It should be "on the people" because some people may not have a problem with policies and may want to do business with Apple anyway.
What's your point? The basis of the complaint was, that Apple is not transparent about what it does with the data collected. If they are transparent about it and tell the users what exactly thy are going to do with the data BEFORE any data is collected, they're basically fine. And then the users who are fine with can use those services.
But Apple, like many other companies, wants to have the right to do anything without telling what they do.
The European data protection laws lay the groundwork for users to be able to decide freely what services to use and what not. The basis for a free decision is INFORMATION.
And, it costs money to have privacy policies updated and policed so they are legal in multiple markets
You know what I fear? That Apple does just what you describe: Change the words of their privacy policies, but don't actually change the processes used to handle data.
If I was a MPAA executive and had the power to make the author write what I want, I would put the blame on the investigator. Why doesn't he name names? Because he can't obviously. There was no executive present so he can't give a name. He did this on his own. Let's fire him. Case closed.
When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons.
I'm pretty sure that the dash shows you programs not only by their local name but also by their original name. At least when I'm typing stuff into the dash, I have non-obvious hits.
Also, you can reach the settings by going top right on the screen. The list is not that long so that going through the icons would have helped.
Well, when I use Goggle Search I do not sign up, I am not presented with any ToS, I just enter my search words and off I go.
Now, there is of cause something like implied consent. In the US, as far as I know that basically means that you agree to the ToS that Google publishes somewhere. In Germany (and most of the EU, I guess) there are limits on what rights I can waive with such implied consent. There are even limits on what rights I may not waive explicitly.
Germany has a law that every website (at least any commercial website) has to have a page with legal info, including an email address for contact purposes.
But when you write an email to the email address listed there, you only get an automated message giving you some FAQs and a note telling you that your email will not be read.
So you can not actually contact Google that way. (Contact in this law is suppost to be a means to start a conversation.)
Now, did Microsoft avoid fulfilling the meaning of the law in this way? As far as I know: No. So there doesn't seem to be a reason to go after Microsoft in the same way as Google.
If you know more -- feel free to share. Otherwise please stop this kind of stupid rant.
I have bad news for you: There are laws in Germany that govern what data about customers a company may collect and that and how it has to answer questions of its customers about stored data.
And unlike in the US, a company can not force the customer to give up his rights by means of a TOS. The law stipulates that certain rights can not be taken away by contract.
These laws are meant to remove some of the inequality that we have between big companies with well paid lawyers and a customer with less knowledge about the law and less time and money to spend i court to get his rights.
Gernay has rules about how much you can charge for phone hotlines, AND you have to tell up front how expensive a call is.
I know it is hard to understand for some Americans who are used to a system where companies get away with practically everything they want, but here in Europe laws do actually protect the rights of the little man/consumer, not always but often enough.
And no, this doesn't mean that companies can not do business anymore, it just means that they have to calculate certain costs that they don't have in the US.
My grandparents lived through one and my parents and me through the other.
I still prefer living in Europe with it's (mostly) reasonable privacy laws rather then living in the US where corporate interests trump everything, often enough including the law.
That a vulnerability exists on Win XP does not automatically imply that it was there from the release of Win XP. A later update may have introduced the vulnerability, or it could be some program running on Win XP that open the vulnerability.
Also, some of the Linux vulnerabilities have been there for years. So the state of Linux security seems to be just as disgraceful.
For the same reason there is Apple specific code in WebKit. And (probably) PowerPC code, and x86 code, and Android code, and iOS code, and...
Why is HyperV code in the Linux kernel? Or code that is for Intel graphics?
If a piece of software tries to support many platforms and usage cases, you have code that is only used in specific scenarios.
And if the reason to support this platform or usage case is gone (i.e. iOS support for Blink, and Google support for post-split WebKit), then you remove it.
And if they do drop iOS (which would be a rather huge dick move, but one that would make business sense), wouldn't that be rather evil of them?
Apple doesn't allow any browser engine besides their own WebKit implementation on iOS. So removing iOS support from Blink seems to be a given, because it can't be used anyway.
So if there's a dick in this equation, it's most certainly not Google.
Better yet, how do morons of this caliber get to be so high up in government?
These 'morons' are some members of parliament that are on the women's committee. They are a small group of (probably) technically inept people that represent a small part of the European people.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
There is a time limit on how long Microsoft has to show the browser ballot the EU citizens. This time limit was extended when Microsoft was first found to not having been in compliance with the deal.
I'd take the opposite approach: If this were either Apple or a non-US company, the EU would not have even bothered.
This 'the EU hates America' argument is really getting tiresome. It's just not true.
Google (or bing, if you're a Microsoft fan) 'e.on and gaz de france' and you will see that the EU does not only go after American companies but European ones as well.
Microsoft made a deal with the EU. They didn't stick to the deal. There where fined. And the fine is only 10% of what it could have been according to law. So the EU went easy on Microsoft.
As a windows user who wanted to learn how to use linux (15 years ago or so) I had the catch-22 issue of installing and configuring system I knew very little about. [...] I tried Debian first and got no where, then tried Ubuntu and it "just worked".
Soooo.. you installed Ubuntu, which came out first in 2004, '15 years ago or so'? Can I have access to your time machine?
I don't know about France, but here in Germany (also an EU country) break time does NOT count towards work time. So if I say I work 8 hours/day, I'm at work for 8 hours + break times (45 to 60 min., usually).
Slashdot Mirror
No. They expect Apple to follow the law.
The law does not only talk about the wording of your privacy policies, but your actual conduct.
It should be "on the people" because some people may not have a problem with policies and may want to do business with Apple anyway.
What's your point?
The basis of the complaint was, that Apple is not transparent about what it does with the data collected.
If they are transparent about it and tell the users what exactly thy are going to do with the data BEFORE any data is collected, they're basically fine.
And then the users who are fine with can use those services.
But Apple, like many other companies, wants to have the right to do anything without telling what they do.
The European data protection laws lay the groundwork for users to be able to decide freely what services to use and what not.
The basis for a free decision is INFORMATION.
And, it costs money to have privacy policies updated and policed so they are legal in multiple markets
You know what I fear?
That Apple does just what you describe: Change the words of their privacy policies, but don't actually change the processes used to handle data.
Do you make the same distinction when talking about Windows malware?
I doubt it.
Most people say 'virus' and mean 'any malware like viri, trojans, worms et. al.'.
Yeah, right.
If I was a MPAA executive and had the power to make the author write what I want, I would put the blame on the investigator.
Why doesn't he name names? Because he can't obviously. There was no executive present so he can't give a name. He did this on his own. Let's fire him. Case closed.
When I had to fix the graphics drivers on my girlfriend's laptop yesterday, I had to guess the German localizations of applications for monitor settings and drivers and scroll through lists of oversized icons.
I'm pretty sure that the dash shows you programs not only by their local name but also by their original name.
At least when I'm typing stuff into the dash, I have non-obvious hits.
Also, you can reach the settings by going top right on the screen. The list is not that long so that going through the icons would have helped.
Well, when I use Goggle Search I do not sign up, I am not presented with any ToS, I just enter my search words and off I go.
Now, there is of cause something like implied consent.
In the US, as far as I know that basically means that you agree to the ToS that Google publishes somewhere.
In Germany (and most of the EU, I guess) there are limits on what rights I can waive with such implied consent. There are even limits on what rights I may not waive explicitly.
So your argument is on shaky ground over here.
Germany has a law that every website (at least any commercial website) has to have a page with legal info, including an email address for contact purposes.
Google did so: http://www.google.de/contact/impressum.html
But when you write an email to the email address listed there, you only get an automated message giving you some FAQs and a note telling you that your email will not be read.
So you can not actually contact Google that way. (Contact in this law is suppost to be a means to start a conversation.)
Now, did Microsoft avoid fulfilling the meaning of the law in this way?
As far as I know: No.
So there doesn't seem to be a reason to go after Microsoft in the same way as Google.
If you know more -- feel free to share.
Otherwise please stop this kind of stupid rant.
I have bad news for you: There are laws in Germany that govern what data about customers a company may collect and that and how it has to answer questions of its customers about stored data.
And unlike in the US, a company can not force the customer to give up his rights by means of a TOS.
The law stipulates that certain rights can not be taken away by contract.
These laws are meant to remove some of the inequality that we have between big companies with well paid lawyers and a customer with less knowledge about the law and less time and money to spend i court to get his rights.
Gernay has rules about how much you can charge for phone hotlines, AND you have to tell up front how expensive a call is.
I know it is hard to understand for some Americans who are used to a system where companies get away with practically everything they want, but here in Europe laws do actually protect the rights of the little man/consumer, not always but often enough.
And no, this doesn't mean that companies can not do business anymore, it just means that they have to calculate certain costs that they don't have in the US.
Yes, exactly: No company should provide a service that they can not sustain while complying with the law.
I always thought that's why you make a business plan before starting an enterprise: To make sure that you can actually do it.
Just because I can use many services from Google without paying money doesn't mean that they are free.
Google is a for profit company, of course they gain something by offering their services.
My grandparents lived through one and my parents and me through the other.
I still prefer living in Europe with it's (mostly) reasonable privacy laws rather then living in the US where corporate interests trump everything, often enough including the law.
That a vulnerability exists on Win XP does not automatically imply that it was there from the release of Win XP.
A later update may have introduced the vulnerability, or it could be some program running on Win XP that open the vulnerability.
Also, some of the Linux vulnerabilities have been there for years.
So the state of Linux security seems to be just as disgraceful.
... with the ex helping to burn the pictures?
Note that at least two Google employees offered to help.
For the same reason there is Apple specific code in WebKit. And (probably) PowerPC code, and x86 code, and Android code, and iOS code, and ...
Why is HyperV code in the Linux kernel?
Or code that is for Intel graphics?
If a piece of software tries to support many platforms and usage cases, you have code that is only used in specific scenarios.
And if the reason to support this platform or usage case is gone (i.e. iOS support for Blink, and Google support for post-split WebKit), then you remove it.
And if they do drop iOS (which would be a rather huge dick move, but one that would make business sense), wouldn't that be rather evil of them?
Apple doesn't allow any browser engine besides their own WebKit implementation on iOS.
So removing iOS support from Blink seems to be a given, because it can't be used anyway.
So if there's a dick in this equation, it's most certainly not Google.
And GPUs only support H264, not VP8.
RIGHT NOW, GPUs only support H.264.
If VP8 became a standard that might change.
When talking about codecs one has to think long term.
We still use MP3 after more than 15 years.
Better yet, how do morons of this caliber get to be so high up in government?
These 'morons' are some members of parliament that are on the women's committee.
They are a small group of (probably) technically inept people that represent a small part of the European people.
As I recall, the original fine was the punishment, and the "other web browser" option in the OS was a "remedy". Punishments obviously continue until they are over. But remedies should only last as long as there is something to remedy.
There is a time limit on how long Microsoft has to show the browser ballot the EU citizens.
This time limit was extended when Microsoft was first found to not having been in compliance with the deal.
I'd take the opposite approach: If this were either Apple or a non-US company, the EU would not have even bothered.
This 'the EU hates America' argument is really getting tiresome.
It's just not true.
Google (or bing, if you're a Microsoft fan) 'e.on and gaz de france' and you will see that the EU does not only go after American companies but European ones as well.
Microsoft made a deal with the EU.
They didn't stick to the deal.
There where fined. And the fine is only 10% of what it could have been according to law. So the EU went easy on Microsoft.
As a windows user who wanted to learn how to use linux (15 years ago or so) I had the catch-22 issue of installing and configuring system I knew very little about. [...] I tried Debian first and got no where, then tried Ubuntu and it "just worked".
Soooo.. you installed Ubuntu, which came out first in 2004, '15 years ago or so'?
Can I have access to your time machine?
The freedom to chose between a badly paid job and being without a job is only a technicality. It's not really freedom.
I guess the "strike" part applies here, as well.
Or alternatively, make the employers understand that a rested worker is (on average) a better worker.
I don't know about France, but here in Germany (also an EU country) break time does NOT count towards work time.
So if I say I work 8 hours/day, I'm at work for 8 hours + break times (45 to 60 min., usually).