FaceBook tracks you everywhere - every page that has a FB "like" button from what I understand. It's ubiquitous and pervasive.
Somehow I don't think that NYT tracking will be anything like that. Which is why I'll continue to subscribe to NYT and not use FaceBook.
So why is it that Apple is being called out here?? This is not to say that Apple does not have a role - but why is it singled out?
Everywhere we see claims that Android has the dominant position in the market, so why not start with Google? That would seem to lead to a wider result, wouldn't it?
There will be an interesting debate when this, as it inevitably will, arrives at the court of appeals.
And that will be about who owns the device. Did the vehicle purchaser buy the device as part of the vehicle, or is it a separate "facility" of some sort that's owned by the vehicle manufacturer, or some such.
>It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision >that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from >the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed >the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than >taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result >less to its liking. Indeed, on the very same day that the government >filed the ex parte Application in this case (as well as a similar >application in the Southern District of New York, see DE 27 at 2), it >made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the >need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here, >it would not seek such legislation. See James B. Comey, "Statement >Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental >Affairs," (Oct. 8, 2015), >https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the- homeland >("The United States government is actively engaged with private >companies to ensure they understand the public safety and national >security risks that result from malicious actors' use of their >encrypted products and services. However, the administration >is not seeking legislation at this time.").
>I therefore conclude that what the government seeks here is "to have >the court give it authority that Congress chose not to confer."
>Director Comey's salutary call for meaningful public debate can >therefore be achieved only by recognizing that the All Writs Act does >not serve as a mechanism for courts to give the executive branch >authority it fails to secure from the legislature.
FBI bailed on this but the damage is done. It might not set a binding precedent but any judge who gets one of these cases will certainly read Orenstein's denial order.
The FBI should have withdrawn their original request as soon as San Bernardino happened. Make up an excuse, any excuse. Since Feng had pled guilty, pursuing this had little possible upside. Orenstein hadn't drunk the KoolAid FBI was peddling and refused to make an ex parte decision. They knew there was going to be a fight with not much to win and a lot to lose.
I suspect that FBI/DoJ were more than a little surprised to be hammered so hard by Darrell Issa. He clearly knew what he was on about and was not buying what they were selling.
They probably expected him to fall in line with the "terrorist" + "law and order" mantra. Big mistake.
Their ultimate goal is a rewrite of CALEA and this gambit just made that most unlikely.
If the zero-rating is available to ALL video then it's probably OK. But if it's selective then it's just T-Mobile getting to pick winners and losers - not good.
I may be old'n'grey but I remember that companies were doing this - sort of - in the mid-to-late 70's. GE at the time had a worldwide data processing network and quite a few companies were doing selected parts of their business there. Not all, by any means, but there were certainly more than a few mission-critical applications (financial services mostly) that were not done in-house, and that were run on "someone else's servers".
It was groundbreaking for its time. Pity that GE squandered it.
Wheeler is an amazing breath of fresh air in an environment that had been *so* bad for *such* a long time.
Those in the TFH brigade will claim that he's just tempering the fire for a while and soon things will revert to "normal". I disagree - there has been a HUGE change in sentiment in the past year or so and only the really stupid have failed to notice. I categorize Comcast as #2 only because some Republican-candidates-for-President have jumped even harder on the kill-net-neutrality bandwagon.
My expectation, for which I have long argued, is that the telecommunications ("carriage") business will be separated from the information ("content") one as some states have done with energy. And has been done in many other countries withe telecommunications and content.
This is the notion that it's not good to have your service provider (ISP) also run movie studios and TV networks. And that people who don't subscribe to that ISP can't get some of that content.
With the de-merger focus currently going on, the "big thing" in Wall Street may be some strategic unravellings in the next few months. The ISP business is sort-of stable because of the localization but content is where all the action will be - because it's nationwide. Access is poles-and-wires (perceived as low-tech, low margin, but guaranteed) and it's local. And sometimes regulated. Content is sexy, hi-tech, high-margin, nationwide but is more risky because there are lots of competitors.
The ISP-content nexus is starting to unravel - which is good. We should eliminate it forever.
The situation in Australia is very, very different. Transit is quite expensive and wired connections are capped - not just wireless as is the case for most usage in the U.S.
In addition, local competitors already had exemptions in place. So Netflix had not a lot of choice.
That said, the better solution would have been colo boxes in Australia and work with the ISPs to do unmetered, as Adrian's comment suggests.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Everywhere we see claims that Android has the dominant position in the market, so why not start with Google? That would seem to lead to a wider result, wouldn't it?
(untitled comment)
And that will be about who owns the device. Did the vehicle purchaser buy the device as part of the vehicle, or is it a separate "facility" of some sort that's owned by the vehicle manufacturer, or some such.
Re: Hashing is not encryption
But the proposals would outlaw it just the same.
restriction period
Why not "forever" ??
This is like saying that you have to be good for seven years but then you can rape and pillage all you like.
NO !! The prohibition on bad things is supposed to be permanent.
a few snippets from Orenstein's order
>that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from
>the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed
>the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than
>taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result
>less to its liking. Indeed, on the very same day that the government
>filed the ex parte Application in this case (as well as a similar
>application in the Southern District of New York, see DE 27 at 2), it
>made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the
>need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here,
>it would not seek such legislation. See James B. Comey, "Statement
>Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
>Affairs," (Oct. 8, 2015),
>https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/threats-to-the- homeland
>("The United States government is actively engaged with private
>companies to ensure they understand the public safety and national
>security risks that result from malicious actors' use of their
>encrypted products and services. However, the administration
>is not seeking legislation at this time.").
>I therefore conclude that what the government seeks here is "to have
>the court give it authority that Congress chose not to confer."
>Director Comey's salutary call for meaningful public debate can
>therefore be achieved only by recognizing that the All Writs Act does
>not serve as a mechanism for courts to give the executive branch
>authority it fails to secure from the legislature.
not an "escape"
The FBI should have withdrawn their original request as soon as San Bernardino happened. Make up an excuse, any excuse. Since Feng had pled guilty, pursuing this had little possible upside. Orenstein hadn't drunk the KoolAid FBI was peddling and refused to make an ex parte decision. They knew there was going to be a fight with not much to win and a lot to lose.
And now they've lost it.
Re: sandwich
As in "sudo make me a sandwich"
mass tracking
In this instance, the needles were already found. Just not treated seriously.
So why is it that mass surveillance is the answer?
Re: all crypto is breakable
"We didn't see this one coming"
They probably expected him to fall in line with the "terrorist" + "law and order" mantra. Big mistake.
Their ultimate goal is a rewrite of CALEA and this gambit just made that most unlikely.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: cloudy origins
I may be old'n'grey but I remember that companies were doing this - sort of - in the mid-to-late 70's. GE at the time had a worldwide data processing network and quite a few companies were doing selected parts of their business there. Not all, by any means, but there were certainly more than a few mission-critical applications (financial services mostly) that were not done in-house, and that were run on "someone else's servers".
It was groundbreaking for its time. Pity that GE squandered it.
Re: stored data
And if you fail to do BOTH then you're just blowing smoke.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Erroneous title.
(untitled comment)
And that would look just like the DoD/DoJ/NSA redacted documents do - a header follower by a lot of black lines.
(untitled comment)
roll roll roll
Those in the TFH brigade will claim that he's just tempering the fire for a while and soon things will revert to "normal". I disagree - there has been a HUGE change in sentiment in the past year or so and only the really stupid have failed to notice. I categorize Comcast as #2 only because some Republican-candidates-for-President have jumped even harder on the kill-net-neutrality bandwagon.
My expectation, for which I have long argued, is that the telecommunications ("carriage") business will be separated from the information ("content") one as some states have done with energy. And has been done in many other countries withe telecommunications and content.
This is the notion that it's not good to have your service provider (ISP) also run movie studios and TV networks. And that people who don't subscribe to that ISP can't get some of that content.
With the de-merger focus currently going on, the "big thing" in Wall Street may be some strategic unravellings in the next few months. The ISP business is sort-of stable because of the localization but content is where all the action will be - because it's nationwide. Access is poles-and-wires (perceived as low-tech, low margin, but guaranteed) and it's local. And sometimes regulated. Content is sexy, hi-tech, high-margin, nationwide but is more risky because there are lots of competitors.
The ISP-content nexus is starting to unravel - which is good. We should eliminate it forever.
different scenario
In addition, local competitors already had exemptions in place. So Netflix had not a lot of choice.
That said, the better solution would have been colo boxes in Australia and work with the ISPs to do unmetered, as Adrian's comment suggests.
More comments from vdev >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by vdev.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt