"[N]ow, after SCO went bankrupt; court after court dismissing SCO's crazy copyright claims; and closing in on 20-years into the saga, the U.S. District Court of Utah has finally put a period to the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit," writes ZDNet's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. From the report: According to the Court, since: "All claims and counterclaims in this matter, whether alleged or not alleged, pleaded or not pleaded, have been settled, compromised, and resolved in full, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Motion is GRANTED. All claims and counterclaims in this action, whether alleged or not alleged, pleaded or not pleaded, have been settled, compromised, and resolved in full, and are DISMISSED with prejudice and on the merits. The parties shall bear their own respective costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The Clerk is directed to close the action." Finally!

Earlier, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which has been overseeing SCO's bankruptcy had announced that the TSG Group, which represents SCO's debtors, has settled with IBM and resolved all the remaining claims between TSG and IBM: "Under the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to resolve all disputes between them for a payment to the Trustee [TLD], on behalf of the Estates [IBM], of $14,250,000." In return, TLD gives up all rights and interests in all litigation claims pending or that may be asserted in the future against IBM and Red Hat, and any allegations that Linux violates SCO's Unix intellectual property. "While we're one step closer, the SCO lawsuits still live on just like one of those Halloween monsters that just won't die," concludes Vaughan-Nichols, noting the lawsuit Xinuos filed against IBM and Red Hat in March for allegedly copying their software code for its server operating systems. "But, in this go-around, there aren't many people in the audience."

UPDATED: Earlier this week ZDNet reported that Facebook's parent company Meta "has granted the Kazakhstan government direct access to its content reporting system," as part of a joint agreement to work on removing content that is deemed harmful on social network platforms like Facebook and Instagram," with the agreement focusing on protecting children.

But the Washington Post clarified tonight that in fact Kazakhstan's statement "was apparently released independent of Facebook." Meta spokesman Ben McConaghy said in an email that the company has "a dedicated online channel for governments around the world to report content to us that they believe violates local law."

"We follow a consistent global process to assess individual requests — independent from any government — in line with Facebook's policies, local laws and international human rights standards," he added. "This process is the same in Kazakhstan as it is for other countries around the world."
Here's ZDNet's original report: In a joint statement, the Ministry of Information and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the social media giant said the agreement, which is the first of its kind in Central Asia, would help increase the efficiency and effectiveness to counter the spread of illegal content. Giving the Kazakhstan government access to its content reporting system will allow the government to report content that may violate Facebook's global content policy and local content laws in Kazakhstan, Facebook said. Under the agreement, both parties will also set up regular communication, including having an authorised representative from Facebook's regional office work with the Ministry on various policy issues.

"Facebook is delighted to work with the government of Kazakhstan together, particularly in the aspect of online safety for children," Facebook regional public policy director George Chen said in a statement.

After the U.S. Copyright Office's once-every-three-years review of allowed exemptions, "We have some good news to share...." reads a new announcement this week from the Free Software Foundation: The FSF was one of several activist organizations pushing for exemptions to the anticircumvention rules under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that make breaking Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) illegal, even for ethical and legitimate purposes. We helped bring public awareness to a process that is too often only a conversation between lawyers and bureaucrats.

As of late last week, there are now multiple new exemptions that will help ease some of the acute abuse DRM inflicts on users.

However, the main lesson to be learned here is that we should and must keep pushing. Individual, specific exemptions are not enough. The entire anticircumvention law needs to be repealed. We want to thank the 230 individuals who co-signed their names to our comments supporting exemptions across the board. We should take this as a sign that even though it can be difficult, anti-DRM activism yields practical results.

Section 1201 is one of the most nefarious sections of the DMCA. The provisions contained in 1201 impose legal penalties against anyone trying to circumvent the DRM on their software and devices or, in other words, anyone who tries to control that software or device themselves instead of leaving it up to its corporate overlords.... It takes the hard work of hundreds to secure the anticircumvention use exemptions we already have, and even more work to eke out a few more. Yet thanks to the support of citizens, activists, and researchers around the world, the U.S. Copyright Office has approved a few more, while at the same time demonstrating the DMCA's serious flaws.

In coverage of the new round of anticircumvention exemptions we've seen so far, something that stands out is the U.S. Copyright Office's approval for blind users to break the digital restrictions preventing any ebooks from being processed through a screen reader. At least at first glance, it looks like a big win for all of us concerned with user freedom, but a closer look shows something more sinister, as the U.S. Copyright Office refused to make this exemption permanent. The message this sends to all user freedom activists, but especially the visually impaired among us, is: "we're giving you this now because it would seem inhumane otherwise, but we hope that you'll forget to fight for it later so we can allow corporations to keep on restricting you...."

[P]articipating organizations have been able to make progress on other important exemptions, whether that's the right to install free software on wireless routers or the right to repair dedicated devices like game consoles. It's the coalescing of groups like these that is "chipping away" at Section 1201. At the same time, it's telling that we're forced to fight tooth and nail for the meager exemptions we're granted, even with such a broad base of support. The corporations who have a vested interest in the DMCA and Congress itself are content with the status quo, but we shouldn't be content with patches on a broken system. Incremental progress against Section 1201 is of course a good thing, but we shouldn't lose sight of our goal as user freedom activists: a complete repeal of Section 1201, and all other laws that codify or mandate DRM.

The Defective by Design campaign takes a radical stance when it comes to DRM and the laws that support it. We believe that they should not exist at all, under any circumstance, and we need your help to support this mission....

Advocates will once again be granted a DMCA exception to make accessible versions of texts. They argue that it's far past time to make it permanent. From a report: It's a cliche of digital life that "information wants to be free." The internet was supposed to make the dream a reality, breaking down barriers and connecting anyone to any bit of data, anywhere. But 32 years after the invention of the World Wide Web, people with print disabilities -- the inability to read printed text due to blindness or other impairments -- are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled. Advocates for the blind are fighting an endless battle to access ebooks that sighted people take for granted, working against copyright law that gives significant protections to corporate powers and publishers who don't cater to their needs. For the past year, they've once again undergone a lengthy petitioning process to earn a critical exemption to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act that provides legal cover for people to create accessible versions of ebooks.

Baked into Section 1201 of the DMCA is a triennial process through which the Library of Congress considers exceptions to rules that are intended to protect copyright owners. Since 2002, groups advocating for the blind have put together lengthy documents asking for exemptions that allow copy protections on ebooks to be circumvented for the sake of accessibility. Every three years, they must repeat the process, like Sisyphus rolling his stone up the hill. On Wednesday, the US Copyright Office released a report recommending the Librarian of Congress once again grant the three-year exemption; it will do so in a final rule that takes effect on Thursday. The victory is tainted somewhat by the struggle it represents. Although the exemption protects people who circumvent digital copyright protections for the sake of accessibility -- by using third-party programs to lift text and save it in a different file format, for example -- that it's even necessary strikes many as a fundamental injustice.

"As the mainstream has embraced ebooks, accessibility has gotten lost," says Mark Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "It's an afterthought." Publishers have no obligation to make electronic versions of their books accessible to the blind through features like text-to-speech (TTS), which reads aloud onscreen text and is available on whichever device you're reading this article. More than a decade ago, publishers fought Amazon for enabling a TTS feature by default on its Kindle 2 ereader, arguing that it violated their copyright on audiobooks. Now, publishers enable or disable TTS on individual books themselves. Even as TTS has become more common, there's no guarantee that a blind person will be able to enjoy a given novel from Amazon's Kindle storefront, or a textbook or manual. That's why the exemption is so important -- and why advocates do the work over and over again to secure it from the Library of Congress. It's a time-consuming and expensive process that many would rather do away with.

Suppliers to Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and China's top chipmaker SMIC got billions of dollars worth of licenses from November through April to sell them goods and technology despite their being on a U.S. trade blacklist, documents released by Congress showed on Thursday. Reuters reports: According to the documents, first obtained by Reuters, 113 export licenses worth $61 billion were approved for suppliers to ship products to Huawei while another 188 licenses valued at nearly $42 billion were greenlighted for Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC). The data also showed that more than 9 out of 10 license applications were granted to SMIC suppliers while 69% of requests to ship to Huawei were approved over the same period.

[T]he Commerce Department said that the release of an "arbitrary snapshot" of license approvals "risks politicizing the licensing process and misrepresenting the national security determinations" made by the government. It also stressed that approved license applications do not represent actual shipments and around half of all licenses are used. It added that license applications involving Huawei and SMIC are processed under policies developed by the Trump administration and maintained by the Biden administration.

A former senior Commerce Department official in the Trump administration who declined to be named echoed the agency's view. "This very small period of license activity is not an accurate window into the Huawei and SMIC license process," he said, noting that the goal of preventing the companies from obtaining leading edge technology without unnecessarily harming U.S. exports of other goods had been successful. "This [document release] seems designed to mislead people and generate headlines," he added.

Sony has been granted a patent that would allow livestream spectators and participants to remove players from a game. "Besides removing unskilled players, the system would allow spectators to pay for the privilege of removing players," reports Kotaku. From the report: In the patent document, Sony outlined a system in which spectators to a livestream can vote to remove a player from an ongoing game. The player would have no veto power over this decision, and they may be reassigned to a different match. The system would display the skill level of the current players and their statistics for the game, such as time played, ratings, and achievements. All of this would take place through "the cloud gaming system," whatever that means.

To avoid audience abuse of this system, a 60% voting threshold needs to be met in order to bench a player from a game. Spectators with a higher skill level will also have their votes counted more heavily in the election. Despite Sony claiming that this system would be beneficial for removing disrespectful "griefers" from matches, the patent also includes the ability for spectators to pay a fixed price or bid for the ability to remove players from a game. The text also mentions a system in which spectators can warn active players to improve their gameplay. Damn.

Long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace quotes USA Today: The dwindling populations of the American bumblebee and their complete disappearance from eight states has led to a call for the bee to be placed under the Endangered Species Act before they face extinction.

Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Oregon each have zero or close to zero American bumblebees left, according to a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and Bombus Pollinators Association of Law Students...

Over the last two decades, the American bumblebee population has decreased by 89% across the U.S. New York had a decline of 99% and they disappeared from the northern part of Illinois that has seen a 74% decrease in population since 2004, the petition said.

Climate change, pesticides, disease, habitat loss and competition from honey bees are listed as driving the bee to extinction... The loss of the insect could cause serious repercussions to the environment and crop production due to them being essential pollinators in agriculture. If the American bumblebee is added to the endangered species list, it will join the rusty-patched bumblebee, and If granted federal protection, anyone found to have killed or harmed the bee could face up to $13,000 in fines.

RestOfWorld.org tells the story of a libertarian 'startup city' in Honduras that was "supposed to be a privatized, Silicon Valley-funded paradise."

Co-founded by 37-year-old Venezuelan Erick Brimen, "Próspera's founders promised to enrich the local community, even supplying water to a nearby village. But relations with neighboring communities deteriorated. Then, Próspera turned off the taps..."

Próspera's founders believe the future of government lies with privatized startup cities. They belong to a movement with deep roots in U.S. libertarian circles: one that wants to redefine citizenship and governance in tech-consumerist terms. It has gained momentum in recent years, as high-profile Silicon Valley figures, like PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, put their money behind startup city initiatives.

Some governments have been drawn to the idea, too, hoping it will attract foreign investment and spur economic growth. In 2013, Honduras passed a law allowing people like Brimen to set up semi-autonomous, privately run cities, "zonas de empleo y desarrollo económico" (zones for employment and economic development), or "ZEDEs" — pronounced "zeh-dehs." These cities are to be governed by private investors, who can write their own laws and regulations, design their own court systems, and operate their own police forces. The Honduran government granted Próspera ZEDE status in late 2017. Subject to limited government oversight and few legal restrictions, a set of for-profit firms incorporated abroad by Brimen and his business partners will govern the city — with ambitions to expand across [its Honduran island] Roatán and onto the Honduran mainland.... This year, skeptical Hondurans organized weeks of anti-ZEDE protests across the country. They fear cities like Próspera will leave ordinary people no better off than they were before, while ceding to profit-driven investors the power to decide what's in the public interest...

Applications for [Próspera] residency require a background check, a Honduran residency permit, and an annual fee — $260 per year for Hondurans and $1,300 for foreigners. Prospective residents will also have to sign something called an "agreement of coexistence," which lays out all the rights and responsibilities of Próspera residents and Próspera's obligations to them. Brimen characterized it as, "if you could make the social contract a real contract." The agreement incorporates Próspera's resident bill of rights, which is modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights but with some decidedly libertarian twists. Government services will be centralized and automated through ePróspera, an online portal modeled on the much-praised e-Estonia system developed by the Baltic nation. From the comfort of their homes, Prósperans will be able to pay taxes, incorporate a company, transact business, and even buy real estate. They'll be able to vote, too, but their franchise is limited. Residents elect only five of the council's nine members. Landowners vote for two of the five, with voting power pegged to acreage. Buy more land, buy more votes. Próspera's founders choose the four remaining council members, and a six-member supermajority is needed to alter policy.... Government services will be provided entirely by a contractor...

Effective tax rates will sit in the low single digits, and, in place of Honduran courts, there's a private arbitration center. But where the business inducements enter unprecedented terrain is health and safety regulation. Próspera won't impose rules so much as curate prix fixe and à la carte menus of rules. Companies will be able to opt into an existing regulatory regime — choosing from dozens of countries and U.S. states — or they can Frankenstein together an entirely novel code, mixing and matching rules from different jurisdictions and even inventing new ones. [The building code for one new construction site is a pastiche of Honduran and U.S. law.] The lone requirements: sign-off by Próspera's governing council and a liability insurance policy, most likely underwritten, [Próspera co-founder] Delgado says, by offshore insurers.
RestOfWorld carefully chronicles how Próspera became unpopular with locals. In the summer of 2019, Próspera connected a nearby village to its own water supply. Then started billing them. (Though the water bills eventually stopped.) After protests over the fact that few construction jobs went to villagers — and how Próspera's armed security guards began asking pedestrians for identification — several local groups issued a critical statement while villagers elected a new council empowered to speak for them.

It all came to a head when the council asked Brimen to cancel a public meeting (due to surging Covid cases), which Brimen insisted was a violation of his free speech. He held the meeting anyways, local police were sent to break it up, and one of Brimen's bodyguards "scuffled" with one of the officers as his other bodyguards whisked him to safety. The incident made the local news and social media. Then the next month "Próspera Foundation" threatened to cut off the village's water within 30 days if they didn't formally request the foundation's intervention in writing.

The village instead appealed to a local congressman/mayoral candidate, who by mid-January had fully restored the village's water supply.

An anonymous reader writes: Cloudflare is not liable for the copyright infringement of websites that use its content-delivery and security services, a federal judge ruled yesterday. Cloudflare was sued in November 2018 by Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs, two wedding dress manufacturers and sellers that alleged Cloudflare was guilty of contributory copyright infringement because it didn't terminate services for websites that infringed on the dressmakers' copyrighted designs. The companies sought a jury trial, but Judge Vince Chhabria yesterday granted Cloudflare's motion for summary judgment in a ruling (PDF) in US District Court for the Northern District of California. Chhabria noted that the dressmakers have been harmed "by the proliferation of counterfeit retailers that sell knock-off dresses using the plaintiffs' copyrighted images," and that they have "gone after the infringers in a range of actions, but to no avail -- every time a website is successfully shut down, a new one takes its place." [...] While the ruling resolves the lawsuit's central question in Cloudflare's favor, the judge scheduled a case management conference for October 27 "to discuss what's left of the case."

A defendant is liable for contributory copyright infringement if it has knowledge of another's infringement and materially contributes to or induces that infringement, the judge noted in his ruling against the dressmakers. "Simply providing services to a copyright infringer does not qualify as a 'material contribution,'" he wrote. "Rather, liability in the Internet context follows where a party 'facilitate[s] access' to infringing websites in such a way that 'significantly magnif[ies]' the underlying infringement." Although a defendant can be found to materially contribute to copyright infringement if it acts as "an essential step in the infringement process," this should not be interpreted too broadly, the judge wrote. "As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the language used in these tests is 'quite broad' and could encompass much innocuous activity if considered out of context. An analysis of contributory copyright infringement must therefore be cognizant of the facts in the key cases in which liability has been found," Chhabria wrote.

Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs alleged that Cloudflare contributes to copyright infringement by providing performance-improvement services, including its content-distribution network and caching capabilities that improve the quality of webpages and make them load faster, Chhabria wrote. But the "plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that Cloudflare's performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs' only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material from Cloudflare's website touting the benefits of its services. These general statements do not speak to the effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here." The plaintiffs did not prove that the faster website-load times enabled by Cloudflare "would be likely to lead to significantly more infringement." Additionally, Cloudflare removing infringing material from its cache would not prevent users from seeing the copyrighted images. "[R]emoving material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring," Chhabria wrote.

Eftpos has become Australia's first accredited non-government operator of a digital identity exchange under the federal government's Trusted Digital Identity Framework (TDIF). From a report: By becoming an accredited operator, Eftpos connectID can now facilitate online transactions requiring a digital identity from Australians. Eftpos sent connectID live in June as a fully-owned subsidiary of the organisation and as a standalone fintech company. It's been set up to act as "broker" between identity service providers and merchants or government agencies that require identity verification, such as proof of age, address details, or bank account information. It has been designed to work within the federal government's Trusted Digital Identity Framework (TDIF) and the banking industry's TrustID framework. Although the Australian government has its own digital identity solution with myGovID, Eftpos has previously said its solution could provide a "smoother, faster, and more secure onboarding experience, including for government services." Eftpos has also assured that connectID does not store any identity data.

The U.S. Space Force, the military branch spun out of the Air Force in December 2019, has announced its next batch of awards for projects related to next-gen rocket engine testing and upper stage improvements. From a report: The awards were granted by the Space Enterprise Consortium (SpEC), a program managed by the Space Force's Space Systems Command. SpEC facilitates engagement between the U.S. Department and Defense and the space industry, by allowing its nearly 600 members to compete for contracts. The awards, which total $87.5 million, were granted to four launch companies:

The United Kingdom is the latest country to rule that an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Engadget reports: Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine."

The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application. When he didn't do that, the agency decided he had withdrawn from the process. Thaler took the case to the UK's High Court. The body ruled against him, leading to the eventual appeal. "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing of the Appeal Court wrote in her judgment. "A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person." In August, an Australian Court ruled that an AI can be recognized as an inventor in a patent submission. However, a U.S. District Judge ruled earlier this month that a computer using AI can't be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. law.

A key Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory group unanimously voted Thursday to recommend distributing Pfizer and BioNTech's Covid-19 booster shots to older Americans and nursing home residents, clearing the way for the agency to give the final OK as early as this evening. CNBC reports: The agency's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices specifically endorsed giving third Pfizer shots to people 65 and older in the first of four votes. The panel will also vote on whether to recommend the shots for adults with medical conditions that put them at risk of severe disease and those who are more frequently exposed to the virus -- possibly including people in nursing homes and prisons, teachers, front-line health employees and other essential workers. The elderly were among the first groups to get the initial shots in December and January.

The vote is seen as mostly a win for President Joe Biden, whose administration has said it wants to give booster shots to all eligible Americans 16 and older as early as this week. While the CDC panel's recommendation doesn't give the Biden administration everything it wanted, boosters will still be on the way for millions of Americans. The endorsement comes a day after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization to administer third Pfizer shots to many Americans six months after they complete their first two doses. While the CDC's panel's recommendation isn't binding, Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is expected to accept the panel's endorsement shortly.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company will use personal driving data to determine whether owners who have paid for its controversial "Full Self-Driving" software can access the latest beta version that promises more automated driving functions. TechCrunch reports: Musk tweeted late Thursday night that the FSD Beta v10.0.1 software update, which has already been pushed out to a group of select owners, will become more widely available starting September 24. Owners who have paid for FSD, which currently costs $10,000, will be offered access to the beta software through a "beta request button." Drivers who select the beta software will be asked for permission to access their driving behavior using Tesla's insurance calculator, Musk wrote in a tweet. "If driving behavior is good for seven days, beta access will be granted," Musk wrote.

The latest FSD Beta is supposed to automate driving on highways and city streets. However, this is still a Level 2 driver assistance system that requires the driver to pay attention, have their hands on the wheel and take control at all times. Recent videos posted showing owners' experiences with this beta software provide a mixed picture of its capability. In some videos, the vehicles handle city driving; in many others, drivers are seen taking control due to missed turns, being too close to the curb, failure to creep forward and, in one case, veering off suddenly toward pedestrians.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Uber drivers are employees, not contractors, and so entitled to greater workers' rights under local labor laws, a Dutch court ruled on Monday, handing a setback to the U.S. company's European business model. It was another court victory for unions fighting for better pay and benefits for those employed in the gig economy and followed a similar decision this year about Uber in Britain. The Amsterdam District Court sided with the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV), which had argued that Uber's roughly 4,000 drivers in the capital are employees of a taxi company and should be granted benefits in line with the taxi sector.

The court found drivers who transport passengers via the Uber app are covered by the collective labour agreement for taxi transportation. "The legal relationship between Uber and these drivers meets all the characteristics of an employment contract," the ruling said. Uber drivers are in some cases entitled to back pay, the court said. The judges also ordered Uber to pay a fine of 50,000 euros ($58,940) for failing to implement the terms of the labor agreement for taxi drivers. Uber said it would appeal against the decision and "has no plans to employ drivers in the Netherlands." They added: "We are disappointed with this decision because we know that the overwhelming majority of drivers wish to remain independent. Drivers don't want to give up their freedom to choose if, when and where to work."

Last November, Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies scored a decisive win in California when a majority of the state's voters passed a company-sponsored ballot measure that cemented workers' status as contractors, albeit with some benefits.

Earlier this month Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin sued NASA over a moon lander contract awarded to SpaceX.

Now Mashable reports that "America's next trip to the moon may suddenly be delayed a bit thanks to...PDFs?" A U.S. federal judge has granted the Department of Justice a week-long extension in its lawsuit with Jeff Bezos' space company Blue Origin. The reason? Large PDF files...

According to the DOJ, there is more than 7 GB of data related to the case. However, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims' online system allows for only files of up to 50 MB in size to be uploaded. This all amounts to "several hundred" PDFs, including other file formats that would be converted to PDFs. The DOJ says it also sought to convert multiple separate documents into individual PDF batches but explained that those larger files could cause the upload system to crash. "We have tried several different ways to create 50-megabyte files for more efficient filing, all without success thus far," the DOJ said.

Instead of using the online file system, the U.S. government will transfer the documents for the case to DVDs.
Futurism reports the situation was exacerbated "because the agency staff that could have fixed the issue were at the 36th Annual Space Symposium last week."

On Twitter, space reporter Joey Roullete notes the judge's ruling means an additional one-week stay before the awarding of SpaceX's contract..

Or, as Mashable puts it, "Space exploration is currently on hold thanks to a lawsuit and a slew of pesky PDF files."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. health regulators could approve a third COVID-19 shot for adults beginning at least six months after full vaccination, instead of the previously announced eight-month gap, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. Approval of boosters for three COVID-19 shots being administered in the United States -- those manufactured by Pfizer and partner BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson -- is expected in mid-September, the report said, citing a person familiar with the plans.

Pfizer and BioNTech have already started the application process for the approval of its booster shot in people 16 and older, saying it spurs a more than three-fold increase in antibodies against the coronavirus. Earlier this week, U.S. regulators granted full approval to Pfizer's two-dose vaccine. Moderna said on Wednesday it has completed the real-time review needed for a full approval for its jab in people 18 and above. Earlier today, Johnson & Johnson announced that booster doses of its one-shot coronavirus vaccine generated a big spike in antibodies. "People who received a booster six to eight months after their initial J&J shots saw antibodies increase nine-fold higher than 28 days after the first shot," reports CNN, citing Johnson & Johnson.

An anonymous reader writes: ISPs are quietly distributing "netflow" data that can, among other things, trace traffic through VPNs. There's something of an open secret in the cybersecurity world: internet service providers quietly give away detailed information about which computer is communicating with another to private businesses, which then sells access to that data to a range of third parties, according to multiple sources in the threat intelligence industry. The information, known as netflow data, is a useful tool for digital investigators. They can use it to identify servers being used by hackers, or to follow data as it is stolen. But the sale of this information still makes some people nervous because they are concerned about whose hands it may fall into. "I'm concerned that netflow data being offered for commercial purposes is a path to a dark fucking place," one source familiar with the data told Motherboard. Motherboard granted multiple sources anonymity to speak more candidly about industry issues.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has granted a patent to Apple for a dual-display MacBook with a virtual keyboard replacing the traditional keyboard and with the ability to wirelessly charge an iPhone. 9to5Mac reports: As reported by Patently Apple, this patent was submitted three years ago, and only now has Apple won it. With this patent, the company could take a radical path and get rid of a physical keyboard. The interesting thing about this application is that while rumors suggest that Apple will remove the only touchable interface on the MacBook Pro, the Touch Bar, this patent imagines a MacBook with no physical keyboard at all. Patently Apple says this virtual keyboard could be rearranged, swapping the position of the virtual keyboard and trackpad. With a virtual keyboard, Apple could bring gestures from iOS and iPadOS as well, such as pinch, zoom, slide to select, and more. In the patent, Apple says this MacBook includes biometric sensors, which we could interpret as Face ID, fingerprint sensors (aka Touch ID), and a wireless charger, which would be in the left down corner of the notebook.

The Covid-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech was granted a full approval by U.S. regulators, a move that is expected to help bolster the immunization drive amid a surge in infections caused by the delta variant. From a report: The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement on Monday that it had cleared the vaccine for the prevention of Covid-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older. It will be marketed under the name Comirnaty. The vaccine continues to be available to people age 12 to 15 under an emergency-use authorization, the agency said. The approval is expected to boost confidence in the shot and is likely to open the door to more vaccine mandates among employers and businesses. It is also likely to solidify its future as a blockbuster for its makers.