They can detain you and take your device, but they cannot compel you to give up your password, to be clear. As a US Citizen you have a right to re-enter the country.
The letter of the law says you are correct. Reality however disagrees. People who are most definitely US citizens have in fact been put in jail for the simple not-crime of refusing to provide passwords to their devices to law enforcement.
chefs use produce to create dishes of food; chefs do not generally grow their own food. the point they were making is that the code is actually the means to the end, not the end in itself. to wit: i do not write assembly.
This is a common misreading of the law. AI cannot hold authorship of code, but no ruling has claimed so far that ai output itself can't be copyrighted (that I know of)
That said, the article says "Okay, prompts, great. Are they any interesting? Surprisingly... yes. As an example workflow_discovery contains a full 6-phase recipe for mining business processes out of Slack conversations, something that definitely required time and experiments to tune. It's hardcoded business logic, but in prompt instead of code."
So the article author clearly knows this prompt would be copyrighted as it wasn't output from an AI, and recognises that there would have been substantial work involved in creating it.
That Reuters article is misleadingly worded. The Stephen Thaler case in question is because Thaler tried to register the AI itself as the author of the copyright, not that he tried to register the output for copyright under his own name. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/the-f...
Suppose I illicitly get my hands on the source code for a proprietary product. I read through this code I'm not supposed to have. I write up a detailed set of specifications based on it. I hand those specifications off to someone else to do a clean room implementation.
Sure, I didn't have a license for the code that I read. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't taint my coworker's clean room implementation.
>TPM-based measured boot, combined with UEFI Secure Boot, can generate a cryptographically signed attestation ... This is not a complete solution (a sufficiently sophisticated attacker can potentially manipulate attestation)
I was not aware that attackers could potentially manipulate attestation! How could that be done? That would seemingly defeat the point of remote attestation.
Defeating remote attestation will be a key capability in the future. We should be able to fully own our computers without others being able to discriminate against us for it.
Thank you for that link, that's super interesting! It looks like it's actually an architectural vulnerability in modern fTPMs, and considered out of scope by both Intel and AMD. So that's a reliable way to break attestation on even the most modern systems!
Sure, but the exploit presented doesn't really look practical for the everyman. And I'm not sure if it can be patched in HW/SW, and in any case this is just the first step to a fully fake secure boot.
That doesn't sound accurate. The T in TPM stands for trust, the whole standard is about verifying and establishing trust between entities. The standard is designed with the assumption that anyone can bring in their scope and probe the ports. This is one of several reasons why the standard defines endorsement keys(EK).
Actually, it is completely true. The TPM threat model has historically focused on software-based threats and physical attacks against the TPM chip itself - crucially NOT the communications between the chip and the CPU. In the over 20 year history of discrete TPMs, they are largely completely vulnerable to interposer (MITM) attacks and only within the last few years is it being addressed by vendors. Endorsement keys don’t matter because the TPM still has to trust the PCR commands sent to it by the CPU. An interposer can replace tampered PCR values with trusted values and the TPM would have no idea.
It is correct, the measurement command to the TPM is not encrypted. So with MITM you can record the boot measurements, then reset and replay to any step of the boot process. Secrets locked to particular stages of boot are then exposed.
There is guidance on "Active" attacks [1], which is to set up your TPM secrets so they additionally require a signature from a secret stored securely on the CPU. But that only addresses secret storage, and does nothing about the compromised measurements. I also don't know what would be capable of providing the CPU secret for x86 processors besides... an embedded/firmware TPM.
I remember there's a PCI device that's meant to be snooping and manipulating RAM directly by using DMA. Pretty much one computer runs the game and one computer runs the cheat. I think kernel anti cheats are just raising the bar while pretty much being too intrusive
Technically yes, but it would produce an untrusted remote attestation signature (quote). This is roughly equivalent to using TLS with a self-signed certificate — it’s not trusted by anyone else. TPMs have a signing key that’s endorsed by the TPM vendor’s CA.
I'm not sure you can provide an objective (i.e way to show that it is absurd) means of explaining how an AI researcher is making the world a worse place. It's going to come down to disagreeing about some axiom like "is ASI rapidly approaching" or "Is AGI good to have" and there's no right answer to those.
I would say the user task scheduling is one of the things that linux actually does better then windows! (well, nowadays the list is a lot longer but pre windows 11 it was a few). Systemd services are really simple and quite easy to make, and just run a task like you'd expect.
Love that. Has GUI caught up with the technical capabilities though, or do we need to resort to command-line and editing configuration files to schedule a task?
There isn't a GUI that i know of, but the files are very basic text files that don't really need much of a GUI. Creating a service and setting it's timer is maybe 10 lines total. For monitoring the services and seeing how long they take and all that i'm sure there are GUIs but none i know of ottomh.
> Has GUI caught up with the technical capabilities though
on Windows ?
On linux, there is crond. On Windows there was, once upon a time, a Task Scheduler in Accessories. Now it seems to be gone, though, inspecting with Autostart from Sysinternals seems to imply that there still is a Task Scheduler in E
Windows 10.
The data can show anything you want, this is a historical question and there the order of things matters more than anything. If A came before B then B can not have influenced A.
No, according to everything I've read before, the parent post was correct and you're not. This article clearly says "art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law":
Reading the linked Court of Appeals document in that post, the question is posted in the opening: "Can a non-human machine be an author under the Copyright Act of 1976?", which it then answers as no. It doesn't mention elsewhere that i can see that this means the output of the tool itself is not copyrightable. I would not trust the Reuters interpretation without a direct reference to a court document.
Could the prompt used to generate the art be considered human input, or is it that a human must to make some contribution to the art for it to be copyrightable?
Honestly the reason seems quite obvious to me. Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that. Children are getting cyberbullied and predated on while on platforms like Roblox. They're committing suicide after talking to ChatGPT. They're getting all sorts of mental disorders from tiktok and twitter. When you hear day after day the sorts of traumas that kids are going through (ones that are quite real!), it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up". A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something.
This reasoning never made sense to me. What the hell are these kids' parents doing and why is this something that needs to inconvenience everyone else? If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine.
There is no world where hovering over your kid's shoulders 24/7 is practical. What would help would be robust parental controls, but tech companies would never implement those for obvious reasons.
Kids will find a way to sneak around their parents every time, esp. if their friends (or a groomer) introduce them to something "cool". Active parental monitoring alone isn't really a solution.
Automated access control is even worse. Kids explore technology a lot more than their parents do. They will find a work around and share it among their peers. The only real solution is to make them aware of the dangers and hope that it works when combined with parental attention.
Showing your id at a liquor store doesn't have near the same issues of invasion of privacy, and big tech companies sucking down all your information, etc., while knowing your exact identity.
There is a difference between the liquor store checking your ID, and every store you even walk passed, checking your ID just in case you're on the way to try and buy liquor.
That's a disingenuous false equivalence comparison. Checking ID at a store comes with no extra burden. Not so for computing devices. You're talking about everything from fully locking down the boot loader to adding age verification interface on most of the applications. Why do you think people are so worried only about the latter?
Another difference is that internet access has potential advantages for children. There are ways in which they can derive immense value from it. On the contrary, there is no justifiable reason why a child should be allowed to drink.
Please don't rationalize such draconian measures and help them claim legitimacy.
> If lazy parents don't want to monitor their children while they spend all day on their ipads, that's their problem--it shouldn't be made mine.
This comes up all the time when age verification laws (of any kind) are discussed. Notice that this comment is not concerned with the implementation details of age verification laws, it simply rejects them in principle because the poster believes it is solely the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's Internet usage.
Offline age/ID verification is not a false equivalence comparison. Parents have a responsibility to supervise and protect their children from harm, it's true. But as children get older (esp. in their teens) it's critical for their development to have unsupervised time to interact with the world on their own terms. And for this reason most countries have some form of codified social responsibility to supervise and protect children from harm when they are in public spaces. Liquor stores checking ID is one example of that, but there are many others.
Every thread on HN about this topic has people saying it's solely the parents' responsibility to control their children's access to harmful media. I replied to one with what I believe is a good counter-example of this. As of writing this, 3 of the 5 replies to my comment are shifting the goal posts (criticising implementation details, rather than the concept of age verification). 1 is saying ban all kids from the Internet (requires age verification) and 1 is saying allow kids to buy liquor.
Online public spaces are still public spaces, so they share the social responsibility that offline public spaces have to refuse children access and/or protect them from harm.
this is the solution, make internet 21+ and all these problems go away. kids have no business on the internet, there is nothing useful on the internet for kids.
> Most people are getting seriously concerned about how the internet affects children. It's as simple as that.
I'm also extremely concerned about what social media is doing to children's brains and how that manifests in their adulthood. I'm also concerned about how they affect adult brains, because I see it negatively affecting the decisions of even seniors.
But it's not "as simple as that". These sorts of solutions have serious consequences on civil liberty, privacy, security, affordability of general purpose computing, fair-use access to uaeful information, restrictions on state-sponsored information control, etc. This isn't a black-and-white problem.
> it's hard to just say "well, the cure it worse then the disease, suck it up".
Just as the problem is not black-and-white, the solution isn't either. There are a lot of steps to try before that. One is to try an awareness campaign among kids about the dangers of social media. It's a bit arrogant to believe that kids don't care about their own safety. Another is to assist parents with supervision and parental controls. Instead, they just jumped directly to the nuclear option. This kind of rhetorical framing of the opposition hides the likely nefarious intent behind such despotic measures.
> A lot of people assume politicians are just greedy for power and are conspiring to give the government more surveillance power, but the simplest explanation here is that politicians are being screamed at to do something, and this is something.
You paint both parents and politicians as naïve individuals. There are plenty of parents who can see the problem, since they're Gen X and millenials who grew up observing the change. Meanwhile, assumption of incompetence among politicians is defeated by the fact that much public debate about it is missing here. And the fact that multiple states are coming up with similar bills, indicates the influence of lobbyists. Besides, the US politicians are not exactly known for defending the citizen's rights against corporate interests. They deserve a heavy dose of skepticism and criticism, not the benefit of doubt.
Oh no, the solution is not simple at all! The _reasons_ behind why we've gotten to where we are, however, are simple. Politicians get yelled at, they want to fix this, and they take a simple solution that has seriously bad side effects because they are ignorant/stupid/lack knowledge/don't care/choose your own reasons.
That is not something that should be controlled by an IT company, ISP, or an OS. I think parents have a responsibility to control (or at least influence) their childeren's content consumption. Companies like Google and Apple provide built-in parental controls and digital wellbeing apps, you can also use something like OpenDNS or control it via some other means. If a kid has unrestricted internet access and screen time, the parents are being neglectful. Obviously there should be some regulatory action to force companies to not make their apps addictive or harmful in some ways (including to minors), but not through age checks in an OS... The bill is kind of confusing, but from what I understand, it doesn't require ID checks, so as a convenience to not have to worry about kids having access to things they shouldn't it is not that awful (just put any age number you want when configuring OS). But implementing this is impossible (how do you force all programs to not show things that are not for "a user is in any of several age brackets"). It shouldn't be an OS requirement, maybe an optional feature that the state advises major OSs to have. Also some OSs are not for personal use, and nowadays a toaster may have an OS...
reply