Google did something unusual with the announcement of the new Pixel phones. It also announced a new version of Android without even speaking about it directly. These phones run Android 7.1 Nougat, and now the first wave of Nexus owners are getting a look at the new software. Google has continued its Android beta program, so getting up and running on Android 7.1 is a snap, if you’ve got the right device.
Android 7.1 marks the first time Nexus owners aren’t getting the full suite of upgrades from Google. The Pixel phones have some exclusive features, including built-in Google Assistant, the new Pixel Launcher, and fingerprint sensor gestures. However, not all of this is an arbitrary decision to add value to the Pixel. In the case of some features (e.g. fingerprint sensor gestures), there are hardware limitations in existing devices that prevent the feature from working. So, it’s not technically a Pixel-exclusive; there just aren’t any other phones that support it right now.
As for what you can expect in the developer preview, there will be a handful of noticeable changes. For one, touch display responsiveness had been boosted. There’s also a new storage manager that helps you clear old files from your device to get more space for new stuff. Android’s launcher shortcuts, which were previously demoed in the 7.0 preview, are coming back. Although, now they are called “app shortcuts,” which might be the least descriptive name ever. They’re long-press shortcuts that app icons can produce to specific functionality in an app. For example, the camera icon includes links to take a video and take a selfie.
To install the developer preview, you need to have a Nexus 6P, Nexus 5X, or Pixel C. Other Nexus devices like the Nexus 9 and (maybe) Nexus 6 will be added next month. The easiest way to to go to the beta site and sign in with your Google account. There, you’ll be shown eligible devices. Once you choose to enroll one, an OTA update to the developer preview will be pushed down in a few minutes. Doing this will not erase your data, but it’s a preview. Things could go wrong, so back everything up to be safe.
If you want to handle the process manually, there are full system images available for download. This doesn’t require joining the beta, and you can install them even if you’re running a third-party ROM. You will need the Android SDK working on your computer, and your device’s bootloader needs to be unlocked. This will delete everything on your device, by the way.
While this is technically for developers, plenty of enthusiasts are installing the beta too. It’s a pretty smooth process, and you can get a look at Android 7.1 before almost everyone else. Google is planning to have a final version of Android 7.1 available on Nexus devices by late this year or early next.
f you’ve been on Facebook recently, you might well have seen a status update warning users that their entire Facebook history will become public unless they copy and paste the message onto their own page.
According to the message, “Channel 13 News” (nope, us neither), have reported on the change to Facebook’s privacy policy, which will become effective from “tomorrow”.
The message goes on to declare that by posting it, the user is forbidding Facebook from making their profile public, and if Facebook ignores it, the message continues, it will be violating laws including the Rome Statute and the UCC 1-308.
Here it is in full:
Everything you've ever posted becomes public from tomorrow. Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook's privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future.
With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute).
NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tactically allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. DO NOT SHARE. Copy and paste to be on the safe side.
It’s a hoax
If you’re worried about your privacy on Facebook, and thinking of sharing this message, don’t. It’s one of a number of viral Facebook hoaxes, presumably created entirely for the enjoyment of the hoaxer.
While not the first time the post has been widely shared, it appears to be snowballing once again – as a cursory Facebook search shows. It appears to have gone viral in India, and then in true information-age style, effortlessly spread to the UK.
Luckily, Facebook has somewhat more sophisticated security controls, checks and balances than requiring users to copy and paste important-sounding messages. The site has a data policy that governs how information is shared, and states that users select what information is public and private. Only users can turn their posts, photos and so on from private to public.
Besides, citing the Rome Statute (global laws from the International Criminal Court covering war crimes and genocide) and the UCC (the USUniform Commercial Code), probably isn’t going to do much good.Facebook responded to the hoax status on Wednesday, saying: “You may have seen a post telling you to copy and paste a notice to retain control over things you share on Facebook. Don't believe it. You own your content and can control how it is shared through your privacy settings.”
How to protect your privacy
If you are concerned about the privacy settings on Facebook, there are ways of managing who can see what.
You can find out how to see what your profile looks like to a stranger, change all your posts to private, and make it more difficult to be found by following our guide here.
After Samsung's Note 7 fiasco, now it seems Apple's iPhone 7 has allegedly burst into flames and damaged a car in New South Wales, Australia.
7 News reported that a surfer Mat Jones had left his phone under a bunch of clothes in his car while he went to surf. When he returned, his car was filled with smoke, with the phone having ignited and damaged the interior of the car.
Jones told 7 News, "Ash was just coming from inside the pants which then, once you unwrapped the pants, the phone was just melting inside of it."
Apple is investigating the incident but so far all reports is just speculation.
Samsung pulled the plug on its newest Note device for good earlier this month after weeks of reports of exploding devices all over the world.
Does this spell trouble for the newly launched iPhone 7?
To find context ahead of Tuesday's showdown between Apple and Samsung in the US Supreme Court, you need to go back over a century to a row over some rather attractive carpets.
It's 1885, and John and James Dobson stand accused of nicking designs from other carpet makers and selling them off as their own.
A couple of companies, Hartford Carpet and Bigelow Carpet, were so incensed they took the Dobsons all the way to the highest court in the land.
The firms were quite right to be upset, the Supreme Court agreed, but then it got more complicated. The court hit a stumbling block over the amount of money the firms deserved in damages.
The issue was that the judges couldn't determine precisely how valuable design was when compared with everything else that goes into making a nice carpet. A lovely design on a poor quality rug wouldn't sell, after all.
And so it meant the companies got just six cents each. Which, even back then, was pitiful. Nominal damages.
This caught the eye of Connecticut senator Orville Platt who, pressured by worried carpet makers, lobbied Congress to amend the Patent Act to make sure design patents were given more weight. By 1887, those changes were written into law.
iPhone row
Senator Platt was looking to protect the interests of a thriving local industry - and he certainly achieved that.
But he also put in place the framework that means, 129 years on, Samsung and Apple find themselves arguing over the very same principle.
In 2011 Apple accused Samsung of being the Dobson brothers of the smartphone world, pinching three bits of iPhone design and using them in several Samsung devices.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionApple successfully argued that Samsung stole elements of the iPhone design
Specifically, Apple argued that Samsung copied the device's round corners, its bezel, and the app grid of icons when the phone is switched on.
Last year a court agreed with Apple, and so the amendment backed by carpet saviour Senator Platt was put into play.
The amendment that said if a company is found to have infringed a design patent, it must pay out all of the profit it made in damages or $250, whichever amount is greater.
It'll come as no surprise that Samsung had to do the former. The profit on the devices was deemed to be $548m (£362m), and in December the court ordered Samsung to pay that amount to Apple in full, which it did. But Samsung now feels it should be given back at least $399m.
Form over function
Several thousand cases are referred to the Supreme Court of the United States every year, but it actually only hears fewer than 100. The cases are picked carefully and as a last resort - if there is no acceptable precedent in law, that's when the Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, if you will, steps in.
Clearly, the decision over the complexity of carpet won't cut it in today's modern world. It didn't even cut it in 1885.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionSamsung is hoping to reduce the damages by several hundred million
And so the judges have taken this on to set a new precedent over punishment for infringing a design patent. It's not considering if Samsung is guilty of copying Apple (it did), but rather how much money Apple is entitled to receive.
The question the judges are essentially asking is: why do people buy a certain phone? Is it because of how it looks, or how it functions?
Samsung says it's mostly the latter, and therefore the damages should be a lot lower as there's an awful lot more work that goes into a phone beyond its aesthetics.
Apple takes the opposite view - it's the iconic design of the iPhone that had if flying off the shelves, it argues, and so if Samsung stole that design then that profit money should surely be Apple's.
Apple's gamble
We won't know the Supreme Court's decision until June 2017. But speculation among those in the know sides with Samsung in that it makes the most sense that Samsung should pay some damages, but not the entirety of its profit on the device sales.
"That would be the understanding the majority of law professors would advocate for," suggested Prof Andrea Matwyshyn from Northwestern University in Boston.
She said while design of, say, a carpet could be considered the be-all-and-end-all of its success, a smartphone is a far more complex device. Design is important, but not the only factor.
Image copyrightUS PATENT OFFICEImage captionOne of the other stolen carpet designs from 1885 - but will Supreme Court update its view on design patents?
Samsung has had support from its technology peers - most notably Facebook and Google parent company Alphabet.
Apple has backing too - Calvin Klein has lent its support, as have Adidas and jewellery maker Tiffany and Co.
The fact that Apple is pushing for full damages is a strategy that suggests extreme confidence in its ability to stay ahead of the curve in technology, Prof Matwyshyn said.
"It is a corporate decision that should be approached with thoughtfulness and caution, because the future of innovation is always uncertain.
"Tomorrow's devices may bring an unanticipated set of legal challenges.
"It's possible they view their own corporate culture so forward looking that they think it's more likely their designs will be used by others, rather than ever being on the defendant side."
Next steps
Tuesday's hearing will be 90 minutes long - each side will have a chance to put forth its view, and the US Justice Department will also have its say.
It's expected that the Justice Department's view will be that the law should be interpreted with greater flexibility, with more power given to lower courts to determine whether all of the profit should be awarded as damages.
That should be taken on a case-by-case basis that allows regional court judges to consider how integral certain design features are to the product as a whole.
If the Supreme Court accepts Samsung's appeal, the matter will be referred down to a federal court to determine what the damages should be - and potentially how cases like this will be dealt with in future.
Apple has complained of a "flood" of counterfeit goods masquerading as its products being sold on Amazon.com.
The claim relates to items sold via Amazon's "fulfilment" scheme, whereby third parties list their goods on the retail giant's site, store their inventory in its warehouses and rely on it for deliveries.
Apple warns the alleged fakes are potentially life-threatening.
But it is suing one of the vendors rather than Amazon itself.
The defendant, New York-based Mobile Star LLC, could not be reached for comment and has yet to file its own legal paperwork.
"Mobile Star has been deceiving Apple customers and putting their safety at risk by selling counterfeit power adapters," an Apple spokesman told the BBC.
"They have ignored our repeated requests, so we are taking legal action to get them to stop."
Amazon says it takes such matters seriously.
"Amazon has zero tolerance for the sale of counterfeits on our site," a spokeswoman told the BBC.
"We work closely with manufacturers and brands and pursue wrongdoers aggressively."
Apple said it had bought "well over" 100 iPhone devices, own-brand power adapters and charging cables, and had found almost 90% of them were fakes.
"Unlike genuine Apple products, they are not subjected to industry-standard consumer safety testing and are poorly constructed with inferior or missing components, flawed design and inadequate electrical insulation," it said.
"These counterfeits have the potential to overheat, catch fire and deliver a deadly shock to consumers while in normal use."
Image copyrightAPPLEImage captionApple's lawyers highlighted this review in which an Amazon shopper had complained of their charger catching fire
It added that customers might be fooled into believing the products were safe because Amazon was perceived to be one of the US's most trustworthy companies.
"Consumers, relying on Amazon.com's reputation, have no reason to suspect the power products they purchased... are anything but genuine."
One blogger who has previously highlighted what he calls "Amazon's fraudulent seller problem" suggested Apple should be more aggressive in its effort to tackle the issue.
"I can certainly see why Apple is suing Mobile Star," wrote John Gruber.
"But why not sue Amazon too?
"This is shameful. I've known for a while never to trust anything merely 'fulfilled by Amazon', but I'm actually surprised that even the 'Apple' branded chargers... are dangerous counterfeits as well."
Hackers used internet-connected home devices, such as CCTV cameras and printers, to attack popular websites on Friday, security analysts say.
Twitter, Spotify, and Reddit were among the sites taken offline on Friday.
Each uses a company called Dyn, which was the target of the attack, to direct users to its website.
Security analysts now believe the attack used the "internet of things" - web-connected home devices - to launch the assault.
Dyn is a DNS service - an internet "phone book" which directs users to the internet address where the website is stored. Such services are a crucial part of web infrastructure.
On Friday, it came under attack - a distributed denial of service (DDoS) - which relies on thousands of machines sending co-ordinated messages to overwhelm the service.
The "global event" involved "tens of millions" of internet addresses.
Security firm Flashpoint said it had confirmed that the attack used "botnets" infected with the "Mirai" malware.
Many of the devices involved come from Chinese manufacturers, with easy-to-guess usernames and passwords that cannot be changed by the user - a vulnerability which the malware exploits.
"Mirai scours the Web for IoT (Internet of Things) devices protected by little more than factory-default usernames and passwords," explained cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs, "and then enlists the devices in attacks that hurl junk traffic at an online target until it can no longer accommodate legitimate visitors or users."
The owner of the device would generally have no way of knowing that it had been compromised to use in an attack, he wrote.
Mr Krebs is intimately familiar with this type of incident, after his website was targeted by a similar assault in September, in one of the biggest web attacks ever seen.
Have hackers turned my printer into an offensive weapon?
Do smart devices mean dumb security?
Media affected by attack - Leo Kelion, technology desk editor
It has emerged that the BBC's website was also briefly caught up in Friday's attack. The BBC is not a customer of Dyn itself, but it does use third-party services that rely on the domain name system hosting facilities provided by Dyn.
I understand that these include Amazon Web Services - the retail giant's cloud computing division - and Fastly - a San Francisco-based firm that helps optimise page download times.
Both companies have acknowledged being disrupted by the DDoS assault. Only some BBC users, in certain locations, would have experienced problems and they did not last long.
It serves as a reminder that despite the internet being a hugely robust communications system, there are still some pinch points that mean a targeted attack can cause widespread damage.
The incidents mark a change in tactics for online attackers.
DDoS attacks are typically aimed at a single website. Friday's attack on Dyn, which acts as a directory service for huge numbers of firms, affected several of the world's most popular websites at once.
The use of internet-connected home devices to send the attacking messages is also a relatively new phenomenon, but may become more common.
The Mirai software used in these attacks was released publicly in September - which means anyone with the skill could build their own attacking botnet.
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCKImage captionAny number of home devices could be used in such attacks - so long as they're connected to the internet
On social media, many researchers and analysts expressed frustration with the security gap being exploited by attackers.
"Today we answered the question 'what would happen if we connected a vast number of cheap, crummy embedded devices to broadband networks?'" wrote Matthew Green, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute.
Jeff Jarmoc, head of security for global business service Salesforce, pointed out that internet infrastructure is supposed to be more robust.
"In a relatively short time we've taken a system built to resist destruction by nuclear weapons and made it vulnerable to toasters," he tweeted
Dyn is a DNS service - an internet "phone book" which directs users to the internet address where the website is stored. Such services are a crucial part of web infrastructure.
On Friday, it came under attack - a distributed denial of service (DDoS) - which relies on thousands of machines sending co-ordinated messages to overwhelm the service.
The "global event" involved "tens of millions" of internet addresses.
Security firm Flashpoint said it had confirmed that the attack used "botnets" infected with the "Mirai" malware.
Many of the devices involved come from Chinese manufacturers, with easy-to-guess usernames and passwords that cannot be changed by the user - a vulnerability which the malware exploits.
"Mirai scours the Web for IoT (Internet of Things) devices protected by little more than factory-default usernames and passwords," explained cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs, "and then enlists the devices in attacks that hurl junk traffic at an online target until it can no longer accommodate legitimate visitors or users."
The owner of the device would generally have no way of knowing that it had been compromised to use in an attack, he wrote.
Media affected by attack - Leo Kelion, technology desk editor
It has emerged that the BBC's website was also briefly caught up in Friday's attack. The BBC is not a customer of Dyn itself, but it does use third-party services that rely on the domain name system hosting facilities provided by Dyn.
I understand that these include Amazon Web Services - the retail giant's cloud computing division - and Fastly - a San Francisco-based firm that helps optimise page download times.
Both companies have acknowledged being disrupted by the DDoS assault. Only some BBC users, in certain locations, would have experienced problems and they did not last long.
It serves as a reminder that despite the internet being a hugely robust communications system, there are still some pinch points that mean a targeted attack can cause widespread damage.
The incidents mark a change in tactics for online attackers.
DDoS attacks are typically aimed at a single website. Friday's attack on Dyn, which acts as a directory service for huge numbers of firms, affected several of the world's most popular websites at once.
The use of internet-connected home devices to send the attacking messages is also a relatively new phenomenon, but may become more common.
The Mirai software used in these attacks was released publicly in September - which means anyone with the skill could build their own attacking botnet.
Image copyrightTHINKSTOCKImage captionAny number of home devices could be used in such attacks - so long as they're connected to the internet
On social media, many researchers and analysts expressed frustration with the security gap being exploited by attackers.
"Today we answered the question 'what would happen if we connected a vast number of cheap, crummy embedded devices to broadband networks?'" wrote Matthew Green, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute.
Jeff Jarmoc, head of security for global business service Salesforce, pointed out that internet infrastructure is supposed to be more robust.
"In a relatively short time we've taken a system built to resist destruction by nuclear weapons and made it vulnerable to toasters," he tweeted
