Judge

Not even the judge who granted him this wish even knows if this is possible.

by

LaLiga has obtained that a court in Córdoba order NordVPN and ProtonVPN to block certain IPs associated with the broadcast of football matches without authorization. The situation, which has intensified over the last few years, and which has led to malfunction of many websites every time there is a match, it has even led to the services of VPN are involved in this crossroads. The problem is that no one knows entirely if that is technically possible, not even the judge who signed the resolution. What exactly happened. The Commercial Court No. 1 of Córdoba recently issued several orders granting LaLiga and Telefónica precautionary measures “unheard of”, that is, without the affected companies being able to defend themselves. The recipients are two of the most popular VPNs on the market: NordVPN and ProtonVPN. The order requires them to immediately implement mechanisms so that certain IP addresses, in which, according to LaLiga, “illegal broadcasting of protected audiovisual content” were found to be inaccessible from Spain. Because it is important. Until now, LaLiga’s battles against those websites or organizations that broadcast football without authorization were fought involving teleoperators and broadcast providers. services like Cloudflarewith the goal of blocking those IP addresses in which it was confirmed that LaLiga content had been broadcast without authorization. Bringing VPN providers into that equation means that the pursuit of those IP addresses jumped to a whole new level. The reasoning The judge’s opinion is that these companies are “technological intermediaries within the scope of European Digital Services regulations” and, therefore, have the obligation to prevent infringements from being committed through their infrastructures. LaLiga further argues that these VPNs not only facilitate access to blocked content, but even “actively advertise that ability.” The technical trap. Blocking a specific IP is relatively simple for a traditional operator. But asking a VPN to block only “illegal” traffic associated with an IP, without touching the rest of the traffic passing through its servers, is a completely different problem. The magistrate responsible for the resolution, Antonio Fuentes Bujalance, recognized in a publication on LinkedIn that the order only requires action “in the sole and exclusive case that it is technically possible to make this discrimination between legal and illegal traffic by the VPN provider without affecting in any way everything that does not have to do with illegal soccer streaming traffic.” “Whether or not it is technically possible will be seen, but if it is not, the order is only to do it if possible,” he added in the publication. What it means in practice. In other words, what the judge meant is that, if NordVPN or ProtonVPN determine that they cannot make this traffic discrimination without compromising the service of their users, the resolution ceases to have effect. This opens up room for maneuver for both companies, although it also raises the question of who evaluates and certifies whether this technical separation is possible or not. How VPNs have reacted. ProtonVPN counted to Xataka Móvil that he was not aware of any ongoing proceedings before the news broke, and that any order issued without due notification to the affected parties would be, in his opinion, “invalid from a procedural point of view.” NordVPN, for its part, Indian that he had not received the judicial documents either, so he could not comment in detail. Although the company maintained that “domain blocks are ineffective in combating piracy” since these blocks can be “easily bypassed using subdomains.” Furthermore, NordVPN said that these types of measures “mainly affect reputable paid VPNs, leaving free VPN services practically intact,” which are used precisely by those who do not want to pay for content. And now what. Everything indicates that the issue is still quite far from being resolved. What has become clear is that LaLiga has opened a new front in its particular fight against those who broadcast matches without consent, and is going to use every possible legal instrument to make their requests possible. Cover image | Peter Lagson and own assembly In Xataka | You will only be able to get to the World Cup stadiums in the USA and Mexico by car. And they are going to charge you 300 dollars to park it

Mexico has made an extremely ambitious bet on the Mayan Train. And now a judge has suspended her

by

“It is a magnum opus, we are not exaggerating if we say that there is no one like it in the world today.” The phrase It was pronounced at the end of 2023 by former Mexican president Manuel López Obrador, and although in politics (no matter the nation) the use of superlatives is common, the truth is that it was not misguided. What López Obrador was referring to was the Mayan Trainan ambitious railway circuit of more than 1,500 kilometers that started more than two years ago between Campeche and Cancun and continues to take shape become a priority of the Government. Mexico needs it to be a success, but not at any price. What has happened? That the Mexican justice system has just reminded the country’s administration that, no matter how important and strategic it may be, the Mayan Train cannot advance with its back to the regulations. That is why it has issued a suspension order that will mark the works of one of its most controversial sections. For the project to continue advancing, from now on the authorities will have to put more effort into protecting natural resources in one of the most sensitive areas through which the railway must circulate: the region located between Cancún and Tulum, right where it passes. Section 5 of the Mayan Train. What has justice done? Dictate a final suspension order focused on that specific section. That does not mean that it has condemned the project or that the Mayan Train should give up its Cancún-Tulum stretch, although it does represent a wake-up call for those responsible for the project and a reminder that the work must advance while respecting its environment. Basically what the magistrate has done is demand that the environmental authorities of Mexico confirm that the project complies with the regulations and are responsible for monitoring it. The court order obliges the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (Profepa) to carry out direct and permanent inspections in the Cancún-Tulum section. No revisions on paper or reports signed from the offices in Mexico City, miles from where the works are being carried out. The ruling was issued thanks to the mediation of the organization ‘Save me’ and is addressed to Profepa and the General Directorate of Crimes, Commutations, Complaints and Complaints. Is it so important? Yes. According to precise The Chroniclerthe order places several duties on the competent agencies that, in practice, will force them to reinforce their surveillance. To begin with, they will have to carry out direct, field supervision of the project. They must also verify the effects on protected species, the protection of cenotes and control underground rivers. Finally, the ruling points out the need to prepare detailed reports. If these demands are not met, those responsible could face sanctions. What do environmentalists say? Sélvame has valued the judge’s decision as “a significant achievement” in the defense of the media. “It is an important step towards the protection of natural resources and guarantees that verification, inspection, conservation and protection actions will be carried out in the event of pertinent public complaints,” celebrate. The groups that have been warning for some time about alleged irregularities, such as tree felling or unsupervised work that affects wetlands, they advance that they will be attentive so that the order is carried out. What area does it affect? That is one of the keys. The Mayan Train is a wide railway circuit, more than 1,500 kmbut the focus has been placed on a very specific point: Section 5, which is in turn divided into various segments (north and south) between Tulum and Cancun. In total, according to the Mayan Train Guidemeasures just over 100 km. Beyond its length, shorter than other sections, the local press stands out which is one of the most sensitive. The reason: the presence of vulnerable ecosystems, caves and underground rivers and the threat to their biodiversity. In August 2024 the Verified platform assured that the construction of the Mayan Train had affected approximately 7.3 million trees, a good part (3.5 million) in Section 5. In 2024 A court has already ordered work to stop until geological, geophysical and hydrological studies are delivered. Why is it important? To begin with and as López Obrador himself recognized in December 2023, when he presided over the inaugural tour of the Mayan Train, because the railway circuit is not just any project. And not only because of its impact on the environment, its dimensions, its costs or enormous ambition. With it, the Mexican authorities aspire to promote the development of the southeastern region, articulating a new communications backbone that favors tourism. The problem is that its implementation is not being easy. Its premiere has not had the expected success (at least in passenger traffic) and its management has just change handsmoving to the Secretary of Defense. Images | Mayan Train In Xataka | In case Machu Picchu had not already become a tourist theme park, Peru has had an idea: add an airport

There are people sharing their court cases with AI. The problem is when a judge considers the conversations as evidence

by

More and more users have an AI chatbot as a companion for everything, whether ChatGPT, Gemini, Claudeor any other. The problem comes when we decide to share sensitive data with this type of tools, especially with commercial models produced by large technology companies where we will always have the doubt of where our data travels. In this sense, there are those who share their legal data with the assistant, which can lead to something like what recently happened in New York. And a city judge just set a precedent historical by considering that any conversation held with a chatbot is public and therefore not protected by attorney-client privilege. That is to say: everything you share with the AI ​​can end up being used against you in court. The case. Bradley Heppner, an executive accused of fraud worth $300 million, used Claude, Anthropic’s chatbot, to ask questions about his legal situation before being arrested. He created 31 documents with his conversations with the AI ​​and later shared them with his defense attorneys. When the FBI seized his electronic devices, his attorneys claimed those documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. Judge Jed Rakoff has said no. Because No. Just like share Moish Peltz, a lawyer specializing in digital assets and intellectual property, in a post on X, the sentence establishes three reasons. First, an AI is not a lawyer: it is not licensed to practice, owes no loyalty to anyone, and its terms of service expressly disclaim any attorney-client relationship. Second, sharing legal information with an AI is legally equivalent to telling it to a friend, so it is not protected by professional secrecy. And third, sending ‘non-privileged’ documents to your lawyer afterwards does not magically make them confidential. The underlying problem. As the lawyer recalls, the interface of this type of chatbot generates a false sense of privacy, but in reality you are entering information into a third-party commercial platform that retains your data and reserves broad rights to disclose it. According to Anthropic privacy policy In effect when Heppner used Claude, the company may disclose both user questions and generated responses to “governmental regulatory authorities.” Dilemma. The court document reveals Also an aggravating factor: Heppner introduced into the AI ​​information that he had previously received from his lawyers. This poses a dilemma for the prosecution, according to account Peltz. And if you try to use those documents as evidence at trial, defense attorneys could become witnesses to the events, potentially forcing a mistrial. What does it mean to you? If you are involved in any legal matter, according to this ruling, what you share with an AI can be claimed by a judge and used as evidence. It doesn’t matter whether you are preparing your defense or seeking preliminary advice, as each query can end up becoming a factor against you. And it does not only apply to criminal cases: divorces, labor disputes, commercial litigation… any conversation with AI on these topics escapes legal protection. And now what. Peltz points out that legal professionals must explicitly warn their clients of this risk. You can’t assume that people understand it intuitively. The solution he mentions involves creating collaborative workspaces with AI shared between lawyer and client, so any interaction with artificial intelligence will occur under the supervision of the lawyer and within the lawyer-client relationship. Cover image | Romain Dancre and Solen Feyissa In Xataka | Folding clothes or taking apart LEGOs has always been a tedious task. Xiaomi’s new AI for robots has put an end to it

Valve has been charging a 30% commission on Steam for twenty years. Now it’s your turn to explain why before a judge.

by

Valve will have to defend its business model before the British courts after the Competition Appeal Court of London authorized on January 26 a class action lawsuit that could cost £656 million, about $900 million. The accusation: the American company abuses its dominant position in the PC games market with commercial practices that keep prices artificially high and limit competition between digital distributors. The demand. Vicki Shotbolt, activist specializing in digital rights and CEO of Parent Zonefiled the legal action in June 2024. It represents approximately 14 million British users who have purchased video games or additional content through Steam since 2018. The case is based on three arguments: first, it questions the 30% commission that Valve charges on each transaction on Steam. The prosecution considers this fee excessive and maintains that it has a direct impact on the final price. The second argument attacks “price parity obligations”: contractual restrictions that would prevent studios and distributors from offering their titles at more competitive prices on other platforms. Valve would have intervened in specific cases when detecting more aggressive discounts outside of Steam. The third point points out a retention mechanism: whoever purchases a base game on Steam must purchase all subsequent downloadable content exclusively on that platform. Other cases. The British case is not an isolated episode. In the United States, independent studios Wolfire Games and Dark Catt Studios filed antitrust lawsuits against Valve in 2021. They were initially dismissed, but the plaintiffs reformulated their arguments and resubmitted them in 2022. A court ordered the two cases to be merged. Since then, any developer, publisher or individual who has paid commissions to Valve on sales since January 28, 2017 can join. David Rosen, founder of Wolfire Games, explained which took legal action after Valve’s direct intervention when it tried to offer lower prices on other platforms. In August 2024, four players from California, Florida, and Missouri filed a separate lawsuit accusing Steam of “strangling competition with blatantly anti-competitive pricing restrictions.” Antitrust. The lawsuits against Valve are part of a broader pattern of antitrust litigation. The most relevant precedent is the confrontation between Epic Games and Apple: the developer of ‘Fortnite’ implemented an alternative payment system that avoided the 30% commission of the App Store. Apple won most points in the litigation, but had problems in certain states such as California. The case against Google had a more forceful outcome: Epic demonstrated that the company had illegally monopolized the Android ecosystem, which will force Google to allow competing app stores on its devices until November 2027. Antitrust. The lawsuits against Valve fit into a broader pattern of antitrust litigation. The most relevant precedent is the confrontation between Epic Games and Apple: The developer of ‘Fortnite’ implemented an alternative payment system that avoided the 30% commission from the App Store. In May 2025Fortnite returned to the Apple store. The case against Google had a stronger outcome: Epic managed to prove that the company had illegally monopolized the Android ecosystem, which will force Google to allow competing app stores on its devices until November 2027. The magnitude of Valve. Steam hosted more than 19,000 video games during 2025, generating total revenues of $11.7 billion. The income that Valve obtains exclusively from its commissions on sales increased from 1.1 billion dollars in 2015 to an estimated 3.2 billion in 2024, tripling in less than a decade. Additionally, Valve produces approximately $50 million in revenue per employee, an exceptional figure even in the technology sector. The London court has not yet set a date for the trial, which will determine whether these practices constitute abuse of a dominant position. If the lawsuit is successful, the affected British users could receive compensation for the extra costs that, according to the accusation, they have been paying for years. In Xataka | Amazon wanted to surpass Steam and spent 15 years spending 250 times more. It has only served them to enter into crisis

The judge has allowed it to eat up the inner courtyard of the block

by

The elevator is a necessary element in any building, but there was a time when it was not so common. Many old buildings face a problem: they want to install an elevator, but it doesn’t fit in the stairwell. It is not usually common, but there are cases in which installing the elevator involves “eating” part of the homes. The conflict. Our colleagues tell it Xataka Home. Given the lack of space in the common areas, a community of Madrid residents unanimously agreed to install the elevator, occupying part of the private patios of the ground floor homes. One of the two affected homeowners took the case to court, claiming that installation in the stairwell was possible. The judge agreed with him and the community’s decision was annulled, but it didn’t end there. The sentence. The community of neighbors appealed to the Provincial Court, which ended up agreeing with them. The problem with installing the elevator in the common areas is that it did not comply with the regulations, but it also meant causing great damage to the building because the staircase had to be demolished, in addition to blocking access to the homes for a long time. The criterion was based on the general interest of the community and the fact that the installation in the courtyard was much more reasonable from a technical point of view. The private use. In the case of this sentence, the space occupied by the elevator is the private use patio of the first floor. That is, the property belongs to the community, but its use is exclusive to one of the neighbors since access is through their home. As stated in Economist & Juristhe article 9 of the Horizontal Property Law It is clear: “a permanent easement can be built over a private space, without requiring the consent of the affected owner,” as long as it is justified and is of interest to the community. Mandatory installation. The LPH establishes that the elevator is mandatory if a resident requests the facility for accessibility reasons. The community will be obliged to install it and its cost must be borne by all owners. It can also be approved by a simple majority, which prevents the installation from being blocked if, for example, the neighbors on the ground floor or first floor refuse to do so. Sometimes they eat the kitchen. There are many buildings without elevators that do not have space in common areas and, in some cases, their installation requires invading part of the homes or a commercial premisesthat is, a private property. As stated in The Confidentialthe Supreme Court declared that it is “an easement of passage in favor of the community.” Of course, in these cases the owner has the right to compensation, which will be set based on the value of the square meter. Or the street. In Madrid it is quite common to see elevators attached to the façade of the building and that invade part of the sidewalk. This is an exceptional measure to guarantee accessibility to the building, provided there is no other remedy. According to the regulationsthe sidewalk must remain at least 1.8 meters wide, although in some specific cases it is allowed to narrow to 1.5 meters and even 1.20 meters if there are no other options. In this case, the project must be presented to the city council, which is the one who studies and approves whether to grant the planning permission for works. In other communities such as Cantabria, lThe regulations also contemplate this possibility. Image | Laura Sacristán, Xataka In Xataka | What changes does the new Spanish regulations ask to make in elevators before July 1?

George RR Martin asked ChatGPT to write ‘Game of Thrones’. He did it so well that he is going to end up before the judge

by

The debate about the AI usage limits and how is this going to actually affect the creators It is very complex, and it has only just begun. From discerning to what extent AI’s ability to create works outside of humans will continue to grow to the logical ethical and legal concerns that appear around a tool that, from its very definition, is in a completely unexplored area. At the moment, George RR Martin and other authors are taking steps in search of more demanding regulation. What has happened? A federal judge in Manhattan has given the green light for the lawsuit filed by George RR Martin and other authors against OpenAI and Microsoft for alleged copyright violation. The creator of ‘Game of Thrones’ and his colleagues accuse these companies of use his works without authorization to train ChatGPT. According to the ruling issued on October 27, 2025, there are reasons for the case to move forward, since ChatGPT’s proposal for a sequel to the saga was substantially similar to Martin’s work already protected by copyright. The determining test. It came when lawyers asked ChatGPT to create a fictional sequel to ‘A Clash of Kings’. The chatbot immediately spawned a novel called ‘Dance of Shadows’, a sequel that included a new Targaryen heir named Lady Elara, a rebellious sect of the Children of the Forest, and a mysterious form of ancient dragon-related magic. This ability to recreate elements from Martin’s universe made the question clear: how could the AI ​​know his work in such detail without having fed on it? The precedents. The origins of this legal conflict date back to September 2023, when Martin, accompanied by 17 other authors (including people like Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jia Tolentino, John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen and Sarah Silverman) raised his voice against what he considered a systematic exploitation of his work. The case was brought by the Authors Guild union, in a lawsuit that spoke of “systematic theft on a massive scale”, arguing that the tool makes use of their works without paying royalties and without the writers’ consent. The letter. Months before the lawsuit, these authors and many others, such as Margaret Atwood or Nora Roberts, they had sent a letter to large technology companies conveying their concerns about generative AI technologies. In that document they warned about “the injustice inherent in exploiting our works as part of your AI systems without our consent, credit or compensation.” The accusation was clear: ChatGPT had not only learned from his books; Now I could replicate them. Other attacks. We are at a key moment in determining the legal implications of generative AI. At the beginning of 2025, for example, it was decided by the juries a similar dispute against Anthropicwhich concluded with an out-of-court settlement: the company paid $1.5 billion to authors whose works were used without permission. This precedent shows that technology companies are willing to negotiate to avoid court rulings that could establish binding jurisprudence. In England, by contrast, the High Court of England determined that Stability AI did not infringe copyright by train your model with Getty imagesthat is, a decision in literally the opposite direction, which has generated alarm among European creators. In all these cases the debate about “fair use” or fair use: The technology companies argue that the training of their models constitutes a transformative use of works, similar to when search engines index content. The creators reply that it is a massive appropriation that replaces, not complements, the original work. And in the background, a shock that has only just begun. Header |Gage Skidmore

Listen to the judge, weigh tests and send a verdict with the mobile. It is not a dystopia, but the latest in immersive theater

by

There are people capable of anything in order to dodge the task of being part of a jury, because they do not want that responsibility in their conscience or because you do not feel like investing a considerable amount of their time in determining the fate of others. But … what if we condensate all the tedious process in a couple of thrilling hours? What if we did to have fun? Would we even pay for it? What’s up. ‘The Jury Experience ‘is an immersive play in which spectators become an active part of the show, analyzing testimonies, examining forensic tests and listening to allegations. Finally deliberate and offer a final verdict of guilty or innocent. The cases are accessible and not especially violent or disturbing, they are often inspired by real events. How it works. The development of ‘The Jury Experience’ is ambiguous enough so that there is no “correct” resolution. There are no conclusive evidence in development, there are no last -minute confessions. That is, the responsibility of awarding someone a conviction or an acquittal falls entirely in the public. According to the organizers From this interactive entertainment, “the proposal invites you to reflect on justice, personal responsibility and limits of perception and social judgment.” Where to see it. Currently, ‘The Jury Experience’ is turning all over Spainand has been seen in Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Valencia, Sevilla or Alicante, among others. At the time of writing these lines you can see it in Bilbao, but the work does not stop traveling. Moreover, it is already starting to operate as a franchise, and to raise different cases so that the most aware can repeat. If a crime was judged in autonomous cars and accidents with cyclists because of artificial intelligence, in the second we will judge a more classic intrigue, with a love triangle, a conflicting divorce and a crime in a mansion. Experiences from within. ‘The jury experience’ is not an isolated experiment. Currently, especially in capitals such as Madrid and Barcelona, ​​immersive theater experiences abound. Although there are often those oriented to the whole family (such as those of Plot Point ‘Superdetective’ and ‘The fantastic legend of Calamburia’), there are others aimed at a more adult audience, such as the different versions of ‘Cluedo’ live, which already has several cases. There are even places especially dedicated to gender, such as 4DX Theater List Box In Madrid, where apart from the entire aforementioned ‘cluedo’ franchise, they have works such as ‘the memory of the psychiatric’. What the True Crime. There is an interesting hook in this phenomenon that allows the temperature of the tastes of the public: the Claim of “based on a real case” multiplies the morbid of the Devotos del True Crimethat they listen Podcasts And they see series inspired by authentic crimes often calibrating the possibilities they would have had to take the investigation by another route. Even in a highly fictional environment, such as ‘cluedo’, public participation allows it to transform it into a True Crime Without consequences. A new morbid fun, and also a perfect thermometer of where our leisure pulls. In Xataka | There are thousands of people hooked to True Crime documentaries on YouTube. The only problem is that they are generated by AI

Anthropic trained his AI with millions of books with copyright. To a judge that has seemed correct (with a great asterisk)

by

Anthropic has just achieved a very important legal victory in that legal battle that the world of AI maintains with copyright and copyright for years. The sentence, favorable to Anthropic, can sit a great precedent for the rest of the cases in which AI companies have been sued for training their models with works with copyright. But be careful, because it has not been a total victory. ANTOPIC WIN. In the demand of three authors against Anthropic, the company was accused of downloading millions of books with copyright, in addition to buying some of them to scan and digitize them. The objective: train their AI models. Judge William Alsup has made clear In his sentence that “the use for training was a fair use.” Companies that develop AI models have always shielded in that concept of just use to argue how their models with all kinds of works, including those protected by copyright. Fair use. This legal criterion maintains that limited use of protected material is allowed without needing permission from the owner of those rights. In the laws of Copyright, one of the ways that judges have to determine if that type of activity is a fair use is to examine whether that use was “transformer.” Or what is the same, if something new has been created from these works. For Alsup “the technology in question is one of the most transformatives that many of us will see in our lives.” A victory with a great asterisk. Although the judge indicated that this training process was a fair use, he also determined that the authors could lead Anthropic to trial for hacking their works. The company argued that this was justified because it was “at least reasonably necessary to train LLMS.” For Alsup the issue is precisely that although they ended up buying some of them, he built a huge library for which he did not pay: “Anthropic downloaded more than seven million pirate copies of books, did not pay anything and retained these pirate copies in his library even after deciding that he would not use them to train their AI (at all or never again). The authors argue that Anthropic should have paid for these pirate copies of the library. This sentence coincides with it.” Thomson-Reuters’ precedent. A few months ago Thomson Reuters won a 2020 demand Against a so -called Ross Intelligence Startup. According to them, the company had reproduced material from its legal research division, called Westlaw. The judge rejected the arguments of the defense and declared that the argument for fair use could not be applied in that case. The sentence against Anthropic is right in the opposite direction and blesses that type of use … while companies buy the works with which they train their models. The company of AI, by the way, had already achieved a small legal victory In a previous case against Universal Music. Anthropic downloaded piecework books. In the trial it was revealed how the co -founder of Anthropic, Ben Mann, downloaded in winter 2021 data sets such as The so -called Books3 or libgen (Library Genesis) that they are nothing more than gigantic book compilations, many of which are protected by copyright. Goal is in the same. All companies that develop AI models have been trained with all types of data, including works protected by copyright, and they all face a similar situation. Goal, for example, downloaded 81.7 TB of books with copyright via Bittorrent to train their AI models. That makes the company of Mark Zuckerberg can end up suffering a destination similar to that of Anthropic, which has before him a new very dangerous judicial process for his finances. A potential fine of billions of dollars. As indicated in Wired, the minimum fine for this type of copyright rape is $ 750 per book. Alsup indicated that the illegally unloaded library of Anthropic consists of at least seven million books, and that means that the company faces a potentially huge fine. At the moment there is no date for that new trial. The endless battle of AI and copyright. This is the last episode of a soap opera that we will undoubtedly see many more chapters. Companies like Google, OpenAI either Perplexity They have been equally voracious when training their models and have devastated public (and not so public) data on the Internet. Copyright’s rape demands are accumulating, and cases such as Anthropic may sit a predictive disturbing for all of them if they did not buy the books they used to train their models. Image | Emil Widlund In Xataka | 5,000 “tokens” of my blog are being used to train an AI. I have not given my permission

Tesla wants to keep certain accidents of accidents with her cars. A judge will decide if they should be made public

by

The Autopilot and the Total Autonomous Driving Capacity (FSD) have been available in the Tesla sold in the United States for years. Its existence, its commercial deployment and even its general operation are well known. What remains a mystery are some details of the accidents occurred With those activated systems. Tesla does not want this information to come to light, and now he has resorted to court to keep it locked. The origin of the conflict is in a lawsuit filed by The Washington Post against NHTSA, the Federal Road Safety Agency of the United States. The newspaper requests access to the full spreadsheet that compiles the reports of incidents occurred while the Tesla driving assistance systems were activated. According to the medium, the NHTSA publishes some data, but retains “critical details” such as environmental conditions, the location of the claims or the concrete versions of the software that were in use. For the plaintiffs, it is information of public interest that can shed light on the true performance of these technologies. A defense based on commercial secret As Reuters collects, Tesla has responded firmly. This week, he presented a writing before the Federal Court of the Columbia district to oppose the publication of this data. Its central argument is that certain fields of reports contain sensitive information. Specifically, the hardware or software version, the indication of whether the car circulated inside its Designed Operational Domain (ODD) and the detailed narrative of the accident. According to the company, revealing these elements would allow its competitors to evaluate the effectiveness of each version of the system, track the pace of improvement and associate errors with specific versions. It is, says Tesla, “a technological road map” that could cause severe competitive damage. The NHTSSA, meanwhile, has partially backed that position. In a separate writingthe agency coincides with Tesla that these three fields are protected by the Law of Freedom of Information (FOIA). Both argue that it is not only privacy, but of commercial confidentiality, a category that can legally justify that documents are not delivered to the public. The newspaper’s lawyers, on the other hand, have alleged that this information is already partially accessible to the drivers themselves and that their compilation should not be armored by the business secret. Now it is the Federal Court who must decide whether that information comes to light or remains hidden. But the debate is not purely legal; It occurs in full scrutiny of driving assistance systems. As NPR points outNHTSSA investigates FSD’s yield in 2.4 million vehicles After several accidentsincluding mortal in 2023. It also maintains other inquiries on collisions in low visibility conditions and on the function Actually Smart Summon. Although not all collisions are known publicly, the confidential spreadsheet that the Washington Post claims contains the incidents that Tesla regularly refers to the agency, but seeks to delve into the information that is made known. Autopilot, improved autopilot and total autonomous driving capacity are the three levels at which Tesla organizes its driving assistance systems. The first, Autopilot, comes standard in new vehicles sold in the United States and includes functions such as adaptive cruise control and autogyro, which keeps the car inside the lane. From there, the user can pay to access a more advanced package, the improved autopilot, or directly to the total autonomous driving capacity (Full Self-Driving or FSD), the most complete set offered by the brand. In practice, none of these systems converts the car into an autonomous vehicle. Despite his name, Full Self-Driving requires the driver to be attentive, with his hands on the steering wheel and willing to take control at any time. Tesla makes it clear: These are systems designed to attend, Not to replace the driver. That does not prevent functions such as automatic lane changes, assisted parking or the ability to stop before traffic lights and stop signals (in beta) are already available in many cars. They are important advances, but under mandatory human supervision. Images | Tesla (1, 2, 3) In Xataka | It seeks to hunt influencers. Reason: byd pays up to 600,000 euros for unmasking defamatory campaigns

A man stayed a 20 -euro bizum sent by mistake. The judge has fined her and has come out ten times more expensive

by

With 28 million active users, Bizum is the most used system in Spain for payments among users. We send and receive a lot of money through Bizum and make an mistake when typeing the number we want to send money is something that can happen with relative ease. If we are lucky, they may return it to us, but what happens if who is on the other side decides to stay the money? Now we know. Staying a bizum sent by mistake is very expensive. As we said, making a mistake to type the number to which we want to send a bizum can be quite easy and it is just what happened to a neighbor of Benavente, as they say in Zamora’s opinion. The person who received the 20 euros did not return the amount and the woman decided to denounce him to the authorities. The Provincial Court of Zamora has proved him right and has condemned the receiver of the transfer to return the 20 euros, in addition to paying the judicial coasts and a fine of 180 euros for a slight crime of improper appropriation. More than ten times the original amount. The Civil Code says. The denounced has resorted to the sentence alleging lack of evidence and presumption of innocence, but the judge has confirmed it and considers that the woman had not consented to the transfer. This would apply not only to Bizum, but to transfers and any other payment received by error. He Article 1895 of the Civil Code It is clear, it must always be returned: When something that was not entitled to collect is received, and that by mistake it has been improperly delivered, the obligation to restore it arises. There is jurisprudence. There have been more cases that have reached the courts for transfers made by error, such as this one of an Alicante businessman who faces Three years in jail for not returning a payment of 341,000 That was done by mistake. EITHER This 2015 sentence who condemned a woman for staying with 25,900 euros of the pension plan of her ex -husband, the result of an error of the bank when rescuing the money. Bizum in figures. Bizum It has become the standard of immediate payments in Spain. Arrived in 2016 as part of an initiative among various banking entities, although it was not until 2018 when It extended and began to grow. It currently has 28 million users and it is expected to reach 30 throughout the year. In 2024 an average of 3 million operations were made per day. The record was the past Black Friday (November 29, 2024), with 4.8 million operations. Or what is the same: 55 bizums per second. In total, in 2024 1,093 million operations were made worth 44,206 million euros. We do not know the number of erroneous operations when sending money, but with these numbers it is logical that they are increasing. Bizum grows, legal doubts too. In parallel to this growth, unknowns have also been increasing from the legal and legal point of view. Many users wonder What income or payments should be declared to the Treasury. We know that it is not necessary to declare payments between friends and family, although the freelancers who use it to collect, the income that generate economic profitability as rentals or if the total amount adds more than 10,000 euros per year should do. Doubts have also emerged about whether something that has eliminated the Threshold of 3,000 euros in the control of transfers by the Treasury. In this case, if high amounts are received through Bizum, the Treasury may investigate it, just as they would do if it were a transfer or a metallic income. Little by little, light is shed and it is clear that, at the legal level, Bizum is one more method to move money and apply the same rules as any type of income In Xataka | Timo of the false bizum by mistake: how it works and how to avoid this scam

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.