10月7日消息，据彭博社报道，此次调查源于法国人权联盟（LDH）在今年 2 月提交的一份举报，主要 依据来自前苹果外包公司员工托马斯・勒・博尼耶（Thomas Le Bonniec）的证词。他公开表示，自己 曾分析过包括癌症患者在内的敏感用户录音，这无疑让公众对苹果公司处理用户录音的方式产生了严重 担忧。 据悉，该案件由巴黎检方的反网络犯罪办公室（OFAC）负责处理。目前，该案件的调查仍在进行中， 相关结果有待进一步公布。 彭博社报道称，此次调查的核心在于苹果公司通过Siri收集用户录音的行为。Siri作为苹果大多数设备上 配备的数字语音助手，具备录制并保存音频交互内容的功能。苹果公司声称，这一功能是用户自主选择 的，目的是帮助改进服务。据其介绍，部分数据可保存长达两年，并由"评分员"（分包商）进行审核。 苹果公司在今年1月份曾强调："除非用户明确选择帮助改进Siri，否则苹果不会保留Siri交互的音频录 音，即便如此，这些录音也仅用于此目的。"但这样的解释似乎并未能完全消除公众的疑虑。（旺旺） 来源：环球网 【环球网科技综合报道】近日，科技巨头苹果公司又一次陷入舆论旋涡，其在法国面临一项关于Siri语 音助 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent surge in discussions about "Alipay account authorization management" highlights the importance of user awareness regarding personal data sharing and the need for regular audits of authorized applications [1][2]. Group 1: User Authorization Insights - Users have discovered a significant number of applications authorized through Alipay, with some individuals reporting up to 171 authorization entries dating back to 2015 [2][4]. - The authorized applications primarily fall into two categories: e-commerce services and transportation-related mini-programs, with some authorizations traceable to a decade ago [4][9]. Group 2: User Guidance and Recommendations - Alipay customer service recommends that users regularly clean up authorizations for applications that are infrequently used or no longer in service, such as those related to temporary services like hotel charging or transportation mini-programs [6][11]. - The process for revoking application authorization is straightforward and can be done through the Alipay app by navigating to the "User Protection Center" [7][9]. Group 3: Privacy and Data Security - Alipay emphasizes its commitment to user privacy and data security, stating that third-party applications can only access user information after explicit user consent, adhering to principles of "user explicit authorization" and "minimization" [11][12]. - Users are also advised to be cautious of the "no-password payment/automatic deduction" feature, which can lead to unintended charges even after an application has been uninstalled [12][14].

Core Points - The lawsuit initiated by MiHoYo against Tencent is primarily to obtain user data related to a civil case, highlighting the legal process for data retrieval in privacy matters [1][4] - Tencent's response emphasizes its compliance with privacy laws, stating that it cannot provide user data without a formal judicial request [1][4] - The case is linked to MiHoYo's efforts to combat leaks of unreleased game content, as indicated by previous actions against individuals sharing confidential information [2][7] Group 1: Legal Context - MiHoYo's lawsuit is a common legal strategy to access user data from platforms when pursuing claims against individuals for privacy violations [1][5] - Tencent's refusal to provide user information without judicial authorization is a protective measure under the Cybersecurity Law and Personal Information Protection Law of China [4][7] - The legal framework requires platforms to safeguard user data and only disclose it under specific circumstances, such as user consent or legal mandates [4][7] Group 2: Evidence and Investigation - MiHoYo may have identified some leakers but requires Tencent's data to uncover additional anonymous individuals involved in the leaks [7][8] - The lawsuit allows MiHoYo to formally request evidence, including chat logs and file transfer records, which could substantiate claims of intellectual property infringement [5][8] - The ability to access detailed records from Tencent could provide critical evidence for MiHoYo's case, including the identity of leakers and the specifics of the leaked content [7][8]

【环球网科技综合报道】在人工智能聊天机器人市场竞争日益激烈的当下，用户隐私保护本应是各大厂 商坚守的底线。然而，据外媒《福布斯》8月21日报道，特斯拉CEO埃隆·马斯克旗下xAI公司的聊天机 器人Grok近日却陷入了一场"分享门"风波，其未经用户充分知晓和同意就公布对话内容的行为，引发了 公众对用户隐私安全的广泛担忧。 《福布斯》报道称，xAI公布了Grok与用户之间数十万次对话的聊天记录。当Grok用户点击"分享"按钮 时，会生成一个唯一网址用于分享对话，但这个网址同时也会被提供给谷歌、必应等搜索引擎，导致对 话内容可被任何人搜索到。这意味着，用户在不知情的情况下，其与Grok的对话就已被发布到了Grok 的网站上。 目前，谷歌已索引了超过37万条用户与Grok的对话。这些对话内容五花八门，从简单的商务任务到制 造非法物品的说明。更令人震惊的是，部分对话泄露了用户的姓名、个人信息和密码等敏感内容，用户 上传的文件也可通过分享页面获取。 而并非所有对话都如此"温和"。一些对话内容露骨、带有偏见，甚至违反了xAI的规定。这些非法指令 通过"分享"功能被发布到网上，并被谷歌索引，无疑对社会安全构成了潜在威胁。 《 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the launch of a new privacy permission system by five major smartphone manufacturers in collaboration with Google, aimed at enhancing user privacy within the Android ecosystem [3][6][12]. Group 1: Privacy Permission System - The new privacy permission system allows for the reasonable opening of 19 categories of privacy data, significantly improving privacy protection capabilities in the Android ecosystem [3][12]. - The system emphasizes a dual-track approach to data and access, balancing privacy protection with user convenience [16][24]. - A unified permission review platform has been established to evaluate the rationality of permission requests and to prevent misuse [17][18]. Group 2: Industry Collaboration - The collaboration among OPPO, vivo, Xiaomi, Honor, and Lenovo signifies a shift towards a unified standard in the Android ecosystem, enhancing user experience [6][22]. - The Mobile Intelligent Terminal Ecological Alliance (ITGSA) plays a crucial role in this initiative, aiming to provide clear privacy protection guidelines for developers and applications [21][24]. - The involvement of Google indicates a transition in the Android ecosystem towards a collaborative model between manufacturers and the system [24][25]. Group 3: User Experience and Developer Impact - The new system allows users to have more precise control over their data sharing, which will shift the core competitive advantage of applications back to functionality and user experience [24]. - Developers can now integrate with a unified standard interface, reducing the effort required for multi-platform adaptation and allowing them to focus on delivering better services [24][25]. - The introduction of system controls, such as the Photo Picker, enables applications to access only selected data, thus enhancing user privacy while maintaining core functionalities [15][16].

Core Points - Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, has reached a settlement in a privacy lawsuit with investors, agreeing to resolve claims that executives allowed user privacy violations, resulting in significant financial losses for the company [1][3][4] - The lawsuit sought damages amounting to $8 billion (approximately 57.5 billion RMB) against CEO Mark Zuckerberg and 10 other current and former executives [1][3] Summary by Sections - **Settlement Agreement** - A settlement agreement was reached just before the scheduled court hearing, although specific details of the agreement were not disclosed [4] - The presiding judge, Katherine McCormick, acknowledged the settlement and adjourned the court [4] - **Allegations and Claims** - Investors accused the executives, including Mark Zuckerberg and board member Marc Andreessen, of negligence regarding user privacy, leading to substantial economic damages for the company [3][6] - The lawsuit aimed to hold the defendants accountable for billions in fines and legal costs incurred by the company over recent years [3] - **Previous Penalties** - In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission imposed a $5 billion fine on Facebook for failing to comply with a data protection agreement established in 2012 [6] - The plaintiffs are seeking personal asset compensation from the defendants, who have denied all allegations, labeling them as "extreme claims" [6]

Core Points - Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and current and former directors and executives have agreed to settle a privacy lawsuit claiming damages of $8 billion [1][2] - The lawsuit accused them of allowing Facebook users' privacy to be violated, resulting in significant losses for the company [1] - The specific details of the settlement agreement have not been disclosed, and the judge congratulated both parties on reaching a resolution [1] Group 1 - The lawsuit was initiated by Meta shareholders who sought to hold Zuckerberg and other executives accountable for billions in fines and legal fees incurred by the company [1] - The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion in 2019 for failing to comply with a data protection agreement established in 2012 [1] - Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, a defendant in the case and a Meta board member, was scheduled to testify but the trial concluded with the settlement [1] Group 2 - The defendants denied the allegations, labeling them as "extreme claims" [2] - Meta, which rebranded from Facebook in 2021, is not a defendant in the lawsuit and has refrained from commenting on the matter [2] - Since 2019, Meta has reportedly invested billions of dollars to enhance user privacy protections [2]

Core Viewpoint - Meta Platforms, along with Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former directors, has agreed to settle claims from shareholders seeking $8 billion for alleged damages related to privacy violations of Facebook users [1][4][5]. Group 1: Settlement Details - The settlement details were not disclosed, and the trial was adjourned by Judge Kathaleen McCormick just before it was set to enter its second day [2][6]. - The plaintiffs' lawyer indicated that the agreement was reached quickly [2]. Group 2: Background of the Case - Shareholders sued Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen, and other former officials, including Sheryl Sandberg, aiming to hold them accountable for billions in fines and legal costs incurred by the company [5][11]. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Facebook $5 billion in 2019 for failing to comply with a 2012 agreement regarding user data protection [5][12]. Group 3: Implications and Reactions - The settlement may provide relief to the involved parties but has been criticized as a missed opportunity for public accountability [7][16]. - The case was expected to include testimonies from notable figures, including former board members Peter Thiel and Reed Hastings [8].

Core Points - Meta Platforms and its current and former directors, including Mark Zuckerberg, have agreed to settle claims seeking $8 billion for alleged damages related to privacy violations [1][3] - The settlement details were not disclosed, and the trial was adjourned before entering its second day [2] - Shareholders aimed to hold the defendants liable for fines and legal costs incurred by the company, including a $5 billion FTC fine in 2019 for failing to protect user data [3][4] Group 1 - The lawsuit involved allegations that Meta's board members failed to oversee compliance with a 2012 FTC agreement and that Zuckerberg and Sandberg operated Facebook as an illegal data harvesting entity [7] - The case was linked to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which highlighted significant data privacy issues and led to the record FTC fine [7][10] - An expert witness testified about weaknesses in Facebook's privacy policies, although he did not confirm any violations of the 2012 agreement [8] Group 2 - The trial was expected to include testimonies from notable figures, including former board members Peter Thiel and Reed Hastings [6] - The settlement has been criticized for lacking public accountability, as it prevents a thorough examination of the company's practices [5][12] - Meta has claimed to have invested billions into user privacy protections since the FTC fine in 2019 [10]

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has announced a pilot program for a number protection service, utilizing the 700 number range to enhance user privacy during communications [2][3][5]. Group 1: Number Protection Service Overview - The number protection service allows personal users to receive temporary numbers (referred to as "intermediate numbers" or "privacy numbers") to replace their actual mobile numbers, reducing the risk of personal number leakage [3][5]. - The service will be implemented in three phases: a three-month preparation phase, a three-month transition phase, and a two-year formal pilot phase [4]. - The daily order volume for the number protection service in China is currently at least 350 million, indicating a significant demand for this service [5]. Group 2: Responsibilities and Regulations - The notification outlines the responsibilities of various stakeholders involved in the number protection service, including application platform providers, basic platform providers, and service users [6]. - Application platform providers must manage number resources responsibly and are prohibited from using them for commercial marketing calls or messages [6]. - Basic platform providers are responsible for routing data and ensuring communication continuity, while service users must not illegally trade or misuse number resources [6]. Group 3: Application Scenarios - The number protection service can be applied in various online and offline scenarios, such as ride-hailing, online shopping, and food delivery, where it is essential to protect personal phone numbers [7][10]. - Users can choose to authorize the use of the number protection service when engaging with internet platform services [8]. Group 4: Identification and User Experience - Users can identify whether a call is using the number protection service by recognizing the 15-digit format starting with "700," which distinguishes it from regular phone numbers [9]. - The service does not interfere with normal communication, allowing service providers to contact users without revealing their actual phone numbers [10][11].