Can you smell the fear?

Clicky Steve:

“It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Better Together was supposed to mean that Scotland better listen passively, Scotland better do what it was told what was best for it. But Scotland isn’t listening any more. We no longer listen to those who don’t hear us. Scotland wants Home Rule. Scotland was promised Home Rule, we were vowed the closest thing to federalism it was possible to get. We were told that Scotland would have more self-government than any other devolved or autonomous administration. But we got control of road signs and unusable tax powers. So Scotland will use this election to take Home Rule.

The old rules of deference are dead, and we’ve learned that you get nowhere in this Union by being Miss Nice, by asking politely and patiently for things that the establishment refuses to recognise are ours. That’s the lesson Scotland learned from the referendum. We’re not asking nicely any more, and it’s scaring them. An entire nation cannot be marginalised. There’s more of us. They promised home rule, they didn’t deliver. So we’ll vote for parties which will take it from them.”

Originally posted on Wee Ginger Dug:

Can you smell the fear? It’s reeking, rising in a fog of incomprehension, wafting up from the sweaty furrowed brows of Unionist politicians, dripping from the pens of the metrocommentariat columnists. It’s the rank odour of a rotting and rancid Project Fear which is now eating itself, consumed in hubris, dissolving in its arrogance. Confused and lost by how events have turned against the winning side in the referendum. The wind has changed. It blows fair for Scotland.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Better Together was supposed to mean that Scotland better listen passively, Scotland better do what it was told what was best for it. But Scotland isn’t listening any more. We no longer listen to those who don’t hear us. Scotland wants Home Rule. Scotland was promised Home Rule, we were vowed the closest thing to federalism it was possible to get. We were told that…

View original 953 more words

WordPress Logo

Blow Struck by WordPress.com Against Fraudulent DMCAs

Abuse of the American online copyright takedown system (DMCA) is rife. People frequently submit fraudulent notifications to online service providers in order to censor views that they disagree with, curbing legitimate freedom of expression. Examples include those trying to stifle negative reviews about their businesses or products, preventing political satire, and even inappropriately targetting the normative use of a trademark.

All too often, OSPs simply shrug their shoulders when confronted with these scenarios, and process the notices anyway in order to avoid losing their safe harbor protections. Even when alerted to what’s going on in specific circumstances, many choose a policy of non-intervention, rather than to defend their users.

The result of one of two cases which were filed by Automattic in response to fraudulent takedown notifications submitted concerning material posted by WordPress.com was released a few days ago, Westlaw citation: 2014 WL 7894441. The judgement concerned a notice sent by a group called ‘Straight Pride UK’, who objected to the publication of an e-mail interview which a journalist Oliver Hotham had conducted. Under §512(f) of the DMCA, Automattic were awarded a total of just over $25,000 in damages – $960 of which was for Hotham’s time.

The outcome was a ‘default judgement’, as the defendant’s (unsurprisingly) didn’t turn up to the hearing, despite being served properly through the standard international processes. It’s unlikely that either Automattic or Hotham will ever see any of the money, so it is largely a symbolic victory. However, it should not be dismissed too quickly, as the case highlights a number of important issues:

  • The DMCA is frequently abused, with few consequences for those who misrepresent their copyrights
  • Taking action against this abuse is expensive, and happens extremely infrequently
  • Enforcing damages against those from outside the US is difficult, and so there is a hole in the remedies available where those who abuse the system fall into this category
  • Even where organisations or individuals are resident in the US, major online service providers do nothing about the fraudulent notices they receive that could be actionable
  • In order for damages to be awarded, material must be removed as the result of a misrepresentation. There are no consequences for fraudulent notifications that are caught by diligent service providers first – at their own risk

The DMCA is a blunt tool that has an incredible power to silence dissenting voices without recourse. The only way in which this is going to change is if service providers begin to stand up against the abuses, using the considerable resources as their disposal – both to further the conversations in this area, and also to take legal action where possible.

Transparency: I am a Community Guardian for WordPress.com.

 

Being a Night Person

Clicky Steve:

Paul articulates something of what I’ve struggled with for a long time as well – being a night person in a work world that favours early birds.

Originally posted on The Old Fashioned:

I’m not a morning person. I’ve made halting attempts at being one…but only because I thought I needed to. I’m now lucky enough to work at a place where I don’t have to pretend anymore. I can work when I’m most productive – and for me that’s often at night.

Why? Apparently it’s because that’s my “chronotype”…I just read a great New Yorker article that explains what that is, and also confirms something I’ve long suspected. That to be most productive, you should just embrace your inner time preference, rather than fighting it. If you’re a night person, find a way to work at night. I’ve been doing that more lately, and having some very productive days. It’s nice to finally have some hard science to back me up…

I got in touch with my real work rhythm in college. Left to my own devices, I’d not schedule classes before…

View original 528 more words

DMCA Rejection Retaliation

Every day WordPress.com receive a sizeable number of DMCA takedown notifications, and every day I personally reject a fair number of them for being incomplete, invalid, or fraudulent.

Many of those who find their takedown notifications being rejected are displeased with the decision, used to service providers choosing to automatically process them, shifting the burden of proof onto the user, rather than take on the risk of liability for themselves. Unsurprisingly, this displeasure is often most aggressively expressed by dedicated third party agents whose sole business model is based on scouring the web for potentially infringing acts, and who get paid per removal. Some people may say that with a results-driven financial incentive to have material taken offline, that there is more of a chance for the DMCA process to be used inappropriately – but that’s something you’ll need to make your minds up on independently.

Yesterday a colleague let me know about one such organisation that had evidently found some of their notifications rejected in the past, who had then chosen to take to Twitter to voice their displeasure about me doing my job.

Screen Shot 2015-02-24 at 23.49.14

The image they linked to was of me, lying on the grass clutching a bottle of Buckfast – the weekend of the Queen’s Jubilee, if memory serves correctly.

The one they used wasn’t really very good quality though, so here’s a higher resolution one incase they want to try again:

crail

I’m not entirely sure what they were trying to achieve to be honest. It’s not as if pictures of me intoxicated are really all that hard to find, after all. My occasional penchant for Buckfast isn’t exactly a secret at Automattic either, given that I did my first annual ‘flash talk’ at the all-company Grand Meetup in Utah on the ol’ tonic wine.

Somebody (who shall remain nameless) suggested we reply to say:

Even smashed on Bucky, Clicky Steve knows more about the DMCA than RemoveYourMedia

Which is so beautiful it almost brought a tear to my eye.

That wasn’t the only tweet they aimed at me though.

Screen Shot 2015-02-24 at 23.49.26

It’s pretty bizarre that they would choose to use that case about Napster to illustrate the potential liability for service providers guilty of contributory infringement, since there are far more recent, compelling, and relevant judgements they could have made their point with. Ah well, better luck next time, eh? As far as I’m aware they never actually sued after these bold statements on social media, but maybe they’re still preparing the paper work.

At the end of the day, whilst this has given me a hearty chuckle before I turn in for the night, there’s no getting away from the fact that it’s not only petty, but ridiculously unprofessional. Making ad hominem attacks on employees of a company for rejecting your legal demands is pretty sad. If I was a copyright holder, I wouldn’t be too impressed to find the agency I had employed to protect my intellectual property deploying tactics like this. Then again, it might be a bigger deal if they had more than 1200 followers…

In the world of the DMCA, there’s only one thing dumber than submitting bogus takedown notifications, and that’s having a tantrum on Twitter when your bogus takedowns are rejected.

dmca

Hyperlinks, Copyright Infringement, and the DMCA

Hyperlinks are a fundamental part of the core fabric of the web. As the basic tool used to connect pieces of information together, it’s difficult to imagine how the Internet could function without them. 

Despite its critical nature, the role of hyperlinks has attracted the attention of those seeking to prevent particular kinds of information from being shared. One of the prime examples relates to copyright, and efforts to disrupt the dissemination of materials without authorisation. As part of this, the delivery mechanism of the hyperlink – as well as the infringing act itself – has come under fire.

Hyperlinks and Case Law

There is not a sizeable wealth of case law available that directly relates to the question of whether a hyperlink can constitute copyright infringement. As a result, discussions concerning potential liability often draw upon analogies taken from older cases – sometimes with judgements over a century old – in order to apply established legal principles to the uncertainties thrown up by technological evolution.

In the case of Hird v. Wood from 1984, the defendant was seated near to a sign on which defamatory messages were displayed. Despite not having created the sign, it was held that he incurred liability simply through the act of drawing attention to it. In the later case of Byrne v. DeanHird was referenced, the judge noting the following:

If defamatory matter is left on the wall of [a] premises by a person who has the power to remove the defamatory matter from the wall he can be said to have published the defamatory matter to the persons who read it.

Applied to our topic, it would appear that this principle would impose an obligation on the operators of websites (as well as their hosts) to remove hyperlinks that led to illegal material.

The Supreme Court in Crookes v. Newton did not completely accept the above analogy. Instead, they found the argument put forward by the respondent to be more persuasive: a comparison between hyperlinks and footnotes. In other words, both are ‘content neutral’, communicating the existence of something, but not necessarily commenting on the content. This view is one also supported by Tim Berners-Lee, credited with the creation of the World Wide Web:

The intention […] was that normal links should simply be references, with no implied meaning.

However, the court also recognised that the Internet is ‘a potentially powerful vehicle’ for defamation, and that the context itself was important in establishing possible liability. In the words of the court:

Individuals may attract liability for hyperlinking if the manner in which they have referred to content conveys defamatory meaning.

Analogy is one instrument that can be used when considering the relationship between the use of hyperlinks and the law; powerful, albeit imprecise. The issues involved in real life situations are more complex than can be addressed by analogy alone, and courts have often taken differing approaches in making their determinations.

One of the first cases to directly challenge the legality of the use of hyperlinks, and their potential to constitute an infringement of copyright concerned their use on the website of a Scottish newspaper named the ‘Shetland News’.

The links in question were published on the Shetland News website. They took the form of headlines copied from the site of a rival paper: the ‘Shetland Times’. By visiting the Shetland News website and clicking on these links, visitors were taken to the corresponding articles on the Shetland Times website. Confused yet? The way things were set up meant it was possible to completely avoid having to visit the Shetland Times’ homepage, and therefore missing out on its advertising. As a result, the Shetland News website was receiving ad-based income for providing direct links to articles that they themselves had not authored. 

Understandably, the Shetland Times weren’t too pleased about this, and succeeded in having the use of the links halted through the use of an interim interdict. The reasoning for the decision was that the links came in the form of headlines that had been copied verbatim from the other site, and so there was potential copyright infringement. Disappointingly from an academic point of view, the case was settled out of court, with no final judgement made on the actual liability arising from the use of the links.

One of the first significant cases in the US regarding the status of hyperlinks was that of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. This concerned the display of thumbnail images from a professional photographer’s website in search results. The images were available both as resized thumbnails, and full sized previews, which is akin to the functionality provided by Google Images. Arriba was sued for copyright infringement, and the appeal judgement from the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco found that the thumbnails were protected under the doctrine of fair use. However, there was liability incurred for the displaying of the images in a new display window – a practice known as ‘in-line linking’. After an amicus brief filed by the EFF, the judgement was revised; the concerns about the in-line linking removed, with the fair use affirmation standing. 

In the case of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., the court found that hyperlinks pointing towards illegally distributed material could in of themselves be considered to be contributory copyright infringement. In this particular situation, the facts were complicated because the owner of the website in question had originally stored copies of the protected content on their own servers, before replacing them with hyperlinks to copies stored elsewhere. It was the context of these actions that was important – echoing the ratio decidendi in Hird.

One of the more commonly cited cases in this area is the infamous Grokster case, in which the Supreme Court introduced a new potential for liability: that of inducement. It was held that where technology is created for the intended or actual purpose of encouraging its users to breach copyright, then the creators themselves could be held liable for contributory copyright infringement. Ultimately, Grokster was shut down. Despite the concern by service providers over the precedent of this case, the facts were very particular to this situation, with the platform actively fostering the ‘blatant and overwhelming’ infringing activity of their users. It is extremely unlikely that the same definition would be applied to the majority of contemporary online intermediaries.

Hyperlinks, the DMCA, and Contributory Infringement

Online service providers often receive DMCA takedown notifications that target hyperlinks leading to allegedly infringing material, rather than material that resides on their servers. They are faced with an interesting quandary as a result: whether or not to remove the link.

On the one hand, hyperlinks generally do not constitute copyright infringement. However, it is the context that is the determining factor when considering potential for liability. A link created by a user to illegal material may well be infringing, but where does this leave the service provider?

Service providers are afforded safe harbor immunity from the infringing actions of their users, provided they ‘remove or disable access to’ material upon receipt of a valid DMCA takedown notification. However, it is unclear how this would apply in the case of hyperlinks. In our example, the infringing material itself is located on servers out-with their control, but there is still potentially infringing activity taking place on their platform. Would a host be liable for a failure to remove a hyperlink to material, where that hyperlink was found to be an infringing act, based on the context?

We can take some insight into how the decisions of future courts may fall in this scenario by considering the ‘server test’ discussed in the Perfect 10 cases. Here, the facts concerned the display of websites in Google’s Image search that were infringing upon the copyright interests of the plaintiff. It was found that Google was not liable for direct infringement on the basis that the material at issue did not reside on their servers, and was served up from another host through their use of framing, or ‘in-line linking’. With regards to contributory infringement specifically, the court held that there was no liability, as the infringing activity itself would still exist irrespective of whether or not Google Images existed. In other words, they were not found to be encouraging the copyright infringement.

In Flava, the defendants were operators of a ‘social bookmarking’ service called myVidster that allowed users to share videos from different locations around the web, which were then embedded on their platform, served up from the original locations. They were sued for contributory copyright infringement, based on the actions of users that were sharing clips that had been uploaded without authorisation.

The service provider had already received a number of takedown notifications regarding the material, and it was argued that they had not taken enough action as required to qualify for safe harbor protections. However, that is not the be all and end all. In the words of the court: ‘a non-infringer doesn’t need a safe harbor.’ The parties who uploaded the videos in the first place were the ones whose activity was infringing, and the question is whether myVidster had encouraged their infringing activity to an extent that constituted contributory infringement. The court did not find this to be the case, holding that myVidster was neither a direct or contributory infringer. In other words, they were too far removed from the infringing activity, 

My View

Irrespective of the potential for individuals to incur liability based on the context of hyperlinks which they create, the application of the DMCA should not extend to their removal.

Part of the criticism of the DMCA is that there is a substantial burden placed on copyright holders to track down and report instances of infringement across the web. Much like the mythological Hydra, as one falls, more spring up to take its place. Slaying the beast requires attacking the root of the problem; treating hyperlinks as valid subjects of takedown notifications is to mis-understand the task, and only serves in the creation of extra conceptual heads to pursue.

Rather than target hyperlinks, the focus of enforcement efforts should be on the actual source of the infringing material: the host. Take out the location pointed to by hyperlinks, and they are instantly rendered obsolete. This is not only a far more effective approach in tacking infringing activity, but one that also avoids creating extra and unnecessary work. Financially, this means less is paid to third party agents such as DMCA.com, whose revenue is based on successful takedown notifications.

The DMCA is already a blunt, and powerful tool. Abuse of the system is rife, and often deployed for the purposes of censoring legitimate expression, rather than to curb copyright infringement. To extend its remit to include the removal of hyperlinks is a dangerous step, that fundamentally alters our relationship with a core structural element of the web, and risks a (further) chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Despite recent case law seeming to support this principle, the judgements have been extremely dependent on the circumstances involved, and there has been no definitive authorities. As a result, it is up to online service providers to shape the approach to the issue, rejecting DMCA notification takedowns that concern hyperlinks. Policy decisions such as this create the normative frameworks that have the power to help ensure or hinder a free and open web, and it’s critical that tech companies lead the charge, rather than taking a minimum risk stance.

scottishgovbanner

The Scottish Government’s Plans for a National Identity Database

Over the past couple of weeks, it has come to light that the Scottish Government are holding a public consultation on changes to the National Health Service Central Register (Scotland) Regulations 2006. 

The NHSCR is essentially a database that holds records on every single person in Scotland who was either born – or registered with a GP – in the country. This is tied to a unique number called the UCRN. Since the bulk of us need to see the doctor now and then – and don’t have private healthcare – that means pretty much all of us is on there. The changes would allow the register to collect some additional information (in the form of postcodes), and then share that data with other public sector organisations.

The proposed aims of these changes are as follows:

i. Improve the quality of the data held within the NHSCR

ii. Assist the tracing of certain persons, for example, children who are missing within the education system and foreign individuals who received NHS treatment in Scotland and left the country with outstanding bills

iii. Enable the approach to secure and easy access to online services (myaccount) to extend beyond services of Scottish local authorities and health boards to a wider range of public services

iv. Enable the identification of Scottish tax payers to ensure the accurate allocation of tax receipts to Scotland associated with the Scottish Rate of Income Tax.

So hold on, how on earth will changes made to a register held by the NHS help trace missing people, or to sort income tax? I’m glad you asked!

Data Sharing

Despite being buried away in a seemingly minor consultation in an innocuous piece of legislation, the proposals are actually pretty significant. In essence, they are seeking to use NHS records as a central location for a whole manner of other organisations to track details about people resident in Scotland.

On the face of it, the sheer dishonesty involved in appropriating a database which has been collected through public trust for other purposes is dismaying enough. However, there are some legitimate aims in there. After all, who could argue with attempting to trace missing children more efficiently? Given the sensitive nature of the information involved, I’m sure that we can expect that the other organisations which would gain access to view and share these types of personal details would be small, and tightly controlled. Right?

Wrong.

In the proposed new schedule, there are 98 different organisations listed who would get access to a core set of records. Amongst them are:

  • The Scottish Ministers
  • The Scottish Parliament
  • Revenue Scotland

Well, okay… not great, but hard to really justify spitting the dummy out over.

But wait, there’s more:

  • The Foods Standard Agency in Scotland
  • The Drinking Water Quality Regulator in Scotland
  • The Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Err… what?

That’s not all though!

  • Glasgow Prestwick Airport
  • Cairngorms National Park Authority
  • Scottish Canals

and… possibly the best one of them all:

  • Quality Meat Scotland

Yep, that’s right. Quality Meat Scotland.

Don’t believe me? See the full list for yourself.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I see absolutely no reason for these people to have access to my private information:

Scotsheep 2012 Kings Arms 053

I’m sure they’re wonderful human beings that do a great job, but when I go to see the doctor about a private matter, I don’t expect that information to then be available to anybody else, especially not a seemingly arbitrary selection of other public organisations.

Here’s some other possible data exchanges that I find curious:

  • The Forestry Commission sharing information on people with the National Library of Scotland (to find out which books are pulped most, perhaps?)
  • SQA (the exams people) sharing information on people with The Crofters Commission (finding under-qualified Crofters?)
  • Scottish Canals sharing information on people with The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh (?!?!)

There are other, more serious potential implications though:

  • The address information of vulnerable people being discovered, or exposed to disgruntled or abusive ex-partners
  • Details of people’s personal medical records (including mental health issues such as depression) being laid bare for others to access – with the potential for discrimination on that basis markedly high

These possibilities are purely hypothetical at this point, and would arguably be outside of the scope of the proposals in their current form. However, they illustrate the risks that are presented by linking up disparate data-sets in this manner. Once the UCRN is deployed across the public sector, there is little to prevent the above examples from being enabled. The consultation does not the risks that are presented by this, and haven’t given the impression of any sort of detailed consideration about either the privacy implications, or general public interest of this move.

One would expect there should be detailed regulations in place to control the sort of information transfer being described, yet the consultation remains remarkably quiet on the matter, stating only the following:

In each of the proposed amendments outlined above the minimum amount of data would be shared for the specific purposes outlined. The organisation will provide information on the individual they wish to identify and will receive equivalent information from the NHSCR and the principal reference number which is the UCRN. Where an organisation wishes to take advantage of this legislation it will also require to have in place data sharing agreements to ensure that appropriate processes are put in place and followed and that the data is used for the specific purpose identified.

That’s all very well and good, but there is a worryingly scant supply of details on the framework that would ensure these protections would be afforded, or what these ‘appropriate processes’ might be to prevent extra data being shared between organisations without justification. There is also nothing to stop this limited, and disparate set of aims (tracking missing children, establishing a more efficient online user account system for public services, and ensuring Scottish people pay income tax) from expanding in the future to share much more data.

This is a far bigger issue than it is being presented as.

Here is a summary of the issues:

  • The proposed changes would create a single national identity database in Scotland
  • There have been no adequate considerations of the privacy or data implications outlined in the consultation
  • There is no way to guarantee that the scope of the data to be shared would not increase in future, once the mechanism is established
  • The changes would undermine the public’s trust in the NHS, by using it as a vehicle to deliver these proposals

The consultation is woefully inadequate for the significance of these proposals, and the questions framed as if their premise is already universally accepted as a good thing. Almost laughably, instead of leaving space for any potential concerns, the consultation asks about suggestions for other organisations who the data should be shared with. That’s in addition to Prestwick Airport and Quality Meat, for the record.

The Scottish Government should halt the proposals, and instead move to recognise these changes for what they are: a significant development in our relationship with public sector organisations, requiring a full debate in Parliament, with the chance for both MSPs and the public to scrutinise them.

Read more from the Open Rights Group on this here.

Details on the Consultation itself is here. If you’re looking to do so, make sure and get yours in quick, as the closing date is the 25th of February.

alfredremote

Productivity Apps: Alfred Remote

Two weeks ago, the creators of one my favourite Mac apps – Alfred – released a second app: Alfred Remote.

alfredremote

What does it do?

Alfred Remote is an app for your smartphone (currently iOS only) that integrates with Alfred, and allows you to control your Mac from your phone. You can launch apps, interact with the system (to logout, dim the brightness, shut down the computer, etc), or run more complicated workflows.

What’s the point in that?

At first it isn’t quite clear what the point in some of the features of Alfred Remote are. They might be designed really nicely, and work well… but why bother launching an app on your computer from your phone if you then have to be at your keyboard to use the app anyway? It would be awesome if there was some way to input text into open apps, for example, but there currently isn’t – not easily anyway. I was a bit disappointed, as it seemed like a nice idea that didn’t have much use outside of controlling the screen when you were giving presentations.

However, as with Alfred itself, the ways in which it can become useful don’t come clear until you start to dwell on them a bit more. I realised there were more than a few things I would do on my laptop that would be great if I could control remotely – like when I was watching films on Netflix or VLC. As more and more people use computers as media centres, this app will prove more and more useful. It might be true that many of the issues that it can solve are very niche, but often they are the hardest ones to find a solution to.

On top of controlling your computer remotely, rather than thinking about it in terms of something that would be used instead of the keyboard or mouse, we need to consider the benefits of using it to augment them. As one fellow Alfred forum members put it, think of it as ‘Alfred Sidekick’ rather than Alfred Remote.

What do YOU use it for then?

The ways in which Alfred Remote will be useful will differ depending on your own needs and expectations. The beauty of the app is having the framework there, ready for you to create your own custom solutions to your individual problems.

For me, the first thing I did was to create a workflow for the media player VLC.

We don’t have a TV at home – as I don’t think the licence fee is worth the cost. As a result, we watch a lot of DVDs and other media files on a big LCD external monitor. Not having a remote control can be a bummer, so… I created one!

alfred remote vlc

The basics are there – play/pause, and buttons to change the volume – but there’s also a few that I added in specific to issues we came across, like to turn subtitles on or off, to fullscreen the window, and to increase or decrease the audio delay to compensate for lip synching issues. Simple, rough, but works great. Download VLC Remote Control here.

Next was Flux. Flux is an app that gradually changes the colour temperature of your screen throughout the day, in order to prevent eye strain. I hated it at first, but now I love it. Along with Alfred, it’s one of the first apps I’d install on a new computer.

The one problem with Flux is that it can interfere with the colour rendition for when you’re playing movies, or working on photos. There are ways to make up for this, but often it can be a pain if you’re sitting on your couch to go into the settings and find what you want. So…

Flux Alfred Remote

Here is my Flux Remote app. I can disable it for an hour, until sunrise, for the current app, access the preferences, enable movie or darkroom mode, and even quit the app completely. Download it here.

Third came Flickr. I love Flickr, particularly browsing through other people’s photostreams and seeing their work. Problem is, I’d really love to do it sitting with a glass of whisky, with the pictures in high resolution glory on my big screen rather than on my laptop. Luckily, Flickr’s interface has some keyboard shortcuts built in. I used these to create…

Flickr Alfred Remote Control

Flickr Theatre. This is really simple at the minute, but it lets me load up a big stream of pictures, browse between them, zoom in on them if I want, view them in lightbox mode, and then add the ones I like as a favourite. Pretty basic, but in the future there are a whole load of other things that could be possible. Download it here.

Now on to something that is more along the lines of the ‘Alfred sidekick’ mindset that I mentioned above. I edit a lot of pictures, and I am terrible at remembering the shortcuts to open common things like Curves, Contrast, etc. No matter how often I use them, they just don’t stick. So I had an idea… why not create a dedicated Alfred remote page to control these?

Screen Shot 2015-02-12 at 16.12.29

This is still a work in progress, so not online to download yet – but essentially I can keep my iPhone open at the side of the keyboard whilst editing pictures, and call up the tools I use frequently without having to worry about remembering their keyboard shortcut. Awesome.

These are just a few examples, and there are plenty more coming out all the time. I also use the built in iTunes control, and some others – but have chosen just to focus on the ones I’ve created specifically, as there is documentation out there on the rest. The Alfred community is alive and well, and the possibilities available by using workflows are pretty powerful. There have already been hints that future versions will contain more advanced features based on the feedback that has been received so far, so it’ll be interesting to see how things develop.

Where do I get it?

Currently the app is only available for iOS, but that should hopefully change in the future. It’s available for $4.99 on the App Store, or £3.99 in the UK.

To find out more, visit the Alfred Remote page.