Yazılar

Apple Clarifies Siri Privacy After $95 Million Settlement

Apple has clarified its stance on Siri’s privacy practices following a $95 million settlement in a class action lawsuit that accused the company of recording private conversations after unintentional activations of its voice assistant. The lawsuit alleged that these conversations were then shared with third parties, including advertisers.

Apple denied the claims, stating that it has never sold or used Siri data to build marketing profiles. The company emphasized that no data was shared for advertising purposes, and no audio recordings were retained unless users explicitly consented to improve Siri’s performance. As part of the settlement, Apple agreed to pay up to $20 per device to affected users of Siri-enabled devices like iPhones and Apple Watches.

The company clarified that certain Siri features do require real-time data input from Apple servers to function correctly, but it uses the minimum amount of data necessary. Apple also reiterated its commitment to enhancing privacy features for Siri in the future.

This settlement comes amid ongoing legal scrutiny, including a similar lawsuit involving Google’s Voice Assistant, which is currently pending in federal court in California.

 

US Supreme Court Grapples with Texas Online Porn Age-Verification Law

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a Texas law that mandates online pornographic websites to verify users’ ages to curb minors’ access to adult content. This case is of particular significance as it tests the balance between protecting minors and safeguarding First Amendment rights to free speech.

Legal Background

The case is an appeal from the Free Speech Coalition, a trade group representing adult content creators and distributors, who argue that the law violates free speech rights. The Texas law, enacted in 2023, requires websites with more than one-third of content deemed “sexual material harmful to minors” to verify that users are over 18 before granting access. This includes the submission of personally identifiable information, which the coalition claims could expose adults to risks such as identity theft and data breaches.

The Justices’ Concerns

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices expressed concerns about both the potential harms to minors and the burden placed on adults. While agreeing that states have a right to protect minors from inappropriate material, some justices, such as conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, questioned the effectiveness of content-filtering measures compared to the age-verification system. Barrett noted the difficulties in ensuring content-filtering technology works consistently across various devices like smartphones, tablets, and gaming systems.

At the same time, some justices voiced concerns about the potential chilling effect of the law on free speech. Derek Shaffer, representing the Free Speech Coalition, argued that the Texas law could make it more difficult and expensive for adults to access constitutionally protected content. He also warned that applying the lower court’s lenient review could pave the way for more regulations that could restrict online speech.

Societal Impact and State’s Defense

The Texas defense team argued that the law is necessary due to the widespread and easy access that children have to harmful pornography through devices. They emphasized the potential long-term societal damage, citing graphic and violent depictions of abuse that children can easily access online. Justice Kavanaugh questioned the Free Speech Coalition’s lawyer, Derek Shaffer, asking whether the societal problems caused by children’s access to pornography could be denied.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about the extent to which a state could burden adults with age-verification requirements, questioning whether such mandates could place unreasonable obstacles for users.

Broader Implications

This case is one of several across the country, with 19 similar laws enacted primarily in Republican-led states concerned about the impact of online pornography on minors. While the Supreme Court appears to agree that states can take steps to protect children, the core issue revolves around how these laws intersect with First Amendment protections and the right of adults to access legal content without undue burdens.

The Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June 2025, with implications not only for online porn regulation but for broader free speech and privacy concerns in the digital age.

 

US Judge Finds Israel’s NSO Group Liable for Hacking in WhatsApp Lawsuit

A U.S. judge has ruled in favor of Meta Platforms’ WhatsApp in a lawsuit against Israel’s NSO Group, finding the company liable for exploiting a vulnerability in WhatsApp’s messaging app to install spyware, enabling unauthorized surveillance. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland, California, granted WhatsApp’s motion and found NSO liable for hacking and breach of contract. The case will now proceed to trial, but only to determine the amount of damages.

WhatsApp’s head, Will Cathcart, hailed the ruling as a victory for privacy, stating that spyware companies could no longer hide behind immunity or avoid accountability for unlawful actions. A spokesperson for WhatsApp expressed their gratitude for the decision, reaffirming the company’s commitment to protecting users’ private communications.

Cybersecurity experts, including John Scott-Railton from Citizen Lab, welcomed the ruling as a landmark decision with significant consequences for the spyware industry. He noted that the ruling clarifies that NSO Group is responsible for violating numerous laws, as the company could no longer evade accountability for its actions.

WhatsApp sued NSO in 2019, accusing it of using a vulnerability to access WhatsApp’s servers and install Pegasus spyware on users’ devices. The lawsuit claimed the intrusion enabled the surveillance of 1,400 individuals, including journalists, human rights activists, and dissidents. NSO had defended itself by arguing that its technology was intended to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies combat crime and terrorism.

Despite this defense, NSO failed in its attempt to secure “conduct-based immunity,” which protects foreign officials acting in their official capacity. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in 2021, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear NSO’s appeal, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.