Have you ever had your phone searched by the police or at the border? I haven't, but I have had someone try to unlock my phone before.

I'd contend most people have a threat model that puts opportunistic access by household members or someone watching them enter their passcode and then snatching the phone and running above border patrol search.

While you can't change your biometrics, walk me through why that matters. I'm not sharing my biometrics outside of the device, and you can't submit them remotely, so if you lift a print off of something it doesn't really get you much without also taking the phone. Once you're there, you're a bit beyond the typical phone thief in terms of threat.

The most common vulnerability is having an absurdly weak password, pin or unlock pattern. For those people biometrics is a vast improvement specifically because it's both secure against likely threats, and it's just as easy as hitting 5 four times in a row.

Every method has trade offs, and there's nothing to gain by pretending otherwise. Likewise, I don't think I would ever say "never use something", except for some contrived examples.

Totally true. That's not the common threat most people need to guard against however. Additionally, at least on Android, the device is relatively eager to force pin usage if the stars don't align for biometrics

Why?

It's not like they're literally using your face or fingerprint as a password. They're not even storing them, just a hash tied to an hsm key.

Why do you think that? Public key authentication systems are invariably more secure, and a wide variety are also simpler for the end user to use.

It's a misconception that they are in opposition to each other. Why would they be? One's about knowing who's doing something and the other is about how much effort it takes to do it.

The disagreement about a comparison to Nazis isn't about what the Nazis did, or that doing what they did would justify comparison, it's that I fundamentally disagree that taking down an allegedly libelous document is the same as mass murder.

I'm familiar with the horrors of the Nazis, you don't need to rehash.

I'm not sure how a German court case about denying Nazi crimes has bearing on a theoretical UK court case about if an organization has a specific policy position.

You earlier mentioned that the case could be a PR and fundraising opportunity.
Have you considered if you would want them to fight it if they thought it would do the opposite? What if they just spent a bunch of money giving the assholes a platform to spew hate?

Oh, I didn't say it was acceptable or desirable. I guess that's why the downvotes.

I think that's what they're advertising, as opposed to the people who think it's a deep plot to hook kids or something.

The free shared group calendar that comes with my stuff is all I use for a similar setup. Only thing I wish it had was a better ability to notify me if someone else added an event, since I regularly have conversations with contractors or whatever where I say anytime should be fine, and then immediately have to backpedal when checking the calendar.

But for clarification, I don't want what I described and I don't think they can actually do most if any of what they imply with these backhanded advertisments.
I just think "manage the schedules of a busy family" is one of the most tried "wholesome" advertising gambits.

I think they'd need to argue she said something about them, not just an action or statement.

Be funny for someone to sue over defamation for being accused of defamation though.

Retracting a report that they didn't think they could legally defend in court is a long way from justifying comparisons to Nazis.

Personally I would have rathered that they removed the report and released the information from the perspective of the US chapter with mildly revamped wording, but I get the course of action.
I'm not convinced it would be a pr coup or net financial win for them to publicly be unable to prove that "gender critical" organizations are defacto anti-rights in general, or that Rowling's sexual violence charity that was mentioned in specific was.
When the argument is that they over generalized and named organizations as guilty by association without justification, they wouldn't be arguing trans rights or equality but specific public policy stances.
Appearing to argue that a rape support center is in violation of human rights by catering to cis women isn't going to be the pr coup.
It doesn't matter that they're clearly anti trans and founded because the alternative didn't exclude trans women and had a trans director: amnesty would need to show they were an an anti rights organization.

I'm not saying that I like that they took down the report or apologized. Nor am I saying that any of the groups are accepting or good.
I'm just saying that Rowling and the stupid uk libel laws are better targets for ire.

Jk Rowling's? The UK government that places the burden of proof in libel cases on the defendent to prove that their statement is true in a court of law, while the plaintiff just has to show their reputation was damaged?

I'm not at all a fan of them removing the report, but it's not exactly a mystery who else you could blame for the situation.

I'm not sure that's been extensively tested in courts. The document you referenced below appears to be as-yet not officially published, so I don't believe it actually qualifies as an official position yet, but the bigger issue is that it's untested in court.

This thread is a response to an AI court case where the ruling was that training on copy written works is fair use.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-judge-approves-15-billion-anthropic-copyright-settlement-with-authors-2025-09-25/

Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors' work to train Claude, but found that the company violated their rights by saving more than 7 million pirated books to a "central library" that would not necessarily be used for that purpose

Regardless, you do make good points and I think we agree that the end state is "they shouldn't be able to do that". I have concerns that using existing standards that take copying too literally results in some unintended ambiguity, and situations where AI training is incidentally blocked, but so is stuff like "opening a news article on a computer", which does the same things the copyright office report highlights as infringement.
I think we'd be in a much more agreeable place if we just legally state that a commercial AI tools training isn't fair use. That lets you have nuance like "search engine? It's a statistical model, but not generative: allowed. AI agent? Statistical model that's generating content as opposed to classification or ranking: not allowed".

I agree with the conclusion, but that rationale is wrong. First, you can digitize a DVD. Second, it's not a double standard. You can grab copies of random stuff and jam it in an AI model too.
Our laws are written such that it's making a copy outside of reasonable use that's illegal, and AI training only makes a copy incidentally to what they're doing and then it's deleted. It's the same standard that makes viewing a photo on an artists website legal.

It's not bullshit because they're breaking the law, but because we need to refine the law to make it clear training an AI model isn't a reasonable usage anymore than a public broadcast of a DVD is a reasonable use.
Trying to shoehorn it into the existing laws will just create a nightmare of loopholes and complications.