Following a US case dating back to 2017 which led to Apple admitting that it has deliberately slowed down some older models of iPhones (throttling), a settlement for compensation payments to affected iPhone owners has been reached.

After agreeing in 2020 to pay, this settlement of the lawsuit means that each of the 5.5 million complainants will receive £72 from Apple’s agreed £394m ($500m) total payout pot.

Unfortunately for Apple, it is still facing another class action lawsuit led by market researcher Justin Gutmann on behalf of 24 million British iPhone users over a similar throttling issue following an update. If it loses, Apple could face an £853 million ($1.03 billion) payout.

Online protection company McAfee’s Mobile Research Team has identified a list of malicious apps that Android owners should immediately delete. This is because they use Xamalicious malware to build a stealth backdoor, infect, and take over devices.

The apps, which have now been removed from the Google Play store, are reported to have been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.

Detailed information about how each of the apps infects devices, and a list of the 13 malicious apps that were present in the Google Play Store can be found on McAfee’s website here.

The advice is to avoid using apps that require accessibility services unless there is a genuine need for their use, install security software on your device, always keep the security software up to date.

An online map from non-profit climate science organisation ‘Climate Central’ shows which areas of the UK could be underwater due to climate change by 2050.

Sea Level Rise 

As highlighted in a 2021 report by Benjamin H Strauss et al, if a high emissions scenario raised global temperatures by 4 ∘C warming, this could produce an 8.9 m global sea level rise within a roughly 200 to 2000-year envelope, that could submerge at least 50 major cities!

First Unveiled In 2020 

It was back in 2020 when Climate Central’ s CoastalDEM digital model and warnings that sea levels may rise between 2-7ft by the end of the century first illustrated how and why many UK coastal areas could end up submerged i by 2050. It also highlighted the point that how high the sea level rises depends on how much warming pollution humanity dumps into the atmosphere.

The Latest 

Climate Central’s latest update to the model, highlighted in its new ‘Flooded Future: Global vulnerability to sea level rise worse than previously understood’ report, suggests that predictions have got worse. The report, which includes the map, explains the basic sea level rise cause, saying: “As humanity pollutes the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the planet warms” and that “as it does so, ice sheets and glaciers melt and warming sea water expands, increasing the volume of the world’s oceans.” 

However, as indicated by the new report’s title, it goes on to explain, with the help of its flooding map, that it is now thought that even if moderate’ reductions are made to the amount of human-made pollution, and with a ‘medium’ amount of ‘luck’ with weather events, vast swathes of the UK look likely to become submerged.

In fact, the report suggests that globally, by 2050, land that’s currently home to 300 million people will fall below the elevation of an average annual coastal flood and, by 2100, land now home to 200 million people could sit permanently below the high tide line. Based on the current CoastalDEM, Climate Central reports that around 10 million people currently live on land below the high-tide line.

What The Map Shows 

The updated map, included in the report shows (using red markings for submerged areas), shows that by 2050, areas of the UK most likely to be affected by serious flooding and/or being completely under water include:

– London’s River Thames area (flagged as a danger zone).

– The River Severn (in the South West) either side of the estuary from Taunton up to Tewkesbury, and back to Cardiff on the northern bank.

– Large areas of the Lincolnshire and Norfolk coast, into Cambridgeshire.

– Large areas around the Humber Estuary in the North of England.

The interactive map, entitled the “Coastal Risk Screening Tool” can be viewed online here.

Challenges 

Some of the key challenges to accurate predictions of submerged areas have been not knowing how much warming pollution is being dumped into the atmosphere and how quickly the land-based ice sheets in Greenland and especially Antarctica will destabilise / are destabilising. It’s also very difficult to accurately project where and when the sea level rise could lead to increased/permanent flooding, and be able to compare sea level rise against land elevations, given that accurate elevation data is generally unavailable, inaccessible, and/or too expensive

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation? 

One of the many worrying aspects of global warming is around melting of the world’s ice caps and the expansion of the warmer oceans leading to a rise in sea level and serious flooding. Having a map based on up-to-date data that shows where the worst flooding could be will be a useful tool in terms of helping to raise awareness about the threat and its potential consequences and in planning to help mitigate its effects where possible.

In the UK, the fact that the Thames is flagged by the map and reported as being a danger zone has caused alarm. The effects of flooding of the kind highlighted on Climate Central’s map could range from near-term increases in coastal flooding damaging infrastructure and crops to the permanent displacement of whole coastal communities. Although many coastal areas have existing coastal defences, the Climate Central map indicates that these may not be enough to deal with future sea levels, thereby giving a serious heads-up to the need for planning and action for next steps. For example, more adaptive and expensive measures may be needed such as the construction of levees and other defences or, in the worst cases, relocation to higher ground could be the only way to lessen some of the threats.

One of the key points of the report and the map is to make people understand that the amount by which the sea level will rise (and flooding will occur) depends upon how much greenhouse gasses are dumped into the atmosphere by human activity. The conclusion, therefore, must be that changing our behaviour to minimise our carbon footprint and really focusing on meeting climate targets is the only way to minimise the damage to the planet, reduce global warming, and hopefully reduce the risk of disappearing beneath the waves. Although there was a pledge at the COP28 summit in Dubai last year, to ‘transition away’ from the use of fossil fuels, many people are aware that the clock is really ticking on this most fundamental issue.

If you have a document in Microsoft Word that you’d like to convert to a more readable, book-like format, reducing distractions and allowing you to really focus on the content, here’s how:

Open the document in Microsoft Word.

Go to the ‘View’ tab (top left) and select ‘Read Mode.’

This tidies away the menus and distractions at the side, but leaves the edit and other options in a drop-down (top right).

It’s been reported that The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging that they used millions of its articles without permission to help train chatbots.

The First 

It’s understood that the New York Times (NYT) is the first major US media organisation to sue ChatGPT’s creator OpenAI, plus tech giant Microsoft (which is also an OpenAI investor and creator of Copilot), over copyright issues associated with its works.

Main Allegations 

The crux of the NYT’s argument appears to be that the use of its work to create GenAI tools should come with permission and an agreement that reflects the fair value of the work. Also, it’s important in this case to note that the NYT relies on digital subscriptions rather than physical newspaper subscriptions, of which it now has 9 million+ subscribers (the relevance of which will be clear below).

With this in mind, in addition to the main allegation of training AI on its articles without permission (for free), other main allegations made by the NYT about OpenAI and Microsoft in relation to the lawsuit include :

– OpenAI and Microsoft may be trying to get a “free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism” by using it to provide another way to deliver information to readers, i.e. a way around its payment wall. For example, the NYT alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft chatbots gave users near-verbatim excerpts of its articles. The NYT’s legal team have given examples of these, such as restaurant critic Pete Wells’ 2012 review of Guy Fieri’s (of Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives fame) “Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar”. The NYT argues that this threatens its high-quality journalism by reducing readers’ perceived need to visit its website, thereby reducing its web traffic, and potentially reducing its revenue from advertising and from the digital subscriptions that now make up most of its readership.

– Misinformation from OpenAI’s (and Microsoft’s) chatbots, in the form of errors and so-called ‘AI hallucinations’ make it harder for readers to tell fact from fiction, including when their technology falsely attributes information to the newspaper. The NYT’s legal team cite examples of where this may be the case, such as ChatGPT once falsely attributing two recommendations for office chairs to its Wirecutter product review website.

“Fair Use” And Transformative 

In their defence, Open AI and Microsoft appear likely to be relying mainly on the arguments that the training of AI on NYT’s content amounts to “fair use” and the outputs of the chatbots are “transformative.”

For example, under US law, “fair use” is a doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission or payment, especially for purposes like criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Determining whether a specific use qualifies as fair use, however, will involve considering factors like the purpose and character of the usage. For example, the use must be “transformative”, i.e. adding something new or altering the original work in a significant way (often for a different purpose). OpenAI and Microsoft may therefore argue that training their AI products could potentially be seen as transformative as the AI uses the newspaper content in a way that is different from the original purpose of news reporting or commentary. However, the NYT has already stated that: “There is nothing ‘transformative’ about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it”. Any evidence of verbatim outputs may also damage the ‘transformative’ argument for OpenAI and Microsoft.

Complicated 

Although these sound like relatively clear arguments either way, there are several factors that add to the complication of this case. These include:

– The fact that OpenAI altered its products following copyright issues, thereby making it difficult to decide whether its outputs are currently enough to find liability.

– Many possible questions about the journalistic, financial, and legal implications of generative AI for news organisations.

– Broader ethical and practical dilemmas facing media companies in the age of AI.

What Is It Going To Cost? 

Given reports that talks between all three companies to avert the lawsuit have failed to resolve the matter, what the NYT wants is:

Damages of an as yet undisclosed sum, which some say could be in the $billions (given that OpenAI is valued at $80 billion and Microsoft has invested $13 billion in a for-profit subsidiary).

For OpenAI and Microsoft to destroy the chatbot models and training sets that incorporate the NYT’s material.

Many Other Examples

AI companies like OpenAI are now facing many legal challenges of a similar nature, e.g. the scraping/automatic collection of online content/data by AI without compensation, and for other related reasons. For example:

– A class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of scraping personal data from internet users, alleging violations of privacy, intellectual property, and anti-hacking laws. The plaintiffs claim that this practice violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

– Google has been accused in a class-action lawsuit of misusing large amounts of personal information and copyrighted material to train its AI systems. This case raises issues about the boundaries of data use and copyright infringement in the context of AI training.

– A Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt class action claims that these companies used copyrighted images to train their AI systems without permission. The key issue in this lawsuit is likely to be whether the training of AI models with copyrighted content, particularly visual art, constitutes copyright infringement. The challenge lies in proving infringement, as the generated art may not directly resemble the training images. The involvement of Large-scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network (LAION) in compiling images used for training adds another layer of complexity to the case.

– Back in February 2023, Getty Images sued Stability AI alleging that it had copied 12 million images to train its AI model without permission or compensation.

The Actors and Writers Strike 

The recent strike by Hollywood actors and writers is another example of how fears about AI, consent, and copyright, plus the possible effects of AI on eroding the value of people’s work and jeopardising their income are now of real concern. For example, the strike was primarily focused on concerns regarding the use of AI in the entertainment industry. Writers, represented by the Writers Guild of America, were worried about AI being used to write or complete scripts, potentially affecting their jobs and pay. Actors, under SAG-AFTRA, protested against proposals to use AI to scan and use their likenesses indefinitely without ongoing consent or compensation.

Disputes like this, and the many lawsuits against AI companies highlight the urgent need for clear policies and regulations on AI’s use, and the fear that AI’s advance is fast outstripping the ability for laws to keep up.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

We’re still very much at the beginning of a fast-evolving generative AI revolution. As such, lawsuits against AI companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI are now challenging the legal limits of gathering training material for AI models from public databases. These types of cases are likely to help to shape the legal framework around what is permissible in the realm of data-scraping for AI purposes going forward.

The NYT/OpenAI/Microsoft lawsuit and other examples, therefore, demonstrate the evolving legal landscape as courts now try to grapple with the implications of AI technology on copyright, privacy, and data use laws, and its complexities. Each case will contribute to defining the boundaries and acceptable practices in the use of online content for AI training purposes, and it will be very interesting to see whether arguments like “fair use” are enough to stand up to the pressure from multiple companies and industries. It will also be interesting to see what penalties (if things go the wrong way for OpenAI and others) will be deemed suitable, both in terms of possible compensation and/or the destruction of whole models and training sets.

For businesses (who are now able to create their own specialised, tailored chatbots), these major lawsuits should serve as a warning to be very careful in the training of their chatbots and to think carefully about any legal implications, and to focus on creating chatbots that are not just effective but are also likely to be compliant.

Following news that Google may need to pay $5 billion over tracking millions of people who thought they were browsing privately through incognito mode, we look at what incognito mode actually does.

Incognito Mode 

Different browsers have different names for ‘private browsing mode’ including ‘InPrivate browsing’ (Edge), ‘Private’ for Firefox (Mozilla) and Safari, and ‘Incognito’ for Google Chrome.

Those who use Google’s Chrome browser will know that in addition to browsing via a normal window, clicking/tapping on the three dots (top right) allows you to open another browser window in ‘incognito mode.’

Incognito mode is essentially just a setting on your web browser that allows you to go undercover (to an extent) when browsing the internet. It works by removing local data from web browsing sessions, i.e. browsing is recorded in your local search history (any cookies which a website attempts to upload to your computer are deleted or blocked). In incognito mode, other trackers, temporary files, and third-party toolbars are also disabled. An incognito window is not signed to any accounts so can’t be tracked by them. However, in incognito mode a user’s IP address can still be tracked.

Google says of incognito mode: “When you browse privately, other people who use the device won’t see your history. Chrome doesn’t save your browsing history or information entered in forms. Cookies and site data are remembered while you’re browsing, but deleted when you exit Incognito mode.” 

Therefore, when you use incognito mode:

– Your browsing history is (supposedly) private (i.e. it’s not recorded).

– Cookies are deleted, helping to keep your personal preferences private, and hopefully preventing the resulting targeted adverts.

– You can sign into multiple accounts simultaneously, e.g. you can log into a work-related account in an incognito window while also being logged into a separate personal account at the same site in a normal window.

Does Google Still Track You In Incognito Mode? 

Google can still track you in Incognito mode, however the tracking mechanisms are different from regular browsing. Although incognito mode primarily prevents your browsing history, cookies, and site data from being saved on your device, it doesn’t make you invisible online. For example, the fact that your IP address is still visible means that your activities can still be visible to websites you visit, your employer, and your ISP. This means that while Incognito mode offers more privacy from other users of your device, it does not offer complete anonymity online.

The Recent Case 

The recent case involving Google, where the company has agreed to a settlement (to be finalised on February 24) could see it pay out $5 billion following a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit claimed that Google had secretly tracked millions of people who’d been using Incognito Mode between 2016 and 2020.

It’s been reported that when the lawsuit was first submitted, even Google’s own staff joked about how ‘un-private’ the incognito mode was. The lawsuit stated that: “Through its pervasive data tracking business, Google knows who your friends are, what your hobbies are, what you like to eat, what movies you watch, where and when you like to shop, what your favourite vacation destinations are, what your favourite colour is, and even the most intimate and potentially embarrassing things you browse on the internet – regardless of whether you follow Google’s advice to keep your activities ‘private’.” 

How Can You Browse Privately? 

Given that Incognito mode is not completely private, other measures that users can take when they want to browse privately / make browsing more private include:

– Using private browsers. For example, there are now a number of private browsers available, such as DuckDuckGo, Epic, and Brave.

– Using privacy extensions for browsers. These include Privacy Badger, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, Cookie AutoDelete, and more, although some of these are more focused on blocking cookies and tracking.

– Using a VPN to encrypt traffic, and hide your IP address, although they don’t protect you from being tracked, from cookies, from user-agent strings, or through the accounts they are logged into (e.g. Google).

– Adjusting browser settings to block tracking cookies, and regularly deleting browser cookies and cache to remove tracking data and browsing history stored on the device.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

The main point to remember is that incognito mode is not completely private because your IP address is still visible. This means that your activities can still be visible to the websites you visit, your employer, and your ISP. Also, the Google case highlights what a grey area the ‘incognito’ name seems to be, and one of the questions in the case has been whether Google actually made a legally binding promise not to collect users’ data when they browsed in private / incognito mode.

Achieving complete privacy while browsing the internet is actually quite a challenge due to the interconnected and complex nature of online services and the widespread use of tracking technologies. Most websites and online services collect user data for various purposes, such as personalising content, advertising, or analytics. This data collection is often deeply integrated into the infrastructure of the web, making it difficult to avoid entirely.

Therefore, perhaps the most realistic way for users to enhance their privacy is a multi-layered approach. Using a reliable Virtual Private Network (VPN) is a good start, as it encrypts internet traffic and masks the user’s IP address, making it harder for third parties to track online activities. Also, using privacy-focused browsers and search engines, disabling tracking cookies, and regularly clearing browsing history and caches can further reduce one’s digital footprint. However, it’s important to understand that these measures improve privacy but do not guarantee complete anonymity. For instance, a VPN hides your IP address from websites but the VPN provider itself can see your internet traffic unless it enforces a strict no-logs policy. Similarly, while privacy-focused browsers limit tracking, they don’t completely eliminate the possibility of data collection by websites or internet service providers.