Come on, folks. There are currently one hundred thousand phones unaccounted for that could burn down homes and injure people, and you're calling foul on Samsung trying to prevent that?
If they start actually treading the slippery slope, that's plenty of time to bring out the pitchforks and disable phone updates.
For those of you who think it's your god-given right to own items that could hurt other people or burn down the building, I feel sorry for anyone who ever shares an apartment building with you. Please go live in the desert where you can't hurt anyone else.
In the meantime someone who brought a dud now gets the additional punishment of having it rendered useless, when they may not know or be eligible for any recompense.
That's the whole point of this update. People who don't realise they are eligible for recompense can take the phone back to the store and get recompense. Everyone who owns the phone is eligible for recompense, because the phone is under recall.
The only people being punished are those people who are putting other people at risk by keeping a phone that may burst into flames.
I agree with that on the extremes, but I think it still falls down in the middle:
Massive companies can afford to go to court, hoping that the PR boost from fighting for their customers comes back to their bottom line.
Individual employees, or tiny companies like Lavabit can afford to fold up operations, because those people are making the decision for themself.
What if you're the owner of a company with a dozen employees? A hundred? A thousand, across multiple countries? You may be able to get work again quickly on the back of a reputation of "standing up to the man"... but how long until you can afford to re-hire all of those employees again? Will they be able to hold out for long enough?
Plus, as one of your customers, how do I know that your new product is going to be around for long enough to get use out of it? Especially if you're offering a service, what happens when the government targets your new service in six months time? At what point does "have backup providers ready" become "just use a different provider"?
It's not just tech companies either; tax accountants, builders and tradespeople (we need you to install a bug while you're doing this job)... I don't know if lawyers are on this list; would client-attorney privilege trump an NSL? And that's probably the best solution for the people - reverse the third party doctrine, and give client-attorney-like privilege to ALL dealings between customers and their providers/contractors! Good luck with that, though.
And that alone should be a giant warning sign to any tech company that decides not to fight these kinds of demands: when it inevitably leaks to the public (and it will), the intelligence community will let you hang out to dry all by yourself.
I'm curious how a random tech company would be able to fight?
I guess a good answer is to spend a bunch of money to implement end-to-end encryption (and then even more, to do it properly)... but that doesn't work for email, or message boards, or a bunch of other situations.
But even then, how does a random tech company fight back against demands from the government to open a back door?
The only options I can see end up being to be to fight it in court (Apple), or to fold the company and liquidate the equipment (Lavabit). Both are horrifically expensive, and either way the cost is ultimately borne by the customer.
Re: Re: "The whole thing is worth watching (of course)"
I know you were aiming for funny, but you hit closer to sad but tr... actually, just sad.
You also missed the perfectly reasonable option of waiting until the copyright owner decides to make the content available in the relevant parts of the world (ie- never).
Well, you could argue that "properly apologizing" involves more than just words, but it was a pleasant change not to be embarrased about our leaders for a few days.
which is sorting out what OS's it will allow to be installed on a computer, based on whether an RMT RAID driver is built-into the OS Kernel? That's nothing but fingerprinting for identification, at best!
What? That's like saying that my Intel CPU is performing fingerprinting by not letting me install an OS based on whether it supports the x86 instruction set.
I feel the same. Copyright law is being used here because there is no plagiarism law.
What are the other avenues? Civil theft, trade secret? They don't really seem like they fit because the draft was given to Sutton without any kind of non-disclosure agreement.
It seems fine for now to ignore the legal route and just leave it to the court of public opinion; but at what point is it worse to set up a kangaroo court rather than deal with things in a proper legal arena in which all parties are meant to get due process?
Yeah... no. Considering that 99% of temperature data comes from SATELLITES that didn't exist until a couple decades ago, and that we have NO RECORDS OF ANY KIND from more than a few thousand years ago, I'll take all average global temperature data values older than 20 years with a grain of salt.
The only people you can trust with your data is yourself, because *you care* about your own data, but companies only care about profit and return on shareholder value, which is a few steps away from your data.
I find your optimism about the combination of how much I care about my data and how capable I am of taking care of it charming, given just how long my NAS has been out of service...
On the post: Samsung Issues Update To Brick Remaining, Spontaneously Combusting Galaxy Note 7 Phones, Verizon Refuses To Pass It On
Re: You don't really own what you own
On the post: Samsung Issues Update To Brick Remaining, Spontaneously Combusting Galaxy Note 7 Phones, Verizon Refuses To Pass It On
Slippery slope?
Come on, folks. There are currently one hundred thousand phones unaccounted for that could burn down homes and injure people, and you're calling foul on Samsung trying to prevent that?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
If they start actually treading the slippery slope, that's plenty of time to bring out the pitchforks and disable phone updates.
For those of you who think it's your god-given right to own items that could hurt other people or burn down the building, I feel sorry for anyone who ever shares an apartment building with you. Please go live in the desert where you can't hurt anyone else.
On the post: Samsung Issues Update To Brick Remaining, Spontaneously Combusting Galaxy Note 7 Phones, Verizon Refuses To Pass It On
Re:
That's the whole point of this update. People who don't realise they are eligible for recompense can take the phone back to the store and get recompense. Everyone who owns the phone is eligible for recompense, because the phone is under recall.
The only people being punished are those people who are putting other people at risk by keeping a phone that may burst into flames.
On the post: Your Earbuds Can Be Made Into Microphones With Just A Bit Of Malware
In fairness, headphones have been a potential enemy ever since physics was a thing.
The world becomes mad when our headphones become a viable enemy.
On the post: Dear Eric Trump: Do Not Be Shamed Into Deleting Your Free Speech By A Dumb New York State Law
Re:
I mean, how could the Donald attack the 1st Amendment with any kind of vigor if his son is active in a battle to defend it?
On the post: Samsung Issues Takedown On Video Of Grand Theft Auto 5 Mod Turning Galaxy Note 7 Into A Weapon
Re: Re: Re: BUSINESS IS BUSINESS
Sounds like it might be better to ramp up your original policy.
On the post: Trump Adds To His Anti-First Amendment Legacy In Threatening To Sue Clinton For Campaign Ads
Re: Re: Re: Re: As usual, you're full of shit...
On the post: Yahoo Issues Tone Deaf Non-Denial Denial Of Email Scanning Report
Re: Fighting in court / Folding and liquidating
Massive companies can afford to go to court, hoping that the PR boost from fighting for their customers comes back to their bottom line.
Individual employees, or tiny companies like Lavabit can afford to fold up operations, because those people are making the decision for themself.
What if you're the owner of a company with a dozen employees? A hundred? A thousand, across multiple countries? You may be able to get work again quickly on the back of a reputation of "standing up to the man"... but how long until you can afford to re-hire all of those employees again? Will they be able to hold out for long enough?
Plus, as one of your customers, how do I know that your new product is going to be around for long enough to get use out of it? Especially if you're offering a service, what happens when the government targets your new service in six months time? At what point does "have backup providers ready" become "just use a different provider"?
It's not just tech companies either; tax accountants, builders and tradespeople (we need you to install a bug while you're doing this job)... I don't know if lawyers are on this list; would client-attorney privilege trump an NSL? And that's probably the best solution for the people - reverse the third party doctrine, and give client-attorney-like privilege to ALL dealings between customers and their providers/contractors! Good luck with that, though.
On the post: Yahoo Issues Tone Deaf Non-Denial Denial Of Email Scanning Report
Fight?
I'm curious how a random tech company would be able to fight?
I guess a good answer is to spend a bunch of money to implement end-to-end encryption (and then even more, to do it properly)... but that doesn't work for email, or message boards, or a bunch of other situations.
But even then, how does a random tech company fight back against demands from the government to open a back door?
The only options I can see end up being to be to fight it in court (Apple), or to fold the company and liquidate the equipment (Lavabit). Both are horrifically expensive, and either way the cost is ultimately borne by the customer.
On the post: John Oliver Takes On Police Accountability And The Colossally-Stupid 'Bad Apple' Defense
Re: Re: "The whole thing is worth watching (of course)"
You also missed the perfectly reasonable option of waiting until the copyright owner decides to make the content available in the relevant parts of the world (ie- never).
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: "they would only kill a small number of Americans."
Happily, that is no longer blanket true!
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indige nous-peoples
Well, you could argue that "properly apologizing" involves more than just words, but it was a pleasant change not to be embarrased about our leaders for a few days.
On the post: Former Refugee Who Took Skittles Photograph Donald Trump Jr. Used In A Stupid Meme Threatens Copyright Lawsuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
Now I'm confused.
A lot of people do not know that just mindless giving is often more destructive than giving anything at all.
Lots of people are wrong, too. I'm pretty sure there are more options than the two you suggest, anyway.
On the post: Lenovo Accused Of Locking Linux Out Of Certain Laptops At Microsoft's Request
Re: Re: Re: Enquiry in re other operating systems
What? That's like saying that my Intel CPU is performing fingerprinting by not letting me install an OS based on whether it supports the x86 instruction set.
On the post: Newegg Sues Over Copied Legal Filing; Judge Rules That It's Not Fair Use
Re: Use the tools you are given
What are the other avenues? Civil theft, trade secret? They don't really seem like they fit because the draft was given to Sutton without any kind of non-disclosure agreement.
It seems fine for now to ignore the legal route and just leave it to the court of public opinion; but at what point is it worse to set up a kangaroo court rather than deal with things in a proper legal arena in which all parties are meant to get due process?
On the post: Scientists Realizing That EU Ruling On Copyright & Links Just Made Science Much More Difficult
Re: Re: Re: Science and Protectionism
Yeah... no.
On the post: Thanks, Google, For Fucking Over A Bunch Of Media Websites
Re: Now scale this out to their other properties
I find your optimism about the combination of how much I care about my data and how capable I am of taking care of it charming, given just how long my NAS has been out of service...
On the post: Comcast/NBC Tone Deafness, Not 'Millennials' To Blame For Olympics Ratings Drop
Re: Re:
The free-to-air coverage in Australia was actually pretty good, I thought.
On the post: Apple Updates iOS To Close Three Separate 0days That Were Being Exploited
Re: Not all bad news
On the post: Lawyer Sues Basically All Mainstream Media For RICO Violations For How They Report On Donald Trump
Flowchart?
On the post: Daily Deal: The A-to-Z Programming Language Bundle
Re:
Next >>