I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Not only have I had issues with the apps in terms of performance, but some of them carry...interesting...requirements.
An app from one of the social sites, for example, came with a good set of rights requirements. But after I had the phone a while, they wanted to upgrade the app, and the new rights list would have boggled your mind. They would even be able to send emails and dial calls on "my behalf," for example; not to mention using my camera anytime they wanted.
The only thing you can do with one of those problem children is to disable it, because of the no uninstalls rule.
If they read the law first, then they wouldn't be able to punish. Trust me, they know this case will fail, but the point will have been made in the most brutal fashion possible.
So then once the nonsense is over, he has to sue for recompense...and who pays for that? You and me, not the mayor. Punished him and punished us, all in one fell swoop; a perfect reminder of what it means to step out of line.
Sure he seems to have a few character defects, but no one is flawless. Setting those minor details aside he's just perfect, if what you want is someone to effectively bring all watchdog investigations to a halt.
Office of Science and Technology, huh? Someone must need that agency to be stopped; or, maybe, just all that infernal global warming research.
People are achingly familiar with [shysters/hucksters/chiselers/charlatans/swindlers/scammers] who use every loophole to get around the law.
So when someone like this comes around who is just trying to do a legitimate business...legitimately...everyone immediately thinks of those people who are just looking for a clever way to be sleazy.
Can I see the difference? Yes, I can.
Lots of other people are having a hard time differentiating this from sleaze.
This is really similar to that old saw: "When guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns."
In the end, these problems will come to be found only by criminals (who will take immediate advantage) because discovery by the law abiding citizen is banned.
People are awed and, more importantly, cowed by power; perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but it is. For a simple reason: you, the peon, are so easily harmed by someone in power.
Just consider how odd the police themselves would act if, for example, internal affairs or the FBI came around asking questions of them.
Isn't it shallow of them to neglect to notice the dichotomy?
In the Aereo case, it's actually worse than that: The broadcasters were paid by the advertisers for the content. That's the whole profit basis of broadcast TV. So what are they really complaining about? That Aereo didn't pay them again!
"We must be paid every time you download. Every time you play the media. Every time you get a new machine. Every time you move to a new home. Every time you hum a note, we must be paid! We must be paid again and again and again and again and again...!!!"
"The government is rarely in position to observe these early signals, so we need to do more to help communities understand the warning signs, and then work together to intervene before an incident can occur."
Is it just me, or does this sound like a complaint?
The government has written an exception for everything; in secret laws. In effect, despite what they say, there is no public law anymore.
Between the exceptions that allow rich people to escape jail "because they won't do well there" (poor dears); the laws that companies ignore while government enforce[less]ers wink and look the other way; and the laws that the government passed but says it doesn't have to follow because, "Oh, we had our fingers crossed..."
...Well, it's only us peons who have to follow laws these days; and good luck figuring out what the laws are.
BTW, I expected this: When the court ordered the government to take Rahinah Ibrahim off the no fly list, I knew that somehow they would ensure that she still could not fly. It's like sparring with a shadow; even if she should overcome this new list, there'll just be another and another and another. She can spend all the rest of her life on this, but she'll never fly here again.
They won't tell us about the new programs? They must have something to hide!
And since "something to hide" equates to "criminal activity" in the common sense statement, "If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about," then the cops must be criminals.
It shows thoughtfulness, that they neglected to mention the weakness to the intelligence community.
If they had, likely what would have happened is that the agencies would ordered them to keep quiet and not touch anything, so the agencies could exploit the weakness.
Demonstrates an amazing level of trust (and not a high level, either).
Copying the data to the form is not possible. The whole point of the complaint is that the forms are not available for viewing or printing.
You drop your inputs into the web site, and they send it to the IRS electronically; but you can't see how the forms should look at all. You can't even check the figures.
My mother complains that Inuit offers on the web to prepare returns for free for some individuals. However, she discovered that it is not possible to print those returns without paying a fee.
Since many people need printed returns (she needs them to apply for government assistance) this subterfuge basically corners them into paying for the supposedly "free" service.
"In other words, when NSA encounters encryption it can't crack, it's allowed to – and apparently does – vacuum up all that scrambled traffic and store it indefinitely, in hopes of finding a way to break into it [...]"
...because having unbreakable encryption is proof you have something to hide, right? And we all know having something to hide proves you are a criminal, right?
On the post: Megaupload Asks Hong Kong Court To Drop Restraining Order On Megaupload Assets, Claiming Legal Violations
But it's not about the cloud, oh no
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Re:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Not only have I had issues with the apps in terms of performance, but some of them carry...interesting...requirements.
An app from one of the social sites, for example, came with a good set of rights requirements. But after I had the phone a while, they wanted to upgrade the app, and the new rights list would have boggled your mind. They would even be able to send emails and dial calls on "my behalf," for example; not to mention using my camera anytime they wanted.
The only thing you can do with one of those problem children is to disable it, because of the no uninstalls rule.
(Sony phone.)
On the post: Mayor Ardis Defends Police Raid, Complains That Parody Twitter Account Used Up All The Free Speech
Re:
So then once the nonsense is over, he has to sue for recompense...and who pays for that? You and me, not the mayor. Punished him and punished us, all in one fell swoop; a perfect reminder of what it means to step out of line.
On the post: Russia Orders Bloggers To 'Register'; Outlaws Anonymous Blogging, Continues Clampdown On Social Media
Re: Where the U.S. is headed in 10 - 30 years?
On the post: Former DHS Watchdog, A Tyrant, Failure And Alleged Felon, 'Punished' With Transfer To Another Government Agency
He's perfect
Office of Science and Technology, huh? Someone must need that agency to be stopped; or, maybe, just all that infernal global warming research.
On the post: NIST Finally Removes NSA-Compromised Crypto Algorithm From Random Number Generator Recommendations
Re:
On the post: Five Illinois Cops Are Caught Lying On The Stand When Defense Produces A Recording Contradicting Their Testimony
Re: Lying isn't necessarily bad
On the post: Why Do So Many People Describe Aereo 'Complying' With Copyright Law As The Company 'Circumventing' Copyright Law?
To be fair
So when someone like this comes around who is just trying to do a legitimate business...legitimately...everyone immediately thinks of those people who are just looking for a clever way to be sleazy.
Can I see the difference? Yes, I can.
Lots of other people are having a hard time differentiating this from sleaze.
On the post: LG/Netflix Rebate Site Exposes User Data With AT&T-Esque Hole [Updated]
Re:
In the end, these problems will come to be found only by criminals (who will take immediate advantage) because discovery by the law abiding citizen is banned.
On the post: Police Chief: Not Wanting To Talk To Police Officers Is 'Odd'
Us versus them
Just consider how odd the police themselves would act if, for example, internal affairs or the FBI came around asking questions of them.
Isn't it shallow of them to neglect to notice the dichotomy?
On the post: Copyright Maximalists' Incredible Sense Of Entitlement: If It Challenges The Biz Model We Chose, It Must Be Illegal
Aereo broadcasters already paid
"We must be paid every time you download. Every time you play the media. Every time you get a new machine. Every time you move to a new home. Every time you hum a note, we must be paid! We must be paid again and again and again and again and again...!!!"
Like little kids throwing a tantrum.
On the post: Homeland Security Adviser Warns Parents That Their Mouthy Kids May Grow Up To Be Terrorists
Oh, no...
Is it just me, or does this sound like a complaint?
Oh, Ms. Monaco, you terrorist, you!
On the post: US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List
Fingers crossed
Between the exceptions that allow rich people to escape jail "because they won't do well there" (poor dears); the laws that companies ignore while government enforce[less]ers wink and look the other way; and the laws that the government passed but says it doesn't have to follow because, "Oh, we had our fingers crossed..."
...Well, it's only us peons who have to follow laws these days; and good luck figuring out what the laws are.
BTW, I expected this: When the court ordered the government to take Rahinah Ibrahim off the no fly list, I knew that somehow they would ensure that she still could not fly. It's like sparring with a shadow; even if she should overcome this new list, there'll just be another and another and another. She can spend all the rest of her life on this, but she'll never fly here again.
On the post: LA Sheriff's Dept. On New Surveillance Program: We Knew The Public Wouldn't Like It, So We Kept It A Secret
You criminals you
And since "something to hide" equates to "criminal activity" in the common sense statement, "If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have anything to worry about," then the cops must be criminals.
Bust yourselves, LA cops!
On the post: Do Nature's Publishers Even Read Their Own Articles About Open Access?
No hypocrisy at all
So you see, it's not really hypocrisy at all; according to them, anyway.
On the post: Google Apparently Chose Not To Tell The NSA About Heartbleed
Thoughtful
If they had, likely what would have happened is that the agencies would ordered them to keep quiet and not touch anything, so the agencies could exploit the weakness.
Demonstrates an amazing level of trust (and not a high level, either).
On the post: Intuit Does Subterfuge To Combat Free-Filing Tax Returns
Re: Re: Not the only subterfuge
You drop your inputs into the web site, and they send it to the IRS electronically; but you can't see how the forms should look at all. You can't even check the figures.
Without paying.
On the post: Intuit Does Subterfuge To Combat Free-Filing Tax Returns
Not the only subterfuge
Since many people need printed returns (she needs them to apply for government assistance) this subterfuge basically corners them into paying for the supposedly "free" service.
On the post: Heartbleed Suspicion And NSA Denial Show Why NSA's Dual Offense/Defensive Role Must End
I call winner
Trying to win the understatement of the century award, are we?
On the post: Even If NSA Didn't Use Heartbleed In The Past, It Still Could Be Making Use Of It
Keep that criminal communication
...because having unbreakable encryption is proof you have something to hide, right? And we all know having something to hide proves you are a criminal, right?
Next >>