Slashdot Mirror

See also:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/0...

https://www.propublica.org/spe...

@sjbe: "There is a reason why I generally use LTE . I don't have nearly as many security or connectivity problems 99% of the time."

You have got to be shitting me? Folks, you would think the designers of these 'secure' base stations would have wondered how to protect against cell site spoofing. Besides which, it is currently illegal in the EU to sell mobile phones that cannot be intercepted regardless of the level of 'security'

'Stingrays Go Mainstream: 2014 in Review'

Seems like this would be a great case for getting that law stricken or amended. Most of those laws are justified so as to provide a level playing field for corporate ISPs, but since they're not interested in serving him the law shouldn't be enforced in this case. Maybe the EFF would be interested?

It's not so easy. With Wikipedia Zero and Facebook Zero, tens of millions of Indians in rural areas do not have access to anything else. They get Wikipedia and Facebook free as part of their mobile phone deal, but would need an expensive data plan to access anything else on the Internet. The situation is the same in many other third-world countries. What you have then a is a large captive audience who can only consume Wikipedia, but cannot check its sources or access alternative sources. Hence the concerns voiced by AccessNow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation about Facebook and Wikipedia becoming gatekeepers: keeping information out as much as bringing information in. The potential for manipulation is stupendous, because only political and business elites will have read-write access to Wikipedia. This case illustrates why people in developing countries need affordable access to the entire internet, not a Wikipedia and Facebook band aid.

My biggest fear of this technology is that people may be investigated for no reason other than that their car was seen in close proximity to where a crime was committed.

My biggest fear is that this technology will be used to investigate anyone who challenges the powerful. Like the way the FBI tried to blackmail MLK Jr. The ability to retroactively look back at anyone's movements means that even if today you are utterly boring and of no interest to anyone beyond your friends and family, the minute you do become interesting to someone with enough power, they can "press rewind" on your life and start looking for ways to get leverage on you.

> in most countries you aren't allowed to [do] absolutely anything you please with it. So what? Its just a phone.

And where does it end?

Printers and their DRM ink cartridges?

Game Consoles?

TVs?

Computers?

Cars?

It is _already_ illegal to _inspect_ some of the things you "own" due to the greedy and immoral DMCA.

When you can't even charge the _battery_ this is _already_ going TOO FAR.

* https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

The regulations are 8 pages worth. The 300 pages, that likes to be famously misquoted is for history, justification, outline of the public response period (legally required)

So everyone is wrong and misquoting including EFF what the 300 pages is all about? Care to provide a citation?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

The article is implying that this still might be open for discussion in Canada.

Surprisingly enough, you don't have to give up your passwords to USA customs. Upon entering or returning to the USA, they can search your device and they can even confiscate it for a period of days or weeks. However, they can't yet force you to give up a password or encryption key at the border.

https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi...

"If a border agent asks you to provide an account password or encryption passphrase ... you donâ(TM)t have to comply. Only a judge can force you to reveal information to the government"

While it is written specifically for the US, the EFF article Defending Privacy at the U.S. Border: A Guide for Travelers Carrying Digital Devices nonetheless provides a good discussion of your options in cases like this. It also discusses the various ways you can prepare your devices and data for the situation.

NSA and DEA team up to share data
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

NSA and FBI team up to monitor American Muslim leaders (who've committed no crime)
https://firstlook.org/theinter...

As for the retroactivity, do you seriously think that dragjnet data-gathering like the NSA practices on every single one of us is meant to be used *proactively*? Are you going to tell me it'll just be used to target terr'roists?

Actually, this isn't too far from the truth. I've heard of a few cases where simply changing the URL has brought up documents that should be private and the person who reported it was brought up on charges for "hacking". Unfortunately, the public does not understand the difference between simply poking around and trying to mess up someone's system for nefarious reasons. Perhaps someone here on /. will remember the particular cases involved but as sad as it sounds, you are on a shaky legal foundation.

I thought of one particular case as soon as I read the summary: https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v....
Aernheimer was charged under the CFAA for exposing a similar problem with AT&T's website.

Of course... that article is dated before the ruling.

Today, the front page reads this way.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

I case you don't choose to read the ruling.
Let me summarize:

EFF LOVES THE RULING.

I don't support the corps in this matter at all but I don't support or trust the government either. The Internet doesn't need 300 pages of FCC regulations slapped onto it even if they're meant to "protect" the consumer. There must be a happy medium. The EFF is wary as well. They put it quite bluntly: "The FCC's role must be firmly bounded." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

How can you say the FCC's proposals are in no way bad when even the EFF doesn't like some of them? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

No, they have expressed concern over how the FCC plans to evaluate "harm," specifically with how seven rules for harm will be defined so that adequate legal challenges to them -- one way or the other -- might be brought. They're afraid they might be ambiguous.

However, overall they, like what the FCC is proposing.

They summarize:

[I]t appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not.

To say that such concerns constitute "serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules" is hyperbolic.

Furthermore, if you read the ex parte letter linked, the EFF actually suggests additional regulation by considering what unbundling rules "might be appropriate for the 21st century, in a separate proceeding." If the EFF is so concerned about the "vast extent" of these new rules, why would they also be asking for additional rules?

I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?

Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?

Citation needed... Oh that right, you can't, because we don't even know the rules they voted on!

The FCC is, however, claiming a broad discretion to review non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers and force action. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Repeat after me: "The FCC is not my friend." These are not "Net Neutrality" regulations, these are Title II rules that claims the Internet is not an "information system." Ha. Haha.

And it would now be better if those battles never happened, because that's where the deleterious effects of the rule change are really going to emerge, and not just for those who can afford to play in those leagues.

Even the EFF, which sadly has been an utter tool in this matter, is having some reservations about how this is playing out.

Seems the chickens have realized who is guarding them.

Those wacky right-wing zealots at the EFF posted an article about some issues with the "General Conduct Rule" that is being proposed. To be honest, it sounds a lot like a catch-22 that could be used to go after almost any provider on almost any grounds. The potential for abuse is staggering, especially given the very blurred lines between the private and public sector in recent decades. Link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

I have set my browser to delete cookies on exit and to disallow third party cookies.

That might have done some good 10 years ago.

Do you also change up your computer's monitor resolution and color depth on a regular basis? Have you disabled canvas elements in your browser? STUN requests? What browser plugins do you run, and which plugins does your browser say are there when it's queried for that information? What fonts are installed on your computer? It goes on. And when you start configuring your system to mask this information, you become identifiable because of what your browser doesn't say.

Panopticlick is something you should look at. Don't rely on that alone.

People do care, actually. They don't know what they can do about it though.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Heck, even reviewing the agreement is difficult.

1. 1. https://developer.apple.com/io... does not render under Firefox.
2. 2. For the individual program, you can't look at the agreement without giving them a credit card.
3. 3. For the corporate program, you have to attest that you can sign agreements for the company before seeing the agreement.
4. 4. Profit! (Sorry, I always wanted to do that)

Does the Mac OS License include the onerous section that is in the IOS developer agreement about making public statements? See the EFF All Your Apps Are Belong to Apple: The iPhone Developer Program License Agreement page.

As I can't review the agreement without either giving them a credit card number or committing fraud, I can't seem to find out.

Certificates do not have much value, especially for smaller firms. Say an app from a smaller vendor or an individual is signed, but turns out to be malicious. What's Apple going to do, other than revoke the cert and try not to give that vendor or individual a cert in the future?

That said, I'm glad it is possible to download Google Earth without enabling automatic updates. I downloaded GE in January and there was no way to run it without automatic updates running. I removed Chrome because it automatically updates. I need a bit more control over my machine than that.

The real way to fix this is to pass net neutrality regulations that establish Verizon as a common carrier and clip the balls off these assholes
It goes without saying that you should be using https everywhere from the FSF. https://www.eff.org/https-ever... Its also worth mentioning that your home network shouldnt be using your ISP's wifi equipment, DNS servers, or if possible even their router. Other tools worth looking into that would subvert most most of the outright privacy violations coming from not just carriers but various governments can be found here: https://prism-break.org/

Also, in that comparison, one of the entities is pure evil and the other is at least trying to do the right thing.

Also, the GP says that the EFF opposes net neutrality. That is not the case. I think what the oppose is the current FCC's flawed attempts at implementing it with a bunch of special case provisions that completely gut the idea of it.

And what prevents the standard "WhatsApp" from doing that? Just look at the EFF scorecard ( https://www.eff.org/secure-mes... ) reveals that there are better alternatives.

...Someone from the back row shouts out "Because our AdSense profile has determined you were visiting websites about cigarettes recently, your health insurance premium has gone up by 5% and you will probably die slightly sooner. Remember, [i]f you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place!"

Is it cynicism if you're just using a Markov chain to predict what other Slashdotters will say?

(Although obviously this is auto insurance, so I'm sure someone can translate the threat appropriately.)

Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?

Then your best bet is to petition your local government to increase the demands on the providers. Without it, your options will be the same until they degrade to the point they are abandoned and you have less. Well, maybe not your specific area but the reasons you have those options is likely because it's expensive to reach you meaning without a lockin, it isn't profitable to service large portions of towns.

I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.

But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?

A necessary evil that forces companies to spend money where it wouldn't otherwise be profitable. If the option is to service 2 miles from the business (where the CO was located) district and screw everyone else like DSL did for the longest of time, or to force them to instal signal boosters and/or fiber to remote locations to run multiplexers from as to service the entire town which would you take? There is a lot of cable wire extending signal out to the edge of town, even more to reach outside the city limits. It gets expensive when the number of drops coming from them decrease. How would you like your only option to be satellite?

Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.

In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?

No, you don't and neither do I.

Telephone and cable is mandated to low income areas. The entire idea of FIOS being deployed there is what will happen if these technologies did not previously have a monopoly and were forced to service them because of that. That was the entire point behind why they existed. The only think that would change that would be to require them to roll out equal access in these areas and without exclusive access to the profitable areas, the unprofitable ones will likely stop it altogether.

Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.

IF any of that is true, you should start acting like you have a clue then. Seriously, what you have said so far is lacking on so many levels.

Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?

Sure. And as I said, I'm not against regulation. I am however against power grabs by government agency without any laws supporting it's move and without an act of congress to support it. Hell, even the FCC under Bill Clinton's administration came to the conclusion that the internet is an information service and nothing in the law allows them to regulate it under title II.

Oh and these loons seem to share my concerns over this power grab for what its worth.

And now look at where we are, we glorify asking if you can hear me now.

Well, can you hear me?

Interestin

Indeed they do. And as someone who lives in that section of town, I would really like to have an option overpriced crappy cable and dialup 2.0 (DSL). And you know what? That isn't going to happen with the way things are setup now, is it?

Then your best bet is to petition your local government to increase the demands on the providers. Without it, your options will be the same until they degrade to the point they are abandoned and you have less. Well, maybe not your specific area but the reasons you have those options is likely because it's expensive to reach you meaning without a lockin, it isn't profitable to service large portions of towns.

I think you've got that backwards in many cities. What I see is the Fios being rolled out in the wealthy neighborhoods, typically rich suburban ones, while the inner cities are screwed.

But even if you were correct, why the heck would anyone want a monopoly system?

A necessary evil that forces companies to spend money where it wouldn't otherwise be profitable. If the option is to service 2 miles from the business (where the CO was located) district and screw everyone else like DSL did for the longest of time, or to force them to instal signal boosters and/or fiber to remote locations to run multiplexers from as to service the entire town which would you take? There is a lot of cable wire extending signal out to the edge of town, even more to reach outside the city limits. It gets expensive when the number of drops coming from them decrease. How would you like your only option to be satellite?

Where do you get this? Companies being mandated to serve low income neighborhoods? Do you see Verizon rolling out Fios in your low income neighborhoods? No? Me either.

In fact, with the exception of Google deploying FTTH in St Louis, do you see any low income neighborhoods with state of the art connectivity?

No, you don't and neither do I.

Telephone and cable is mandated to low income areas. The entire idea of FIOS being deployed there is what will happen if these technologies did not previously have a monopoly and were forced to service them because of that. That was the entire point behind why they existed. The only think that would change that would be to require them to roll out equal access in these areas and without exclusive access to the profitable areas, the unprofitable ones will likely stop it altogether.

Let's see, began a broadband only ISP back in 1999, co-founded an industry, non-profit trade group in 2004, acted as an industry spokesperson in the MuniWireless space for a couple of years - so, you thinking that I only rely on SlashDot comments is pretty funny.

IF any of that is true, you should start acting like you have a clue then. Seriously, what you have said so far is lacking on so many levels.

Has it occurred to you that government regulation built what was at one time considered to be the gold standard in telecommunications worldwide?

Sure. And as I said, I'm not against regulation. I am however against power grabs by government agency without any laws supporting it's move and without an act of congress to support it. Hell, even the FCC under Bill Clinton's administration came to the conclusion that the internet is an information service and nothing in the law allows them to regulate it under title II.

Oh and these loons seem to share my concerns over this power grab for what its worth.

And now look at where we are, we glorify asking if you can hear me now.

Well, can you hear me?

Interestin

So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.

I never said they do not have jurisdiction in this matter. I said they have no legal standing to reclassify it and the FCC ignored it until the courts thrust it onto them.

Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.

There is no process in law that allows the FCC to change a classification without input from congress.

Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?

You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.

Please stop taking crap out of context in order to make some point that couldn't otherwise stand in the light of day. Just because someone sends smoke signals does not mean all fires are now regulated by the FCC.

That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.

Actually, no it does not. For a detailed reason, read this FCC report to congress during the clinton years. In it, they discuss the ability to regulate the internet under title II and come to the conclusion that congress specifically intended the internet to be an information service. They even cite legislative history in doing so.

Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.

The authority to regulate under title I as in information service. Please pay attention.

I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.

What? Congress is stepping up to the plate right now. This entire conversation is about a bill being introduced and unlike with Harry Reid in charge of the senate, amendments and crap will be allowed. But here is some opinions on the matter you might want to consider too.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Of course those links go to an extreme right wing organization so take it with a grain of salt..

Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company.

I agree, so lets get an act of congress that give access to those right of ways.

Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.

Obligations is my argume

So, what you just admitted is that the FCC does have jurisdiction in this matter. Thank you.

I never said they do not have jurisdiction in this matter. I said they have no legal standing to reclassify it and the FCC ignored it until the courts thrust it onto them.

Now if you'd like to make the case that Chairman Wheeler needs to go to the NPRM process, I don't know if you've been under a rock for the last year or so but the FCC has received record breaking amounts of comments on this subject.

There is no process in law that allows the FCC to change a classification without input from congress.

Really? So in cases of emergencies, say a Katrina or a Sandy, we don't need no stinking regulations?

You could possibly make the case that internet connectivity isn't crucial but voice communications are used to call police, fire and for medical help - in other words, critical infrastructure.

Please stop taking crap out of context in order to make some point that couldn't otherwise stand in the light of day. Just because someone sends smoke signals does not mean all fires are now regulated by the FCC.

That explicitly means that the FCC also has the power to reverse that decision.

Actually, no it does not. For a detailed reason, read this FCC report to congress during the clinton years. In it, they discuss the ability to regulate the internet under title II and come to the conclusion that congress specifically intended the internet to be an information service. They even cite legislative history in doing so.

Bullshit. The SCOTUS ruled that the FCC does have that authority and you just admitted that.

The authority to regulate under title I as in information service. Please pay attention.

I would agree that Title II isn't exactly tailored for the job, it's a holdover from the past. And to be quite frank with you, I would have loved to see Congress step up to the plate and do something for the American people for a change - but that's not what's happening here. Since Congress isn't going to do it, the FCC should impose Title II and then fix what doesn't work, even if that means having the courts argue over what works and doesn't. What we can see here is that Congress isn't fixing the problem, they are making it a lot worse.

What? Congress is stepping up to the plate right now. This entire conversation is about a bill being introduced and unlike with Harry Reid in charge of the senate, amendments and crap will be allowed. But here is some opinions on the matter you might want to consider too.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Of course those links go to an extreme right wing organization so take it with a grain of salt..

Instead, we're handing control over one of our most critical pieces of infrastructure to monopolies who survive by using the public right of way as well as spectrum owned by the American people. I maintain that if any American wants access to that right of way, they have every bit as much right to do so as any large company.

I agree, so lets get an act of congress that give access to those right of ways.

Further, if the voters in any municipality vote to roll out their own network, no one should be able to take that right away form them - unless you want to make a case that the local people shouldn't have that right of self-determination. Personally, I'd love to hear you make that argument.

Obligations is my argume

Sigh.. Who told you those lies?

The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.

Read this from the EFF

Here is another you should consider.

"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."

Sigh.. Who told you those lies?

The FCC ignored the internet or more precisely broad band internet until the court made them classify it as an outcome of the Portland case. The FCC argued until that time that the internet was an information service residing on a regulated network just as a channel line up would have been. The court case in which Portland Oregon's franchise board attempted to hold up the sale of a cable provider unless they opened up the internet portion to others lost in court with the final decision being that the FCC had jurisdiction not the franchise board. The FCC then classified cable internet which has since become known as broadband internet as an information service subject to title one. A consortium of cable providers sued and it went back and fourth in the courts with the Supreme Court of the United States siding with the FCC. The only time it was reclassified or classified other than as an information service is when a court incorrectly overruled the FCC. The FCC has never reclassified the broad band. It has never reclassified any other object or technology under it's control without an act of congress making it so.

Read this from the EFF

Here is another you should consider.

"I don't think you know the history of what's going on here. I don't think you know what you're talking about at all."

Because the header is injected at the network level, Verizon can add it to anyone using their towers, even those who aren't Verizon customers. Notably, Verizon appears to inject the X-UIDH header even for customers of Straight Talk, a mobile network reseller (known as a MVNO) that uses Verizon's network. Customers of Straight Talk don't necessarily have a relationship with Verizon.

Fucking Americans. Everything is about not getting sued. Protect the damn kids, not by suggesting they can avoid child pornography charges by doing things on ephemeral systems but by NOT TAKING PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES.

Dude ... what's the worse consequence:
1. Having some people see you naked.
2. Getting charged with child porn offenses.

We don't live in Victorian Europe or modern Islama-totalitariastan, so, without a shadow of a doubt ... IT'S 2!!! The most sane thing to say to children is, "You really shouldn't be doing this, but, if you're going to anyway, make damn sure you don't get caught, and here are some good ways to help ensure you don't get caught." Using Snapchat is one of them, I guess, although there are much, much better options: https://www.eff.org/secure-mes...

My advice:
- Don't use phones to make the pictures/videos. Use standalone digital camera or camcorders, and securely wipe the memory cards when you're done.
- Use disk encryption: TrueCrypt, VeraCrypt, CipherShed. Use a good password for the volume.
- If you're in the UK (like you are), learn how to use the deniable encryption features of TrueCrypt derivatives, since you're living in a shitty place with no 5th Amendment protections. Fucking UK.

You're advice is as insultingly paternalistic as those who advocate abstinence-only sex education. "Don't do this. We're not going to tell you honestly about the risks and how to mitigate them, because knowledge is power, and we don't want to give you the power to make your own decisions. Don't ask questions. We know best."

How about this: it's their damn lives, not yours, and they have the right to make their own decisions, and to be given the knowledge to make their own informed decisions.

Secure Messaging Scorecard - Which apps and tools actually keep your messages safe?

You pretty much never hear of data being accidentally exposed

That's because it's intentionally exposed.

and I've never heard of Facebook being hacked.

Do you like to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la!". Top result:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/...

and why do you think they have this?
https://www.facebook.com/white...

(Hint: Openly selling data, as the user agreed to when they "signed" the terms of service, is *NOT* the same fucking someone over in a manner that would cause a private user with a different TOS concern.)

"Hint" maybe you should read this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... .. and after you read that you can research and consider all the ways that Facebook has changed it's privacy settings over the years that constantly expose a wider assortment of information and allow greater data gathering by default, requiring users to maintain constant vigilance and opt-out, rather than opt-in. ... and then when you're done with that you can research how they have set up their "governance" system such that on the face of it they claim to take input from their user base about their major policy changes, but have set it up in such a way that there is virtually no chance that end users can override anything they want to do, despite the programs existence.

You have to be really nuts to be defending Facebook of all companies when it comes to user privacy.

Well, I'm sorry for the EFF, then, but everyone knows what the terms are to get an app in the iOS App Store.

Yes, of course everyone knows.

The headline and other content is all old news, only perhaps a first exposure to anyone who hasn't read much about the Apple development process. The linked article is from March 2010 , almost five years ago.

EFF announced a new app for Android, so the first two sentences of the /. post are great and newsworthy. Everything else in this submission is just inflammatory clickbait.

This sounds, to me, like the EFF allowing slavish adherence to their principles to prevent them from doing something that might actually help real people in the real world advance those principles in meaningful ways.

What is the EFF if not an organization that is entirely built on principles?
Is opposing DRM not one of the EFF's foundational principles?
What does it profit a man if he wins the world but loses his soul?

that was published in 2010.

Look at the last link in the post. It's from March 9, 2010.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Apart from the EURion constellation you mention, there's also the yellow dot identification: https://www.eff.org/issues/pri....
Point is, it's perfectly possible for governments to legally require chips that would regulate and uniquely identify 3D printers.
GP's point was that government cannot possibly regulate 3D printers. Quite obviously they can regulate printers, so why not 3D printers?
Sure, it won't stop dedicated people from printing "illegal" objects, but the remaining 99.999% of 3D printers would be controlled.

Agreed: I don't trust Google at all. They offer a lot of great services for free, but everything they do surreptitiously collects data about the user. If they truly cared about user privacy they would have left this in Android -> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/12/google-removes-vital-privacy-features-android-shortly-after-adding-them

I distrust Google precisely because they carefully cultivate a public image of caring about people while really they're a global behemoth whose legal obligation is to maximize profit for their shareholders.

Infamous porn copyright troll, using humiliation of public exposure as a tactic.

Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker didn't like this tactic. He froze eleven of Malibu's cases in western Wisconsin, and ordered Malibu's lawyer to explain why she shouldn't be sanctioned for violating court rules. Filing paperwork with the Court with no purpose except to harass or embarrass an opponent is a big no-no. Judge Crocker wondered why Malibu would file a list of movies with embarrassing titles that Malibu doesn't own and can't sue over.

https://www.eff.org/cases/mali...

Or any Google product: they're in bed with the very government who's very clearly turned rogue against the US population, and they'll sell you out on request.

Google complied with a judge-signed warrant. Could you name a US organization that doesn't comply with warrants signed by US judges? If the judge signed a warrant for information from your bank or cell phone provider or landlord, you think they'd say no?

What we do know is that Google fights warrants on user data in court before handing over the data. See the EFF's handy infographic.

Now let me turn your comment on its head. You're a squeaky wheel who wants privacy, but you can't get it alone (except by disconnecting). Google can provide privacy, but it doesn't matter if they do if nobody uses their service. They are developing things that privacy-desiring users like yourself want, and therefore should be capturing the market of people like you, right? But instead, you've decided to stand against Google -- even though your beliefs are entirely aligned. What's up with that? Why are you fighting against the people who are fighting for privacy?

> Thanks for the list. This is a good counter to the people who say "if you aren't doing something wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Here's an example everybody can understand: That time when the FBI tried to blackmail MLK Jr with sex tapes they secretly recorded of him. Just because most of us are unimportant in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean the occasional person who can change society won't be victimized in order to hurt us all.

YouTube has a standard DMCA complaints procedure. I recommend that Yoon Mi-rae and the label follow that process, partly because it actually works which is great in this case, and partly to give Sony a taste of their own medicine.

Here is the link: https://support.google.com/you...

(Note that I have a bunch of experience with the take-down process, including participating in an EFF lawsuit ~10 years ago; see https://www.eff.org/document/d... .)

I'm a big fan of Privacy Badger, mainly because it can automatically block trackers based on behavior rather than having to rely on someone's premade block list.

https://www.eff.org/privacybad...

The same folks provide HTTPS Everywhere, another must-have.

https://www.eff.org/HTTPS-EVER...