Over the past seven years, Apple TV has slowly become the streaming service to beat. The platform now has a plethora of must-see TV programs, from buzzy hits like Ted Lasso, Severance, and Shrinking to strong sci-fi fare like Foundation and Silo—not to mention Apple Original movies, including Killers of the Flower Moon, F1, and Coda. While the streaming service isn't the first platform that comes to mind for non-Apple content, it does occasionally license shows and movies in addition to its own original programming—including, notably, those old Peanuts specials—and as of today, that licensed catalog just got a bit bigger.

As spotted by 9to5Mac, Apple TV has added 19 movies to its catalog that subscribers can watch for free, without paying a separate rental fee. The selection runs the gamut, featuring films from the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s and spanning genres and subject matter. Though not all of these movies are exactly awards material, a number of them are considered classics in their own right, from older hits like E.T. and Titanic to recently lauded movies like Arrival. Each of them is free to watch with any Apple TV subscription, and you can find them in the platform's "Great Movies Available Now on Apple TV" section.

Visit bettingx.club for more information.

Apple TV now lets you watch the following movies for free

Here is the complete list of all the movies Apple TV just added to its catalog for free:21 Jump Street

• A Beautiful Mind

• Arrival

• The Aviator

• The Bourne Identity

• Charlies Angels

• E.T.

• Forgetting Sarah Marshall

• Gone Girl

• I, Robot

• Looper

• The Martian

• Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

• The Proposal

• The Rookie

• The Sixth Sense

• Titanic

• Zodiac

• Zoolander

It's unclear how long these movies will remain on Apple TV, or whether Apple plans to add more movies to the mix in the future. As 9to5Mac highlights, it's not the first time Apple has licensed movies in this way, though it has been several years, and previously, Apple has removed the offerings from the platform in short order. All of these movies are available to rent or buy through Apple's digital store too, so if you miss out on the window, you can always pay a rental fee to view them.

Read full story at source

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) Rajya Sabha MP AA Rahim challenging the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) and other biometric surveillance tools by police at protest sites.

Visit h-doctor.club for more information.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana tagged the plea with other pending petitions concerning the recent student protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The case puts the spotlight on the growing use of surveillance technology at public demonstrations and the questions it raises over privacy and the limits of police powers, Live Law reports.

Delhi Police's Use Of Digital Tools Questioned

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Rahim, told the court that the petition was filed in the context of the Delhi Police allegedly using digital tools to monitor protesters at Jantar Mantar.

Guruswamy said the services of two private entities, Aditya Infotech Ltd and Dimension NXG Pvt Ltd, were used and alleged that the data collected was processed and stored in violation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

"One maps your face, and the other is a vehicle. So spectacles are used and a vehicle is also used. And that data is all taken without permission. These private entities host the data in violation of the DPDP Act," she submitted.

The bench agreed to consider the matter.

Plea Alleges 'Legal Vacuum'

At the heart of Rahim's petition is the claim that the Delhi Police carried out surveillance without a clear legal framework authorising such measures.

The petition argues that neither the Delhi Police standing orders governing protests nor the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, authorises biometric surveillance of people taking part in a civilian assembly.

According to the plea, police used CCTV cameras, drones, a mobile command and control vehicle and other technologies to collect and process photographs and footage of protesters, journalists and others present at the protest.

It contends that the indiscriminate biometric identification of people attending a peaceful assembly is not permitted under existing law. The issue assumes significance because surveillance at a protest does not merely involve the use of new technology but also raises questions about how far authorities can monitor citizens exercising their right to assemble.

Privacy Judgment Cited

The petition relies on the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, which held that State action infringing privacy must meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.

Rahim has argued that the surveillance also raises concerns over the retention, sharing and processing of biometric information and the possibility of such data being linked with national criminal databases.

The plea highlights a broader concern surrounding biometric surveillance: once sensitive personal information is collected, questions arise over who can access it, how long it can be retained and how an individual can seek its deletion.

Also Watch:

Disclosure Of Technology, Vendors Sought

The petitioner has sought disclosure of the technologies, databases and vendor arrangements involved in the surveillance exercise.

He has also sought a mechanism that would allow affected people to access data collected about them and seek its deletion through a grievance redressal process.

The petition further seeks directions to the private respondents to preserve the biometric data in their custody, stop using it and permanently delete it.

The Supreme Court's consideration of the plea could therefore bring judicial scrutiny to the use of facial recognition and other biometric tools at protest sites, particularly when such technology is deployed to identify or monitor people taking part in public assemblies.

Read full story at source