordered it to open up the payment system in Google Play, a direct blow to the Android app tax.

In the Apple case, the judge did not find that Google had acted as a monopolist, but did rule that the App Store's payment processing racket violated the law, and ordered Apple to end its own app tax:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/epic-games-just-scored-a-major-win-against-apple/

That's where things get gnarly. Apple is addicted to corrupt sources of income – like the tens of billions it illegally receives every year in bribes from Google make it the default search:

https://apnews.com/article/google-antitrust-search-engine-verdict-apple-319a61f20fb11510097845a30abaefd8

And it really, really loves the app tax. When the EU ordered Apple to allow third-party app stores (as a way of killing the app tax), the company cooked up a malicious compliance plan that was comically corrupt:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

So, the mere fact that a federal judge had ordered Apple to open up its app store to competing payment processors was not going convince Apple to actually do it. Instead, Apple cooked up a set of rules for third-party payment processing that would make it more costly to use someone else's payments, piling up a mountain of junk fees and using scare screens and other deceptive warnings to discourage users from making payments through a rival system:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied

That's the kind of thing that is apt to make a federal judge angry – and, as noted, angry federal judges can make life very hard for tech monopolists, a lesson Google learned when it destroyed key evidence in its Epic case. But Apple didn't just flout the court order – they lied about it to cover it up, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is furious. She held that Alex Roman, Apple's Vice-President of Finance, "outright lied under oath," and she has raised the possibility of criminal contempt penalties for Apple:

https://regmedia.co.uk/2025/05/01/pacer_epic_vs_apple_injunction_judgement.pdf

The judge further wrote:

This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases

In other words, any junk fees, any impediments to opening up third party payments, will be switfly and harshly dealt with. As of right now developers can start to build third-party payments into their apps and Apple cannot block them. It's the end of the app tax, a source of about $100b/year for Apple:

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possible_crime/

The world is on fire and everything is terrible, but we are also living through the most consequential season in the history of the war on corporate tech power. Google has been convicted three times of being a monopolist and is almost certainly going to have to sell off Chrome, most of its ad-tech stack, and possibly Android. Meta just put up a pathetic showing in an equally serious antitrust case that could see it forced to sell off Instagram and Whatsapp:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/11/it-is-better-to-buy/#than-to-compete

Countries around the world have passed big, sweeping, muscular antitrust laws specifically aimed at smashing corporate tech power, like the EU's Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act:

https://www.eff.org/pages/adoption-dsadma-notre-analyse

Most importantly, all of this is happening from the bottom up. There is no dark money campaign to fuck up the tech companies. The politicians and enforcers who are taking on Big Tech are being shoved from behind by billions of everyday people who are furious and refuse to take it any longer:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/10/solidarity-forever-2/#oligarchism

I am deeply grateful for the public servants who have championed this cause, but I also know that these people are the effect of our movement, not the cause. When Kier Starmer fires Britain's brilliant and effective top competition enforcer and replaces him with the former head of Amazon UK, that does nothing to tamp down the political outrage that Britons feel towards America's tech giants:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/22/autocrats-of-trade/#dingo-babysitter

All over the world, countries that passed IP laws to protect US tech interests in exchange for tariff-free access to US markets are grappling with the end of free trade with America. This represents a generational opportunity to pass laws that enable local technologists to jailbreak US tech exports and liberate their people from the extractive practices of Big Tech forever:

https://archive.is/CiBIz

There is nothing harder to stop than an idea whose time has come to pass.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/01/its-not-the-crime/#its-the-coverup

Image: Alex Popovkin, Bahia, Brazil from Brazil (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annelid_worm,_Atlantic_forest,_northern_littoral_of_Bahia,_Brazil_%2816107326533%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

--

Hubertl (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-03-04_Elstar_%28apple%29_starting_putrefying_IMG_9761_bis_9772.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[wumblr]

in all seriousness, how would you even administrate a ban of an app? like... they can have it removed from the app stores, sure, or in what i would call extremely unlikely or bizarre circumstances, it could be used as evidence to justify arrest or pressing charges, maybe in the worst case scenario the web domain could be blocked by ISPs or the physical location of US hosting servers could be raided, and of course i'm not trying to downplay the severity of any those things, but like...

you can't... physically prevent anyone from circulating or installing an APK file. i'm sure removing it from app stores WOULD effectively prevent 99% of its userbase from accessing it, and it's not that i want to place the blame on them, but like... i do have to say this is ""totalitarianism"" for ipad babies and ipad babies only.

i think the average user is smarter about software than the house of representatives obviously is but like. if they were 10% smarter it would become impossible to administrate. by which i mean maybe a few hours of learning about it. maybe let's all start doing that, huh? if you can't reinstall a new operating system on your phone, enable unapproved app installation, or access developer mode, you do not really know how to use your phone, do you? all of these things are purposefully easier on android btw. and in a mad twist of irony they DO make you more vulnerable to malware

i would also like to point out i don't know of one comparable instance of historical precedent. what software has ever been banned? yes i know google street view in parts of the EU and facebook in myanmar and pakistan. i would not call those comparable (?) because it's not like a software ban (?). pirate bay i guess is closer (because they did perform physical raids, right). and how's that going for them

[mariacallous]

Fortnite maker Epic Games publicly lashed out at Apple on Friday, after its latest proposal for a rival iOS App Store was rejected by the smartphone maker. The company said on X that this rejection was triggered after Apple argued the design of Epic’s app store too closely resembled its own.

This decision follows Epic’s attempt to submit an iOS version of the Epic Games Store last week, a move that would make it possible for iPhone and iPad users to download games onto their device without visiting Apple’s App Store.

“Apple's rejection is arbitrary, obstructive, and in violation of the DMA [Digital Markets Act],” Epic said on Friday in a statement released on X, adding that the company had already shared its concerns with the European Commission. Apple has rejected Epic’s Game Store notarization submission—a process where apps are submitted to the company for review—twice in the past week, Epic spokesperson Elka Looks told WIRED.

The case is part of a wider battle over who gets to control the apps available to hundreds of millions of people. In a blow to the U giant, Apple has been compelled by the Digital Markets Act, new EU rules, to allow alternatives to its own brand app store on European iPhones and iPads since March.

“Apple has rejected our Epic Games Store notarization submission twice now, claiming the design and position of Epic’s ‘Install’ button is too similar to Apple’s ‘Get’ button and that our ‘In-app purchases’ label is too similar to the App Store’s ‘In-App Purchases’ label,” the company said.

Epic explained its naming conventions echoed Apple’s because it was “trying to build a store that mobile users can easily understand.” Apple did not reply to WIRED’s request for comment.

There are more than 100 million people who use Apple’s App Store in the EU. The launch of the Epic Games Store would, for the first time, give those users a choice of where they want to download apps.

That moment is eagerly awaited by lawmakers who argue that the tech giants are repressing competition by blocking rivals’ access to their users. “The launch of an alternative app store within the Apple system would create a huge proof, that the DMA can stimulate competition and thereby bring down prices for consumers,” Andreas Schwab, a member of the European Parliament who helped negotiate the DMA, told WIRED.

Epic and Apple are longtime rivals. In 2020, Epic filed a lawsuit against Apple in California, arguing the company’s grip over the iOS market was “unreasonable and unlawful.” Apple came out of the US case (mostly) victorious. But in Europe, Epic has become part of a vocal community of developers who are seething about the power they perceive Apple’s App Store to wield over their businesses and the commission the company charges on in-app purchases.

“Apple holds app providers ransom like the Mafia,” Matthias Pfau, CEO and cofounder of Tuta, an encrypted email provider, told WIRED earlier this year. Epic’s alternative app store proposal is a test case for the possibility of other alternative app stores that could reshape the relationship between Apple and developers.

The Epic Games Store is already available on PC, Mac, and Android, but not on Google Play. Now, the company plans to continue seeking approval for its iOS version, it said: “Barring further roadblocks from Apple, we remain ready to launch in the Epic Games Store … on iOS in the EU in the next couple of months.”

[nickgerlich]

Prying Apart The Grip

The iPhone was introduced in July 2007. It’s hard to believe we are coming up on the 17th anniversary of what is now a necessary device—be it Apple or a competitor—for daily living. Apple ushered in a whole new way of life, merging phone, camera, and music player into one device.

Of course, those three were just the tip of the iceberg, and developers wanted a way to get their cool new web-based applications onto those phones. So Apple wisely opened the App Store in 2008. While the number of apps peaked at 2.2 million in 2017, it has settled into a comfortable groove at 1.8 million, thanks to Apple sifting through the mess and deleting some older apps that no longer worked.

But buried in the details of the App Store agreement that developers had to sign with Apple—who vetted each app for safety and security—was some fine print: Every in-app sale would be divided 70/30 between the developer and Apple. Basically, there was and still is a 30% Apple tax just for playing, at least in the US. Every time a user buys something in an app, then Apple gets a healthy chunk of it.

But that is now changing in Europe, where the EU has become the tail that wags the dog.

Remember all those Cookies boxes we have to check off on virtually every website we visit? We can thank the EU and their GDPR, which stands for General Data Protection Regulation. It was easier for everyone to just make it the global standard, even if they are annoying.

And then there was Apple’s announcement last year that all new phones going forward would feature a USB-C connector, instead of the Lightning port. This too was in response to the EU mandating that all phones must have the same connector, and rather than have two global systems, Apple sided with the EU. Admittedly, it does simplify things for everyone, except for Apple users during this transition period. Legacy phone users will have a bunch of obsolete connectors real soon when they upgrade.

The third wave of EU influence just passed, and it is the opening up of the App Store to competitors who wish to have their own stores, thus bypassing the Apple ecosystem. Furthermore, it marks what will be the end of that 30% Apple tax, something that Spotify has been dreaming about ever since it wanted to upsell users with its audio books program. They are pretty happy right now.

Apple, of course, is concerned, arguing that third-party app stores may not pass muster in terms of safety and security, and users could be at risk. Point well taken. I’m betting they are more concerned about losing their revenue sharing program, though.

But for now, this is only going to happen in Europe, but you can bet that US regulators will be watching closely. It could just as easily be mandated here. Apple has enjoyed a tightly-held monopoly in many aspects of its phones, ceding only accessory items to third-party makers. You know. Things like connector cords and dongles that allow you to connect to your laptop all the things that were once standard on a MacBookPro.

Here in the US, we are not accustomed to the heavy hand of government telling companies how to run their business, and if someone wants to take the chance of using proprietary connectors and being the only source of mobile apps, then so be it. The risk is on them.

In the case of Apple, though, this has played out very well for them. It all depends on how the FTC feels about such monopoly power. Apple has 58% share of smartphones in the US, with the remainder scattered across the Android platform. That’s power. If the US were to follow the EU regarding the App Store, it would at least loosen some of the grip this company has on our daily lives.

Maybe that's not such a bad idea, and this coming from a guy who is very laissez faire in worldview. As much as I am an Apple fanboy, with many phones, tablets, and computers through the years, I often feel like Apple is guilty of abusing its position by using customers as product testers, and forcing us to buy things we really don’t want, like those silly dongles so I can read a memory stick or SD card.

Besides, I feel for Spotify on this one, because it has the potential to pose a formidable threat to Audible in the audio book world, except that for now Apple will always have its hand out. Audible, of course, is an Amazon property, and dodges the Apple tax.

Furthermore, 17 years is a long time to have such a death grip on a market. I’m good with following the EU’s lead on this, because in the end it will likely be good for consumers. And isn’t that what it’s all about?

Dr “iReckon” Gerlich

Audio Blog

[nadcabtechpraygraj]

Top Features to Expect from a P2P Crypto Exchange Development Company

In the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape, P2P Exchange Development has emerged as a game-changer. Peer-to-peer platforms empower users to trade assets directly—without intermediaries—combining decentralization, security, and flexibility. If you're exploring P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development or shopping for P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions, it’s essential to know what makes a platform stand out. Here’s an in-depth guide to the top features any strong development partner should offer.

1. Robust Escrow & Smart Contract Integration

Why It Matters

Escrow ensures that neither party can deceive the other during a trade.

Smart contracts add automation and tamper-proof assurance, executing trades exactly as agreed.

What a P2P Exchange Development Firm Should Offer

Multi-signature wallets and escrow logic integrated at the blockchain or application layer.

Audit-ready smart contracts to prevent emission of faulty code.

Customizable escrow hold-release timelines—e.g., after user confirmation or predefined conditions.

These elements are foundational in P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development, mitigating fraud and earning user trust.

2. Multi-Currency & Multi-Payment Gateway Support

Why It’s Essential

Users expect flexibility to buy/sell various cryptocurrencies with diverse payment methods.

Developer Responsibilities

Support for BTC, ETH, stable coins (USDT, USDC), and even country-specific tokens.

Integration with payment systems (banks, UPI, mobile wallets, cash deposits).

Easy onboarding of new fiat currencies or payment options.

The right P2P Exchange Development team ensures your platform is accessible and inclusive.

3. User Reputation & Rating System

Why It’s Important

Trust is crucial. Reputation systems help users choose counterparties safely.

High-rating users attract more trades and enhance overall liquidity.

Implementation Strategy

Post-trade feedback system with star ratings and review comments.

Fraud or dispute flagging mechanisms.

Tiered visibility or fees—e.g., gold users get priority listings or lower fees.

These features are a key component of any reputable P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions.

4. Advanced Dispute Resolution Tools

Role in the Ecosystem

Even secure platforms face occasional disputes—over delivery, payments, or cancellations.

Must-Have Features

Built-in case management interface for admins and support agents.

User dialog interface to discuss and resolve issues.

Clear guidelines and timelines for dispute resolution—automatic resolution when users agree, manual review when needed.

Such mechanisms elevate P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development beyond simple trade matching.

5. KYC/AML Compliant & Optional ID Verification

Making Compliance Flexible

Orienting around global regulatory frameworks (e.g. FATF, EU-5AMLD).

Key Aspects

Optional or tiered KYC levels:

Tier 0: No verification (very low limits).

Tier 1: Basic verification (email/phone, low trading limits).

Tier 2: Full KYC (ID, proof of address) with large volume allowances.

Secure data handling: encryption, 2FA, data purging capabilities.

AML screening integrations (e.g., OFAC, global sanctions lists).

Providing compliance flexibility is a hallmark of serious P2P Exchange Development providers.

6. Intuitive UI/UX & Responsive Design

UX Drives User Retention

Many P2P platforms target emerging markets, where mobile usability is critical.

What to Look For

Clean dashboards showing open orders, trade history, and balance.

Quick order creation: choose crypto, fiat, price, quantity.

Payment method integration right in the trade flow.

Mobile-first (Android/iOS or responsive web) for on-the-go trading.

Great P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions always prioritize accessible, user-friendly UI/UX.

7. API Access & Bot Integration

Why It Matters

Power users and professional traders expect automation.

Implementation Needs

REST or Web Socket API for order creation, status, price feeds, and balance checking.

Rate limits and API key/token management.

Sample bot scripts and doc support.

These are features expected in P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development to cater to a broader user base.

8. Real-Time Analytics & Reporting

Operational Benefit

Admins need dashboards on trading volume, open orders, dispute stats, and revenue.

Functionality

Charts for daily/weekly/monthly performance.

P&L, fee breakdown, and token circulation tracking.

Automated report generation (CSV, PDF exports).

As trades increase, P2P Exchange Development must evolve with actionable insights.

9. Security & Scalability

Core Expectations

Security breaches can ruin reputation and trust.

Dedicated Measures

Encryption at rest and in transit, secure data centres, SSL certificates.

Hardened endpoints and anti-DDoS protection.

Optional cold/hot wallet architecture for fund storage.

Regular penetration testing and security audits.

Scalable architecture handles user spikes—vital in growing P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions.

10. Localization & Multi-Language Support

Global Reach Requires Localization

P2P platforms flourish with local languages and cultural adaptation.

Linguistic & Regional Adaptations

Translating UI, email templates, notifications.

Support for local date, time, number formats.

Culturally appropriate visuals and tone.

With proper localization, P2P Exchange Development becomes truly global.

11. Marketing Automation & User Engagement

Keeping Users Active

Retention is cheaper than acquisition—especially in peer-to-peer trading.

Smart Engagement Features

Built-in tools to launch referral programs, promotional offers, or rebates.

Push notifications, email/SMS alerts for trades, offers, price changes.

Targeted campaigns to re-engage dormant users.

Integrated engagement boosts the ROI of your P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development investment.

12. Plugin & Modular Architecture

Flexibility & Customization

Businesses want to differentiate their brand and processes.

Modular Components

Plug-and-play modules for KYC, wallet, escrow, dispute system.

Easier compliance customization and UI variations.

Faster development cycles using recomposable parts.

A hallmark of professional P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions.

13. Ongoing Maintenance & 24/7 Support

Development Doesn’t End at Launch

New threats, feature requests, and scaling issues emerge post-launch.

Provider Commitments

Clear SLAs for bug fixes and feature updates.

Dedicated 24/7 support (chat, phone, ticketing) for critical issues.

Infrastructure monitoring and uptime guarantees (e.g., 99.9%).

Comprehensive post-launch support completes any P2P Exchange Development package.

14. Regulatory Advisory & Legal Preparedness

Beyond Technical Build

A truly valuable partner understands global crypto regulation.

Advisory Services

Assistance in acquiring licenses (e.g., MAS, FinCEN, FATF guidelines).

Smart contract legal review.

Governing terms-of-service and user agreements.

Providing compliance counsel sets apart a top-tier P2P Crypto Exchange Development Company.

15. White-Label Option & Custom Branding

Time-to-Market & Brand Identity

White-label platforms are cost-effective and quick to deploy.

What It Includes

Custom UI branding: logos, colours, domain/subdomain.

No-code text/email template editing.

Admin control panel for granular platform settings.

An advanced feature in P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Software Solutions for rapid brand adoption.

Final Thoughts

The P2P crypto exchange landscape is booming—driven by privacy, direct access, and decentralized control. If you're evaluating a P2P Cryptocurrency Exchange Development Company or considering P2P Exchange Development, prioritize these features:

Secure escrow and smart contracts

Multi-currency democracy and inclusive payment gateways

Reputation management and dispute mechanisms

Compliance tools (KYC/AML) tailored by user tiers

Engaging, mobile-optimized design

API support for automation

Insightful analytics dashboards

Strong security posture and scalable architecture

Localization and marketing modules

Modular design with ongoing support

Regulatory guidance and white-label deployment options

Together, these ensure your P2P platform is competitive, compliant, and user-trustworthy.

[newssphere0]

Google hits setback in bid to overturn multibillion EU antitrust fine in Android case

LONDON (AP) — Google faced a big setback Thursday in its attempt to overturn a multibillion-dollar European Union antitrust penalty involving Android after a top court’s legal adviser sided with regulators. The European Court of Justice’s advocate general, Juliane Kokott, recommended in a non-binding opinion that Google’s appeal against the fine worth more than 4 billion euros ($4.7 billion)…

[tawhidislam]

UK ETA Online Application: Everything You Need to Know in 2025

The UK ETA (Electronic Travel Authorisation) is a new entry requirement being introduced by the United Kingdom for visitors from visa-free countries. Expected to be fully rolled out by the end of 2025, this online system aims to enhance border security while simplifying the travel process. If you’re planning to travel to the UK for tourism, business, or transit, and you don’t need a visa, you’ll likely need to complete the https://www.uketaonlineapplication.combefore your trip.

In this article, we’ll walk you through everything you need to know about applying for a UK ETA online — including eligibility, the application process, fees, and important tips.

What Is the UK ETA?

The UK Electronic Travel Authorisation is a digital pre-screening system that gives approved travelers permission to enter the UK for short stays. It’s similar to systems like the US ESTA or the upcoming EU ETIAS. It allows UK authorities to carry out security checks before travelers arrive, helping to maintain a secure and efficient border.

Who Needs to Apply for a UK ETA?

The ETA will be required for visa-exempt foreign nationals who want to:

Visit the UK for tourism,

Attend business meetings,

Visit family or friends,

Or transit through the UK.

Citizens of countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations like the UAE and Qatar will need to apply.

UK and Irish citizens are exempt from the ETA. Legal residents of Ireland traveling within the Common Travel Area are also not required to apply.

How to Apply for the UK ETA Online

Applying for a UK ETA is quick and convenient, thanks to the digital application system. Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Visit the Official UK ETA Website or App

Travelers can apply through the official UK government ETA website or by downloading the UK ETA mobile app, available on Android and iOS.

Step 2: Complete the Application Form

The online application requires the following information:

Full name and date of birth

Passport details (must be biometric and valid for the duration of stay)

Contact details (email, phone number)

Purpose of visit

Travel dates and destination within the UK

Security-related questions (including criminal and immigration history)

The form is user-friendly and takes about 10–15 minutes to complete.

Step 3: Upload a Digital Photo

A recent, passport-style digital photo must be uploaded during the application. This photo must meet the UK government’s size and quality requirements, which are clearly outlined on the website.

Step 4: Pay the Application Fee

The ETA fee is £10 per applicant. Payment is made securely online using a credit or debit card. Each traveler, including children, must pay separately and have their own approved ETA.

Step 5: Wait for Approval

After submission, most ETA applications are processed within 72 hours, though many are approved much sooner. You'll receive an email confirmation once your application is approved.

The ETA is electronically linked to your passport, so you don’t need to print anything. However, it’s a good idea to keep a digital copy of your confirmation just in case.

Validity and Reuse

A UK ETA is valid for two years or until the passport expires — whichever comes first. During this period, you can use it for multiple short visits (up to 6 months at a time), as long as the purpose is permitted (e.g., tourism, business, transit).

Important Tips for a Smooth Application

Apply at least one week before traveling to allow time for processing.

Double-check your passport number and personal information for errors.

Make sure your passport is valid for the duration of your stay.

Only apply through official UK government sources to avoid scams or inflated fees.

Conclusion

The https://www.uketaonlineapplication.com is a major step forward in modernizing UK border control. It’s quick, affordable, and designed to make travel to the UK safer and more efficient. If you're from a visa-free country, make sure you apply in advance to avoid delays. With your ETA in hand, you’ll be ready to explore the UK with confidence and ease.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Lina Khan’s future is the future of the Democratic Party — and America

On OCTOBER 23 at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

On the one hand, the anti-monopoly movement has a future no matter who wins the 2024 election – that's true even if Kamala Harris wins but heeds the calls from billionaire donors to fire Lina Khan and her fellow trustbusters.

In part, that's because US antitrust laws have broad "private rights of action" that allow individuals and companies to sue one another for monopolistic conduct, even if top government officials are turning a blind eye. It's true that from the Reagan era to the Biden era, these private suits were few and far between, and the cases that were brought often died in a federal courtroom. But the past four years has seen a resurgence of antitrust rage that runs from left to right, and from individuals to the C-suites of big companies, driving a wave of private cases that are prevailing in the courts, upending the pro-monopoly precedents that billionaires procured by offering free "continuing education" antitrust training to 40% of the Federal judiciary:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/13/post-bork-era/#manne-down

It's amazing to see the DoJ racking up huge wins against Google's monopolistic conduct, sure, but first blood went to Epic, who won a historic victory over Google in federal court six months before the DoJ's win, which led to the court ordering Google to open up its app store:

https://www.theverge.com/policy/2024/10/7/24243316/epic-google-permanent-injunction-ruling-third-party-stores

Google's 30% App Tax is a giant drag on all kinds of sectors, as is its veto over which software Android users get to see, so Epic's win is going to dramatically alter the situation for all kinds of activities, from beleaguered indie game devs:

https://antiidlereborn.com/news/

To the entire news sector:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Private antitrust cases have attracted some very surprising plaintiffs, like Michael Jordan, whose long policy of apoliticism crumbled once he bought a NASCAR team and lived through the monopoly abuses of sports leagues as an owner, not a player:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/michael-jordan-anti-monopolist

A much weirder and more unlikely antitrust plaintiff than Michael Jordan is Google, the perennial antitrust defendant. Google has brought a complaint against Microsoft in the EU, based on Microsoft's extremely ugly monopolistic cloud business:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-files-complaint-eu-over-microsoft-cloud-practices-2024-09-25/

Google's choice of venue here highlights another reason to think that the antitrust surge will continue irrespective of US politics: antitrust is global. Antitrust fervor has seized governments from the UK to the EU to South Korea to Japan. All of those countries have extremely similar antitrust laws, because they all had their statute books overhauled by US technocrats as part of the Marshall Plan, so they have the same statutory tools as the American trustbusters who dismantled Standard Oil and AT&T, and who are making ready to shatter Google into several competing businesses:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/8/24265832/google-search-antitrust-remedies-framework-android-chrome-play

Antitrust fever has spread to Canada, Australia, and even China, where the Cyberspace Directive bans Chinese tech giants from breaking interoperability to freeze out Chinese startups. Anything that can't go on forever eventually stops, and the cost of 40 years of pro-monopoly can't be ignored. Monopolies make the whole world more brittle, even as the cost of that brittleness mounts. It's hard to pretend monopolies are fine when a single hurricane can wipe out the entire country's supply of IV fluid – again:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-10-11-cant-believe-im-writing-about-iv-fluid-again/

What's more, the conduct of global monopolists is the same in every country where they have taken hold, which means that trustbusters in the EU can use the UK Digital Markets Unit's report on the mobile app market as a roadmap for their enforcement actions against Apple:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f61bc0d3bf7f62e8c34a02/Mobile_Ecosystems_Final_Report_amended_2.pdf

And then the South Korean and Japanese trustbusters can translate the court documents from the EU's enforcement action and use them to score victories over Apple in their own courts:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-injury-to-one/#is-an-injury-to-all

So on the one hand, the trustbusting wave will continue erode the foundations of global monopolies, no matter what happens after this election. But on the other hand, if Harris wins and then fires Biden's top trustbusters to appease her billionaire donors, things are going to get ugly.

A new, excellent long-form Bloomberg article by Josh Eidelson and Max Chafkin gives a sense of the battle raging just below the surface of the Democratic Power, built around a superb interview with Khan herself:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-09/lina-khan-on-a-second-ftc-term-ai-price-gouging-data-privacy

The article begins with a litany of tech billionaires who've gone an all-out, public assault on Khan's leadership – billionaires who stand to personally lose hundreds of millions of dollars from her agency's principled, vital antitrust work, but who cloak their objection to Khan in rhetoric about defending the American economy. In public, some of these billionaires are icily polite, but many of them degenerate into frothing, toddler-grade name-calling, like IAB's Barry Diller, who called her a "dope" and Musk lickspittle Jason Calacanis, who called her an all-caps COMMUNIST and a LUNATIC.

The overall vibe from these wreckers? "How dare the FTC do things?!"

And you know, they have a point. For decades, the FTC was – in the quoted words of Tim Wu – "a very hardworking agency that did nothing." This was the period when the FTC targeted low-level scammers while turning a blind eye to the monsters that were devouring the US economy. In part, that was because the FTC had been starved of budget, trapping them in a cycle of racking up easy, largely pointless "wins" against penny-ante grifters to justify their existence, but never to the extent that Congress would apportion them the funds to tackle the really serious cases (if this sounds familiar, it's also the what happened during the long period when the IRS chased middle class taxpayers over minor filing errors, while ignoring the billionaires and giant corporations that engaged in 7- and 8-figure tax scams).

But the FTC wasn't merely underfunded: it was timid. The FTC has extremely broad enforcement and rulemaking powers, which most sat dormant during the neoliberal era:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

The Biden administration didn't merely increase the FTC's funding: in choosing Khan to helm the organization, they brought onboard a skilled technician, who was both well-versed in the extensive but unused powers of the agency and determined to use them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

But Khan's didn't just rely on technical chops and resources to begin the de-olicharchification of the US economy: she built a three-legged stool, whose third leg is narrative. Khan's signature is her in-person and remote "listening tours," where workers who've been harmed by corporate power get to tell their stories. Bloomberg recounts the story of Deborah Brantley, who was sexually harassed and threatened by her bosses at Kavasutra North Palm Beach. Brantley's bosses touched her inappropriately and "joked" about drugging her and raping her so she "won’t be such a bitch and then maybe people would like you more."

When Brantley finally quit and took a job bartending at a different business, Kavasutra sued her over her noncompete clause, alleging an "irreparable injury" sustained by having one of their former employees working at another business, seeking damages and fees.

The vast majority of the 30 million American workers who labor under noncompetes are like Brantley, low-waged service workers, especially at fast-food restaurants (so Wendy's franchisees can stop minimum wage cashiers from earning $0.25/hour more flipping burgers at a nearby McDonald's). The donor-class indenturers who defend noncompetes claim that noncompetes are necessary to protect "innovative" businesses from losing their "IP." But of course, the one state where no workers are subject to noncompetes is California, which bans them outright – the state that is also home to Silicon Valley, an IP-heave industry that the same billionaires laud for its innovations.

After that listening tour, Khan's FTC banned noncompetes nationwide:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/25/capri-v-tapestry/#aiming-at-dollars-not-men

Only to have a federal judge in Texas throw out their ban, a move that will see $300b/year transfered from workers to shareholders, and block the formation of 8,500 new US businesses every year:

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/g-s1-18376/federal-judge-tosses-ftc-noncompetes-ban

Notwithstanding court victories like Epic v Google and DoJ v Google, America's oligarchs have the courts on their side, thanks to decades of court-packing planned by the Federalist Society and executed by Senate Republicans and Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump. Khan understands this; she told Bloomberg that she's a "close student" of the tactics Reagan used to transform American society, admiring his effectiveness while hating his results. Like other transformative presidents, good and bad, Reagan had to fight the judiciary and entrenched institutions (as did FDR and Lincoln). Erasing Reagan's legacy is a long-term project, a battle of inches that will involve mustering broad political support for the cause of a freer, more equal America.

Neither Biden nor Khan are responsible for the groundswell of US – and global – movement to euthanize our rentier overlords. This is a moment whose time has come; a fact demonstrated by the tens of thousands of working Americans who filled the FTC's noncompete docket with outraged comments. People understand that corporate looters – not "the economy" or "the forces of history" – are the reason that the businesses where they worked and shopped were destroyed by private equity goons who amassed intergenerational, dynastic fortunes by strip-mining the real economy and leaving behind rubble.

Like the billionaires publicly demanding that Harris fire Khan, private equity bosses can't stop making tone-deaf, guillotine-conjuring pronouncements about their own virtue and the righteousness of their businesses. They don't just want to destroy the world - they want to be praised for it:/p>

"Private equity’s been a great thing for America" -Stephen Pagliuca, co-chairman of Bain Capital;

"We are taught to judge the success of a society by how it deals with the least able, most vulnerable members of that society. Shouldn’t we judge a society by how they treat the most successful? Do we vilify, tax, expropriate and condemn those who have succeeded, or do we celebrate economic success as the engine that propels our society toward greater collective well-being?" -Marc Rowan, CEO of Apollo

"Achieve life-changing money and power," -Sachin Khajuria, former partner at Apollo

Meanwhile, the "buy, strip and flip" model continues to chew its way through America. When PE buys up all the treatment centers for kids with behavioral problems, they hack away at staffing and oversight, turning them into nightmares where kids are routinely abused, raped and murdered:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/they-told-me-it-was-going-be-good-place-allega-tions-n987176

When PE buys up nursing homes, the same thing happens, with elderly residents left to sit in their own excrement and then die:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/24/nursing-homes-private-equity-fraud-00132001

Writing in The Guardian, Alex Blasdel lays out the case for private equity as a kind of virus that infects economies, parasitically draining them of not just the capacity to provide goods and services, but also of the ability to govern themselves, as politicians and regulators are captured by the unfathomable sums that PE flushes into the political process:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/10/slash-and-burn-is-private-equity-out-of-control

Now, the average worker who's just lost their job may not understand "divi recaps" or "2-and-20" or "carried interest tax loopholes," but they do understand that something is deeply rotten in the world today.

What happens to that understanding is a matter of politics. The Republicans – firmly affiliated with, and beloved of, the wreckers – have chosen an easy path to capitalizing on the rising rage. All they need to do is convince the public that the system is irredeemably corrupt and that the government can't possibly fix anything (hence Reagan's asinine "joke": "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help'").

This is a very canny strategy. If you are the party of "governments are intrinsically corrupt and incompetent," then governing corruptly and incompetently proves your point. The GOP strategy is to create a nation of enraged nihilists who don't even imagine that the government could do something to hold their bosses to account – not for labor abuses, not for pollution, not for wage theft or bribery.

The fact that successive neoliberal governments – including Democratic administrations – acted time and again to bear out this hypothesis makes it easy for this kind of nihilism to take hold.

Far-right conspiracies about pharma bosses colluding with corrupt FDA officials to poison us with vaccines for profit owe their success to the lived experience of millions of Americans who lost loved ones to a conspiracy between pharma bosses and corrupt officials to poison us with opioids.

Unhinged beliefs that "they" caused the hurricanes tearing through Florida and Georgia and that Kamala Harris is capping compensation to people who lost their homes are only credible because of murderous Republican fumble during Katrina; and the larcenous collusion of Democrats to help banks steal Americans' homes during the foreclosure crisis, when Obama took Tim Geithner's advice to "foam the runway" with the mortgages of everyday Americans who'd been cheated by their banks:

https://www.salon.com/2014/05/14/this_man_made_millions_suffer_tim_geithners_sorry_legacy_on_housing/

If Harris gives in to billionaire donors and fires Khan and her fellow trustbusters, paving the way for more looting and scamming, the result will be more nihilism, which is to say, more electoral victories for the GOP. The "government can't do anything" party already exists. There are no votes to be gained by billing yourself as the "we also think governments can't do anything" party.

In other words, a world where Khan doesn't run the FTC is a world where antitrust continues to gain ground, but without taking Democrats with it. It's a world where nihilism wins.

There's factions of the Democratic Party who understand this. AOC warned party leaders that, "Anyone goes near Lina Khan and there will be an out and out brawl":

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1844034727935988155

And Bernie Sanders called her "the best FTC Chair in modern history":

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1843733298960576652

In other words: Lina Khan as a posse.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/11/democracys-antitrust-paradox/#there-will-be-an-out-and-out-brawl

[rfithen2]

Cloud Storage - pCloud

Title: pCloud: The Ultimate Cloud Storage Solution for Security and Convenience

Introduction In an age where digital storage is essential, finding the right cloud solution can be challenging. With many options available, pCloud stands out as a secure, user-friendly, and feature-rich cloud storage service. Whether you're an individual user, a freelancer, or a business owner, pCloud offers an all-in-one storage solution that prioritizes security, ease of access, and affordability.

What is pCloud? pCloud is a cloud storage provider that allows users to store, manage, and share files securely across multiple devices. Founded in 2013, pCloud has gained popularity due to its lifetime storage plans, robust security features, and seamless file management system.

Key Features of pCloud

Lifetime Storage Plans – Unlike most cloud services that require monthly or yearly subscriptions, pCloud offers a one-time payment for lifetime access, making it a cost-effective choice for long-term users.

Zero-Knowledge Encryption – pCloud provides an optional encryption feature (pCloud Crypto) that ensures your files remain private, even from pCloud itself.

Cross-Platform Accessibility – Available on Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android, pCloud syncs seamlessly across all your devices.

File Versioning and Backup – pCloud stores previous versions of your files for up to 30 days, allowing easy recovery in case of accidental deletions or unwanted changes.

Media Playback and Streaming – Unlike other cloud services, pCloud allows users to stream audio and video files directly from the cloud, making it a great option for media storage.

Collaboration and File Sharing – Share files and folders with password-protected links and expiration dates to control access.

Integration with External Services – pCloud supports integrations with Dropbox, Google Drive, and OneDrive, making file migration and management seamless.

Why Choose pCloud?

Security First – With client-side encryption and secure data centers in the EU and the U.S., pCloud ensures your files remain protected.

Affordability – The lifetime plans eliminate the need for recurring subscriptions, making it a budget-friendly option.

User-Friendly Interface – Its intuitive design makes it easy to manage files, share links, and organize content.

Reliability and Speed – Fast upload/download speeds and reliable servers ensure smooth access to your files whenever needed.

Conclusion If you're looking for a reliable, secure, and cost-effective cloud storage solution, pCloud is an excellent choice. With its strong security features, flexible pricing, and seamless usability, it is a powerful alternative to mainstream cloud storage providers. Whether for personal use or business needs, pCloud provides an all-encompassing solution to keep your digital life organized and secure.

[liewithm3]

Trump Hotel Cybertruck Explosion Observations

Interesting video, especially at .25 speed.

At the start the front wheel well, and possibly rear wheel well appear to be venting heat to me.

The orange color blast appears underneath the truck, and out the driver's window, before blowing the thin bed cover off, which seems to defy physics, as the explosion would need to travel through the heavy battery at the bottom of the truck, which should take a little more time, I believe.

The battery case would likely be weaker under the driver seat, which is mounted on brackets on top of it, due to repeated flexing from use.

Repeated rapid charging and discharging of the battery also tends to create heat.

If a large quantity of fireworks and propane were actually stored in the bed, which would be possible without the extended range, bed-mounted battery option, that explosion would be secondary.

Total remote control of the Cybertruck, doors, steering, braking, battery conditioning, etc., is possible, and as Elon says, any computer can be hacked.

------

A few possible actors, motives;

Africa: Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: China: Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: EU: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Denmark: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle England: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Finland: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle France: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Germany: Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: India: Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: Iran: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle ISIS: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Israel: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Japan: Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: Korea, N Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Korea, S Harm EV competitor(battery?): involve US in religious/migration war: Netherlands Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Norway: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle Ukraine: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle UN: Draw US into hybrid AI religious/immigration war: Finance lifestyle

Actor/Motive list not exhaustive; Actors may have overlapping interests.

Or, any fanatic mom & pop operation or ruler, with almost any goal, of course.

Official explanation should be interesting.

I'm a bit ill, don't like to dwell on anything, and probably shadow-banned on three or four platforms, so please, don't take it personally if I don't reply to comments.

------

Regarding my possible social media shadow-ban:

I can't claim credit for all my past posts, as some seem vulgar and out of character, and Google has warned me of someone using Android 10 logging in from connections around Keesville NY and Morrisonville NY, closer to where my nearest younger red-headed male sibling, a science teacher and amateur photographer, lives.

Google never provides the offending IP address, however. The concept seems almost foreign.

Keith Parrotte had a Google Pixel 3a, running Android 10, last I knew.

Keith Parrotte sported a Kool Red Afro in high school, and played in the percussion section with me.

My yellow-gold, blue-sapphire (the school color, and coincidentally my birthstone,- Virgo), class ring that honored my class spirit by showcasing my band participation🙂️, went missing when I still lived at home, in the unattached garage with no TV, potable water or bathroom, which he shared with me for a little bit.

I didn't like to wear it to work at the shop. Could lose a finger, or far worse.

The Mount Assumption Yearbook lists us both as K.Parrotte. I graduated with honors, a member of the National Honor Society, on schedule in June 1978.

However, my extended Christian family is full of cheats that study psychology, use everything they know about each other, including switching religious sects (Catholic to Born Again, for instance), so I refuse to jump to conclusions, as the sect changers are also prime suspects, in my book.

My nearest older sibling, Christopher Parrotte, firstborn, also lived with me in the garage and entertained some dubious friends and extended family members (Chris eventually hit the road maintaining USAF runways with the crew that he and my nearest in age male cousin, James Racine, worked with for a summer on Plattsburgh Air Force Base).

He came back about a year later to take a young female, whose mom was quite religious, on the road with him. They married at a justice of the peace, I'm told.

James and his brother Mike became my competitors in the local transportation industry and got involved in real-estate.

Having connections in local government, and the Church, was helpful.

I ceased contact with the entire lot, as even my immediate family members seemed to be abusing my brainwashed parents in an attempt to further their own ambitions, which I couldn't stop, or stand to watch.

[jcmarchi]

The Elusive Definition of ‘Deepfake’

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/the-elusive-definition-of-deepfake/

The Elusive Definition of ‘Deepfake’

A compelling new study from Germany critiques the EU AI Act’s definition of the term ‘deepfake’ as overly vague, particularly in the context of digital image manipulation. The authors argue that the Act’s emphasis on content resembling real people or events – yet potentially appearing fake – lacks clarity.

They also highlight that the Act’s exceptions for ‘standard editing’ (i.e., supposedly minor AI-aided modifications to images) fail to consider both the pervasive influence of AI in consumer applications and the subjective nature of artistic conventions that predate the advent of AI.

Imprecise legislation on these issues gives rise to two key risks: a ‘chilling effect,’ where the law’s broad interpretive scope stifles innovation and the adoption of new systems; and a ‘scofflaw effect,’ where the law is disregarded as overreaching or irrelevant.

In either case, vague laws effectively shift the responsibility of establishing practical legal definitions onto future court rulings – a cautious and risk-averse approach to legislation.

AI-based image-manipulation technologies remain notably ahead of legislation’s capacity to address them, it seems. For instance, one noteworthy example of the growing elasticity of the concept of AI-driven ‘automatic’ post-processing, the paper observes, is the ‘Scene Optimizer’ function in recent Samsung cameras, which  can replace user-taken images of the moon (a challenging subject), with an AI-driven, ‘refined’ image:

Top left, an example from the new paper of a real user-taken image of the moon, to the left of a Samsung-enhanced version automatically created with Scene Optimizer; Right, Samsung’s official illustration of the process behind this; lower left, examples from the Reddit user u/ibreakphotos, showing (left) a deliberately blurred image of the moon and (right), Samsung’s re-imagining of this image – even though the source photo was a picture of a monitor, and not the real moon. Sources (clockwise from top-left): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.09961; https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-galaxy-cameras-combine-super-resolution-technologies-with-ai-to-produce-high-quality-images-of-the-moon/; https:/reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/

In the lower-left of the image above, we see two images of the moon. The one on the left is a photo taken by a Reddit user. Here, the image has been deliberately blurred and downscaled by the user.

To its right we see a photo of the same degraded image taken with a Samsung camera with AI-driven post-processing enabled. The camera has automatically ‘augmented’ the recognized ‘moon’ object, even though it was not the real moon.

The paper levels deeper criticism at the Best Take feature incorporated into Google’s recent smartphones – a controversial AI feature that edits together the ‘best’ parts of a group photo, scanning multiple seconds of a photography sequence so that smiles are shuffled forward or backward in time as necessary – and no-one is shown in the middle of blinking.

The paper contends this kind of composite process has the potential to misrepresent events:

‘[In] a typical group photo setting, an average viewer would probably still consider the resulting photo as authentic. The smile which is inserted existed within a couple of seconds from the remaining photo being taken.

‘On the other hand, the ten second time frame of the best take feature is sufficient for a mood change. A person might have stopped smiling while the rest of the group laughs about a joke at their expense.

‘As a consequence, we assume that such a group photo may well constitute a deep fake.’

The new paper is titled What constitutes a Deep Fake? The blurry line between legitimate processing and manipulation under the EU AI Act, and comes from two researchers at the Computational Law Lab at the University of Tübingen, and Saarland University.

Old Tricks

Manipulating time in photography is far older than consumer-level AI. The new paper’s authors note the existence of much older techniques that can be argued as ‘inauthentic’, such as the concatenation of multiple sequential images into a High Dynamic Range (HDR) photo, or a ‘stitched’ panoramic photo.

Indeed, some of the oldest and most amusing photographic fakes were traditionally created by school-children running from one end of a school group to another, ahead of the trajectory of the special panoramic cameras that were once used for sports and school group photography – enabling the pupil to appear twice in the same image:

The temptation to trick panoramic cameras during group photos was too much to resist for many students, who were willing to risk a bad session at the head’s office in order to ‘clone’ themselves in school photos. Source: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/double-exposure-a-clever-photo-prank-from-half-a-century-ago/

Unless you take a photo in RAW mode, which basically dumps the camera lens sensor to a very large file without any kind of interpretation, it’s likely that your digital photos are not completely authentic. Camera systems routinely apply ‘improvement’ algorithms such as image sharpening and white balance, by default – and have done so since the origins of consumer-level digital photography.

The authors of the new paper argue that even these older types of digital photo augmentation do not represent ‘reality’, since such methods are designed to make photos more pleasing, not more ‘real’.

The study suggests that the EU AI Act, even with later amendments such as recitals 123–27, places all photographic output within an evidentiary framework unsuited to the context in which photos are produced these days, as opposed to the (nominally objective) nature of security camera footage or forensic photography. Most images addressed by the AI Act are more likely to originate in contexts where manufacturers and online platforms actively promote creative photo interpretation, including the use of AI.

The researchers suggest that photos ‘have never been an objective depiction of reality’. Considerations such as the camera’s location, the depth of field chosen, and lighting choices, all contribute to make a photograph deeply subjective.

The paper observes that routine ‘clean-up’ tasks – such as removing sensor dust or unwanted power lines from an otherwise well-composed scene – were only semi-automated before the rise of AI: users had to manually select a region or initiate a process to achieve their desired outcome.

Today, these operations are often triggered by a user’s text prompts, most notably in tools like Photoshop. At the consumer level, such features are increasingly automated without user input – an outcome that is apparently regarded by manufacturers and platforms as ‘obviously desirable’.

The Diluted Meaning of ‘Deepfake’

A central challenge for legislation around AI-altered and AI-generated imagery is the ambiguity of the term ‘deepfake’, which has had its meaning notably extended over the last two years.

Originally the terms applied only to video output from autoencoder-based systems such as DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap, both derived from anonymous code posted to Reddit in late 2017.

From 2022, the coming of Latent Diffusion Models (LDMs) such as Stable Diffusion and Flux, as well as text-to-video systems such as Sora, would also allow identity-swapping and customization, at improved resolution, versatility and fidelity. Now it was possible to create diffusion-based models that could depict celebrities and politicians. Since the term’ deepfake’ was already a headline-garnering treasure for media producers, it was extended to cover these systems.

Later, in both the media and the research literature, the term came also to include text-based impersonation. By this point, the original meaning of ‘deepfake’ was all but lost, while its extended meaning was constantly evolving, and increasingly diluted.

But since the word was so incendiary and galvanizing, and was by now a powerful political and media touchstone, it proved impossible to give up. It attracted readers to websites, funding to researchers, and attention to politicians. This lexical ambiguity is the main focus of the new research.

As the authors observe, article 3(60) of the EU AI Act outlines four conditions that define a ‘deepfake’.

1: True Moon

Firstly, the content must be generated or manipulated, i.e., either created from scratch using AI (generation) or altered from existing data (manipulation). The paper highlights the difficulty in distinguishing between ‘acceptable’ image-editing outcomes and manipulative deepfakes, given that digital photos are, in any case, never true representations of reality.

The paper contends that a Samsung-generated moon is arguably authentic, since the moon is unlikely to change appearance, and since the AI-generated content, trained on real lunar images, is therefore likely to be accurate.

However, the authors also state that since the Samsung system has been shown to generate an ‘enhanced’ image of the moon in a case where the source image was not the moon itself, this would be considered a ‘deepfake’.

It would be impractical to draw up a comprehensive list of differing use-cases around this kind of ad hoc functionality. Therefore the burden of definition seems to pass, once again, to the courts.

2: TextFakes

Secondly, the content must be in the form of image, audio, or video. Text content, while subject to other transparency obligations, is not considered a deepfake under the AI Act. This is not covered in any detail in the new study, though it can have a notable bearing on the effectiveness of visual deepfakes (see below).

3: Real World Problems

Thirdly, the content must resemble existing persons, objects, places, entities, or events. This condition establishes a connection to the real world, meaning that purely fabricated imagery, even if photorealistic, would not qualify as a deepfake. Recital 134 of the EU AI Act emphasizes the ‘resemblance’ aspect by adding the word ‘appreciably’ (an apparent deferral to subsequent legal judgements).

The authors, citing earlier work, consider whether an AI-generated face need belong to a real person, or whether it need only be adequately similar to a real person, in order to satisfy this definition.

For instance, how can one determine whether a sequence of photorealistic images depicting the politician Donald Trump has the intent of impersonation, if the images (or appended texts) do not specifically mention him? Facial recognition? User surveys? A judge’s definition of ‘common sense’?

Returning to the ‘TextFakes’ issue (see above), words often constitute a significant portion of the act of a visual deepfake. For instance, it is possible to take an (unaltered) image or video of ‘person a’, and say, in a caption or a social media post, that the image is of ‘person b’ (assuming the two people bear a resemblance).

In such as case, no AI is needed, and the result may be strikingly effective – but does such a low-tech approach also constitute a ‘deepfake’?

4: Retouch, Remodel

Finally, the content must appear authentic or truthful to a person. This condition emphasizes the perception of human viewers. Content that is only recognized as representing a real person or object by an algorithm would not be considered a deepfake.

Of all the conditions in 3(60), this one most obviously defers to the later judgment of a court, since it does not allow for any interpretation via technical or mechanized means.

There are clearly some inherent difficulties in reaching consensus on such a subjective stipulation. The authors observe, for instance, that different people, and different types of people (such as children and adults), may be variously disposed to believe in a particular deepfake.

The authors further note that the advanced AI capabilities of tools like Photoshop challenge traditional definitions of ‘deepfake.’ While these systems may include basic safeguards against controversial or prohibited content, they dramatically expand the concept of ‘retouching.’ Users can now add or remove objects in a highly convincing, photorealistic manner, achieving a professional level of authenticity that redefines the boundaries of image manipulation.

The authors state:

‘We argue that the current definition of deep fakes in the AI act and the corresponding obligations are not sufficiently specified to tackle the challenges posed by deep fakes. By analyzing the life cycle of a digital photo from the camera sensor to the digital editing features, we find that:

‘(1.) Deep fakes are ill-defined in the EU AI Act. The definition leaves too much scope for what a deep fake is.

‘(2.) It is unclear how editing functions like Google’s “best take” feature can be considered as an exception to transparency obligations.

‘(3.) The exception for substantially edited images raises questions about what constitutes substantial editing of content and whether or not this editing must be perceptible by a natural person.’

Taking Exception

The EU AI Act contains exceptions that, the authors argue, can be very permissive. Article 50(2), they state, offers an exception in cases where the majority of an original source image is not altered. The authors note:

‘What can be considered content in the sense of Article 50(2) in cases of digital audio, images, and videos? For example, in the case of images, do we need to consider the pixel-space or the visible space perceptible by humans? Substantive manipulations in the pixel space might not change human perception, and on the other hand, small perturbations in the pixel space can change the perception dramatically.’

The researchers provide the example of adding a hand-gun to the photo a person who is pointing at someone. By adding the gun, one is changing as little as 5% of the image; however, the semantic significance of the changed portion is notable. Therefore it seems that this exception does not take account of any ‘common-sense’ understanding of the effect a small detail can have on the overall significance of an image.

Section 50(2) also allows exceptions for an ‘assistive function for standard editing’. Since the Act does not define what ‘standard editing’ means, even post-processing features as extreme as Google’s Best Take would seem to be protected by this exception, the authors observe.

Conclusion

The stated intention of the new work is to encourage interdisciplinary study around the regulation of deepfakes, and to act as a starting point for new dialogues between computer scientists and legal scholars.

However, the paper itself succumbs to tautology at several points: it frequently uses the term ‘deepfake’ as if its meaning were self-evident, whilst taking aim at the EU AI Act for failing to define what actually constitutes a deepfake.

First published Monday, December 16, 2024

[enablexio]

How to Choose the Best WebRTC Video Call API Provider: A Comprehensive Guide

WebRTC (Web Real-Time Communication) allows developers to build high-quality video and voice applications that work on web browsers and mobile platforms without needing external plugins. However, with various WebRTC API providers available, selecting the best one can be challenging. This guide will explore the key considerations when choosing a WebRTC API provider and help you identify the best fit for your specific needs.

WebRTC enables peer-to-peer communication for video, audio, and data transfer, making it an invaluable tool for businesses. By using WebRTC, developers can create applications with real-time capabilities essential for modern communication needs. It’s used in various applications such as video calls, live broadcasting, and telemedicine, making it crucial technology for enhancing user engagement.

What is WebRTC Video Call API Providers

WebRTC API providers offer APIs, SDKs, and support tools that allow businesses to integrate video call capabilities into their apps. These providers offer managed services, saving developers time from configuring and managing the underlying infrastructure themselves. This helps businesses go to market faster, providing secure, scalable, and feature-rich video communication.

 Key Features to Look for in a WebRTC API Provider

When assessing WebRTC providers, prioritize features that align with your business needs, such as:

High-Quality Video and Audio: Look for APIs that support HD or even 4K video, adaptive bitrate, and noise suppression.

Screen Sharing: Crucial for collaborative environments such as remote work and online education.

Recording: Built-in recording capabilities ensure that sessions are captured and can be replayed.

Text Chat: Real-time chat alongside video can enhance user experience by offering multi-modal communication.

File Sharing: Enables users to share files during a call, which is especially useful for business meetings and virtual classrooms.

Security and Compliance Considerations

For industries like healthcare, finance, or education, security and compliance are non-negotiable. Ensure your WebRTC provider complies with:

End-to-End Encryption (E2EE): To protect data from unauthorized access.

HIPAA Compliance: Required for healthcare services handling patient information.

GDPR Compliance: Essential for businesses operating in the EU to protect user data privacy.

Data Residency: Some providers allow data storage in specific regions to comply with regulatory requirements.

Scalability and Performance

Select a provider that can accommodate your growing user base without sacrificing performance. Look for:

Auto-scaling Capabilities: Adjusts resources dynamically based on usage.

Load Balancing: Manages traffic efficiently to avoid bottlenecks.

Server Locations: Providers with multiple global data centers reduce latency and improve user experience worldwide.

Ease of Integration and Documentation

A provider with comprehensive documentation, sample code, and robust SDKs will make integration smoother for your developers. Evaluate the quality of:

API Documentation: Clear, detailed, and regularly updated documentation is essential.

Code Samples and Tutorials: Useful for quicker setup and understanding common use cases.

Platform Support: SDKs for different platforms like iOS, Android, and web applications make it easier to implement across devices.

Customization and Flexibility

Many businesses require specific customizations to align the API functionality with their unique use case. Features that support customization include:

UI Components: Ability to customize the look and feel of the video interface.

Feature Control: Options to toggle specific features (e.g., disabling chat or screen sharing).

API Flexibility: Advanced configuration options let you fine-tune the API to meet your exact needs.

Pricing Models and Cost Efficiency

Pricing is often a significant deciding factor. WebRTC API providers usually offer several pricing models, such as:

Pay-as-you-go: Charges are based on actual usage, ideal for fluctuating needs.

Monthly or Annual Subscriptions: Best for predictable, steady use cases.

Custom Pricing for High Volume: Providers may offer discounts for larger, long-term commitments.

Compare prices, but also consider the features included in each pricing tier to ensure cost efficiency without compromising quality.

Technical Support and Developer Community

Robust customer support and an active developer community are invaluable. Consider:

Customer Support Options: Look for 24/7 support, especially if you’re operating globally.

Developer Forums and Communities: Access to peer support and discussions can be a vital resource.

Account Managers: Some providers offer dedicated support to managers for larger accounts.

Review case studies to see how other companies in your industry have successfully implemented the provider’s solutions. These examples can offer insights into:

Provider Expertise: Proven experience in your specific use case.

Scalability: How the provider handled increased usage and scaling needs.

Unique Integrations: Custom solutions developed for clients with similar requirements.

Cross-Platform Compatibility

With users accessing your service from various devices, choose a provider that supports:

Web, iOS, and Android: Ensure consistent experience across platforms.

Browser Compatibility: Providers that support multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) increase accessibility.

Device Optimization: Providers with adaptive bitrate ensure consistent video quality on different devices.

In real-time communication, low latency and high quality are critical. Look for:

Latency Metrics: Check if the provider guarantees latency within specific limits.

Bandwidth Management: Efficient bandwidth use improves call stability and quality.

Audio and Video Optimization: Echo cancellation, noise reduction, and adaptive bitrate are must-have features.

Before committing, most providers offer a trial period or free tier. Utilize these options to test:

Performance and Quality: Assess the quality of calls and stability.

Feature Availability: Explore all the features to see if they meet your requirements.

Scalability: Test scalability features, especially if you anticipate rapid user growth.

Select a provider that’s committed to ongoing development and innovation. Look for:

Regular Updates: Frequent improvements indicate a provider’s commitment to quality.

Future-proofing Features: Technologies like AI integration for video quality improvement or real-time analytics.

Selecting the right WebRTC Video API provider depends on your business’s unique requirements, from security and scalability to customization and support. By considering these factors, you’ll be equipped to choose a provider that aligns with your goals, ensuring reliable, high-quality video experience for your users.

FAQs

Q1: What is WebRTC? WebRTC,

or Web Real-Time Communication, is a technology that enables real-time video, voice, and data sharing directly within web browsers without requiring plugins. It’s widely used in applications that need live communication.

Q2: How is WebRTC API different from WebRTC itself?

WebRTC APIs are offered by providers who simplify and manage WebRTC integration, providing additional features like security, scalability, recording, and support, which can be challenging to implement independently.

Q3: What are the most important features in a WebRTC API for business use?

Key features include high-definition video quality, end-to-end encryption, screen sharing, and seamless cross-platform compatibility. Businesses should also consider compliance with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA.

Q4: Why is end-to-end encryption important in a WebRTC API?

 End-to-end encryption ensures that the data transmitted during video calls remains private and secure, preventing unauthorized access, which is essential for sensitive use cases like telemedicine and finance.

Q5: Are there WebRTC API providers with free tiers?

Yes, several WebRTC API providers offer free tiers or limited free usage plans, allowing businesses to test the service before committing. This can be helpful for startups or companies in the initial testing phase.

Q6: How can I test a WebRTC API provider before committing to a plan?

Most providers offer trial periods or free tiers. You can use this period to assess call quality, scalability, ease of integration, and performance under different conditions to ensure it meets your business requirements.

[noticiassincensura]

The United States is now considering the radical idea of breaking up Google. Europe has been trying for years without success

The U.S. Department of Justice is openly discussing the possibility of breaking up Google into separate companies: Chrome, Android, and the search engine. Google has labeled this idea as “radical” and plans to defend its position in court.

The idea is now officially on the table. Breaking up Google is a real option, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has suggested dividing the tech giant as a potential solution in its ongoing antitrust case. Each of Google’s main businesses — Search, Chrome, and Android — would become separate entities. Google is a massive corporation, and each of its divisions would be a large company on its own.

The Department of Justice argues that this division is necessary to “prevent and restrain monopolistic practices” and ensure there are no “contractual prohibitions, non-discrimination requirements for products, data and interoperability requirements, and structural mandates.”

The Largest Antitrust Challenge for a Big Tech in Decades

A division of Google would have far-reaching effects on the entire industry, impacting not just Google but almost every company that works with them. One of the focal points is Google’s $20 billion annual deal with Apple, which makes Google the default search engine on iPhones. Breaking up Google and ending this deal could significantly reshape the tech landscape.

Google’s Response: “It’s a Radical Proposal”

This is not the first time Google has had to address this idea, but now that the Department of Justice has officially proposed it, the company has issued a formal response. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, described the proposal as “radical” and stated that the company would vigorously defend its position in court.

Google’s Arguments Against a Breakup

Google argues that breaking up the company would negatively impact consumers. Here are its main points:

Privacy and security: Google claims that its search data helps improve security practices.

Artificial intelligence: Google argues that AI is a key technology for the industry and that breaking up the company would stifle innovation.

Chrome and Android are closely linked: Separating them would weaken Google’s ability to compete with Apple and the App Store.

Advertising reach would suffer: Google contends that its ad business helps small companies gain visibility.

Impact on other companies: Google specifically mentions Mozilla and Android phone manufacturers as being at risk.

A Very Real Possibility

The idea of forcing Google to split up is gaining traction in the U.S., and it would have significant implications for the entire tech ecosystem.

Europe has been considering this option since 2014. European regulators first suggested separating Google’s search engine from its other commercial services that year, but despite repeated discussions, the idea has not gained much traction. Last year, Margrethe Vestager issued her own warning to Google, but according to Reuters, the EU’s efforts to break up Google are unlikely to succeed.

With the EU’s competition division currently in transition, all eyes are now on the U.S., where the Department of Justice is pushing for the breakup.