And that has what to do with Sony? And it doesn't remove the fact that the person who steals your car is still committing theft.
All this is is a silly diversion. Sony is guilty of nothing, but the hackers are. And even if Sony committed a crime, the hackers are still criminals as well.
If you leave your keys the ignition in the car here and it gets stolen, guess who gets charges brought against them.
The person who stole the car gets charges brought against them. It's not illegal to leave your keys in your car, but it is illegal to take a car that isn't yours, even if there are keys in the ignition.
The context of your post implies you think it's the other way around, which really boggles the mind.
Well, what ARE they doing scheduling reactivation if they are not aware of the extent of the attacks? Something tells me that Sony just has poor handle on everything security related.
Really? This is something you are berating Sony for?
They are doing the exact right thing here. First, they assessed the damage and worked to get PSN up as fast as possible. During that process, they discovered that the intrusion was more extensive than they thought, and instead of simply bringing PSN back up on their original schedule, they are allowing new information to alter their plans.
If this were some Linux archive, like for example sourceforge, or the Debian repositories, and they did the exact same thing, you'd be heaping praise upon them for doing the right thing and not adhering to bullshit corporate image demands, but since it's Sony who's doing the right thing, it must be bad somehow, right?
Judging by the negative reactions already, I wonder.. what should SONY do?
You're new here, aren't you?
Viable options only, please. "Die in a fire" and "pay me $1M" and such I'm gonna guess aren't viable - solid arguments as to why they would be are welcomed nevertheless, they might yield a +5 Funny if nothing else.
Well, that answers my previous question...
The only thing Sony could do to please the haters is become a 100% open source Linux company, and even that's a long shot. Sony has raised the religious ire of the nerds, and only complete repentance and conversion, or ceasing to exist altogether, will suffice. Such are the non-negotiable demands of religious crusaders.
So what Sony should do is completely ignore the peanut gallery and simply do right by their *actual* customers. Catering to the Slashdot crowd would virtually ensure Sony's failure. It would be like someone actually going through the effort to appease the Westboro nutters. No matter what you do, you probably won't make them happy, and, even if you do, you'll have alienated everyone else.
yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway.
Stated with out even the slightest bit of evidence or reasoning.
too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.
And this should be the biggest clue. Engineers design computers. There will never be a shortage of engineers who want to design open computers, and never be a shortage of companies who wish to cater to these engineers and those that would also like to use open computers.
Always and forever.
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.
..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?
Apple has never, ever, attempted to, or even shown a desire to, "control people". Never. They do, however, exert control over their products. This is to make their products more trouble-free and easier to use, and thus more appealing in order to sell more. By using a phrase like "false scarcity of functionality", you show you do not understand why Apple does what they do, most likely because you don't see the value in it.
If Apple simply created a "false scarcity of functionality", and people cared about functionality, they'd just buy more functional devices. But they don't care the same way you do. Furthermore, Apple's 'limited' products are actually significantly more functional to the average person than products without what you've called "false scarcity of functionality".
The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.
Again, completely missing the point. Apple cares what the consumer wants. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy their products, so they have to rely solely on whether consumers want to buy their products.
The only thing Apple can do to "fatten its bottom line" is to put out products people want to buy. Closed/limited products (from a nerd's point of view) are what consumers prefer. They aren't "fattening their bottom line" by controlling their customers, forcing them to buy Apple products that are more crippled than they would prefer, but by controlling their products to make them more desirable to their customers.
By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.
Just a few moments back you coined the term "false scarcity of functionality". Apple has always exerted control over their products. They have never exerted control (beyond basic copyright, which they don't really enforce anyway) over their users. Never.
Your sig is wrong - webkit is open because it's a re-branded and altered KHTML. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are under the LGPL. So, really, you can thank KDE for causing Apple to produce some of its technology in an open manner.
Apple has more Open Source projects that most other software or hardware makers. Quite often, when they come up with a new protocol or service or other low level process, they release it as open source. KDE didn't force anything. Apple knowingly forked KHTML, it wasn't some sort of unwitting happenstance that WebKit is open source.
I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"
That day will never, ever come. Even if Apple does what you imagine (and it's definitely not coming any time soon, how exactly do you think Apple is going to get Adobe and Microsoft, for example, on board? Games? Do you thin Apple is going to tell Steam to fuck off? Seriously, this notion is idiotic on the fact of it, but more on that in a sec), anyway, even if Apple were to do this, you will *ALWAYS* be able to buy a generic computer and run Linux. Forever and always.
On the topic of Apple doing this with the Mac, it's foolish, and very clearly not indicated by any existing facts. It's technically possible, but you have to ask why Apple would do this in the first place? It's obvious they'd like the Mac App Store to be the primary software distribution method, but they can't simply excise their existing vast software market, and there is plenty of software which is a very poor match for the Mac App Store. And to what benefit?
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware. The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
If no, then they won't do it. If yes, then why is it a bad thing? The reason yes doesn't make any sense is that Apple already sells a closed OS. If you want to compare iOS and Mac OS X in your mind, think of iOS as the "true consumer OS" and Mac OS X as the "OS for power users". By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.
In other words, no, they never sued anyone. And they hold that their software is subject to copyright law!
Oh, the horror!
I'm sure Google doesn't copyright their software, right? Wait, they do? Umm... What exactly where you trying to say, other than simply a bit of pointless hand-waving?
How do you reconcile your world view with the fact that Apple bought mobile ad companies, launched iAds, and collects your location for various reasons? How is that different from what you're grilling Google for?
Do explain what needs reconciliation? Apple has a small advertising component, which is clearly intended to make iOS better (by making ads less annoying), and is deliberately designed to minimize the amount of personal data collected on users, including oo.apple.com, which allows you to completely opt out of iAds data collection.
Google, on the other hand, almost solely makes their money from ads.
Sure, Apple also sells you the plastic, but ultimately they are in the same markets, just by different amounts.
"Just by different amounts", you might as well say filling your lungs with air and filling your lungs with water is "ultimately the same" because both contain water, "just by different amounts".
And, Apple doesn't "also sell you the plastic", they sell you the glass and aluminum, and *also* broker ads. First and foremost Apple makes their money from selling hardware to consumers. The consumer is the primary customer. With Google, the consumer is the primary product. Also, Google collects much more data than just from ad impressions. Everything you do on Google is mined. Again, very much unlike Apple and very much like comparing water vapor in the air with a large mass of liquid water.
And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
Except when Apple wants to show you ads on their mobile products, where they changed policies so that only they can collect personal information to give their ad system an edge.
They changed their policies so no one could collect personal information to give their users an edge.
Well, since Google is the ultimate Big Brother, it only makes sense newspeak would become involved. Collecting data is "not evil", but protecting users from being tracked, logged, and monitored is. Now if you'll excuse me, two minutes hate is about to start...
And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
Except when Apple wants to show you ads on their mobile products, where they changed policies so that only they can collect personal information to give their ad system an edge. In that case you're a customer and a product -- is that better?
That's an auxiliary product, not their main product, unlike Google where ads are by far their most important revenue stream. And yes, it's better if Apple limits the data collected on you, how can it not be?
Also: oo.apple.com
Please point me to Google's equivalent.
Of course, by your definition this is also true of TV, radio, magazines, and most websites. Go ahead though, lead by example and damn the man and live off-grid beholden to no ad-supported interests. You can start by not coming to slashdot and stop following the news. Bye.
"Example"? Of what? I never said to avoid ads, just that Google is by no means better than Apple here, and are in fact objectively significantly worse.
Yes, it does. It is very clear. You can also turn it off very easily. THIS suit should get thrown out. The Apple one has merit simply because of the storage part.
How so? Both Apple and Google store a cache on the phone. And the cache on Apple's phone isn't *your* location anyway, it's a subset of Apple's location database, and any incidental privacy concerns are going to be addressed very soon.
Apple collects data, too. The difference is, I trust Google with my data. Same with Sony.
The difference is Google collects EVERYTHING you do with them, they don't anonymize it immediately (and sometimes never do), and you aren't even their proper customer. All of which are the exact opposite of Apple, yet you trust Google more? WTF?
Google's never sued their customers for modifying devices they bought. Can't say the same for Apple or Sony.
Apple never sued a customer, Sony sued *one*. One who completely hacked their system. You can be damned sure if someone did the equivalent to Google, they'd sue just the same.
Which has what to do with data privacy, anyway?
Overall, of the three, Google acts like it gives more of a crap about its customers than its competitors.
That's a huge load of bullshit. YOU ARE NOT GOOGLE'S CUSTOMER, YOU ARE THEIR PRODUCT. At least with Apple, you are the customer. It's more of a mix with Sony, but you are still more of a customer with them than you will ever be with Google.
Bottom line, I use Gmail for my mail, I have a Chrome OS laptop, I have a (rooted) Android phone, I use Chrome for my browser, and I use Docs for storing all my documents- and I've yet to get screwed over yet.
And neither has a single Apple customer. And you've just demonstrated a point of mine above: Google knows far more about you than Apple ever could. Google uses YOUR OWN emails to give you ads. And will do so with Google Docs (I think they don't now).
They mine the shit out of you, have built an extensive profile about you, and use that data in order to sell their actual product, which is YOU, and their customers are the advertisers.
Ok, fine. You trust Google more than Apple, but not only can you not seem to explain why, but you also completely fail to accept the fact that Google knows WAY more about you than Sony or Apple ever could, and that unlike with Apple the data Google collects isn't even anonymous!
Google's was accidental, and they reported it themselves. Sony got hacked and potentially exposed 10 million credit card numbers. Apple was collecting location data this whole time without informing the consumer. So yeah, I trust Google.
Um... Wow...
Google collects everything you ever do with them. That's why they recorded the WiFi data. It wasn't "accidental", it's Google's default mode of operation: record everything.
And you're right, Sony got hacked. They didn't deliberately violate your personal data. But you're wrong about Apple, they informed their users in the EULA (unlike Google, who rarely notifies anyone about anything... Did the Google Street View van tell you they were taking your photo and collecting your WiFi data today?). Additionally, the scope of the data Apple collects is infinitesimal compared to what Google collects, and unlike with Google, Apple's data is anonymized from the get go. You can also completely opt out of Apple's data collection, unlike with Google.
By comparing Apple and Sony with Google, you completely undermine your entire argument.
Google provides free software, e-books, search engines, etc., as its bait. And based upon your slavish fanboi gushing, you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker...
I'm not trying to be a "fanboi" and I'm still confused. You've listed what I gain but what exactly have I lost? My privacy? Don't I already lose that to Facebook and Apple? My point still stands.
You lose far more privacy to Google than Apple. Many orders more. Google even outshines Facebook as a data collector. The only real difference is that Facebook's data is made more publicly available.
But if you don't think Google isn't the biggest Big Brother ever to exist, you have been misled.
Facebook has a track record of both violating privacy as default policy and refusing to share it with others.
And seemingly randomly changing policy. They're all kinda bad about this, I just think FB achieves the "worst in class".
Off the top of my head I can't remember GOOG ever changing policies... Maybe on something no one uses, so we never hear about it?
That's because Google's policy is that they have the right to use every bit of data you give them. They even got into hot water with book publishers and TV networks for using their data without permission.
And they have changed their policies publicly from time to time, usually referring to how long they keep their data intact before anonymizing it, and have also changed public warnings about how a few of their most egregious privacy concerns work, like search history.
Apple pops up a new 50 page itunes agreement every week, but it never seems much different than last weeks agreement.
Good job at making it sound scary ("50 pages" (hyperbole, as is the idea that it changes weekly)) while admitting it's not ("never seems much different"). If you've ever read it, you'll see that it basically states the standard boilerplate, covers all the various terms their different products are licensed under, they tell you what sort of information they collect, and outline the terms of service (administrative/billing/account type stuff).
Every time they add a new product (like magazine subscriptions), they have to update the terms to include the related terms.
Wait, how was it blown out of proportion? Either they recorded wifi traffic, or they didn't. And they didn't have to in order to do what they were ostensibly supposed to be doing.
By "blown out of proportion", I assume you mean, "but they're Google, not Apple or Sony, so no big deal".
Its no surprise that if you know where someone is you can deliver more targeted results. Is this really news? Besides, Google has a good track record of protecting consumer privacy and making it clear what they collect. Apple collected all their data without telling users and Facebook has a track record of both violating privacy as default policy and refusing to share it with others.
What a load of shit. Google collects everything you do using Google services, and they don't "make it clear" what they collect (unless the answer is "everything"). They also, unlike Apple, don't anonymize the data from the outset.
You're pretty much right about Facebook though. But Google invades privacy far more than any other corporation on Earth. In fact, that collected data is the very foundation of their business.
Apple never collected data without telling its users and they have always made it clear that the privacy of their users has always been important to them. And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
It's a joke, but it's also true. It's not really just the browser that is using the memory, but the web pages themselves. After a few tabs, any difference in memory use between different browsers becomes far eclipsed by the data. Lynx keeps a lower memory footprint because it doesn't show you all the data, just the text with a very minimal amount of formatting.
As long as you only keep a very small number of tabs/windows open, you should be fine. You may have to restart the browser now and then to clear up any leaked memory, and if you do open too many tabs, you may have to restart the computer to clear out the pagefile, but other than buying more RAM, there's not a whole lot you can do. Even if you go through the effort of clearing out services and startup items, you'll still only gain maybe two or three tabs worth, at best.
The location isn't determinable from the file on the phone... But when your phone sees a cell tower it can query the database file ON THE PHONE, without telling Apple or anyone else, and determine a more close approximation.
helping the phone to identify its more exact location (within a few meters)
So yes, the phone does contain everything it needs to determine a 'close approximation' of your location.
NO IT DOESN'T. It is just a database that can be queried. The only way you can tell where you are, roughly, is by looking at nearby cell towers and WiFi access points, and asking the database where they are.
The database + current radio signals = rough location. The database alone is not enough.
The database is like a map. You can't tell where on a map a person has been just because they have a map, unless they were to mark it. The iPhone uses that map to locate radio signals, but doesn't log the queries to the map. In other words, the iPhone never marks the map.
That file, by definition, will never be "city block resolution". Also, Apple is addressing this by encrypting the file, culling it more quickly, and if you're really paranoid, you can just turn off location services, and the phone will delete the file.
So *now* Apple is encrypting the info, first admission of guilt, then culling it more quickly, 2nd admission, and oops, turning off location tracking does *not* turn off the location tracking. That's just 'a bug'.
"Guilt" of what? You fool, the file is not your location, and cannot determine where you phone has been except that it was in somewhere in or around a very large geographical location.
The police can't just read it from your phone without either a search warrant or your consent.
Might want to talk to Michigan about that statement. They specifically now allow troopers to read data from your phone. Google 'michigan troopers reading cell phone' and enjoy reading. How long do you suspect before other states follow that lead?
The police anywhere can ask you to search your person, belongings, or premises. And the Constitution allows you to decline, except under certain circumstances, none of which should automatically apply to a traffic stop.
Also, they can search your phone all they want, unless they jailbreak it, or back it up to their computer (neither of which are likely), they can't read the file. Starting soon, even of they do jailbreak or back it up, they can't read the file. And even if they do read the file, they can't get any specific location information.
Slashdot Mirror
And that has what to do with Sony? And it doesn't remove the fact that the person who steals your car is still committing theft.
All this is is a silly diversion. Sony is guilty of nothing, but the hackers are. And even if Sony committed a crime, the hackers are still criminals as well.
It doesn't make sense at all
It makes sense if you hate Sony.
If you leave your keys the ignition in the car here and it gets stolen, guess who gets charges brought against them.
The person who stole the car gets charges brought against them. It's not illegal to leave your keys in your car, but it is illegal to take a car that isn't yours, even if there are keys in the ignition.
The context of your post implies you think it's the other way around, which really boggles the mind.
Well, what ARE they doing scheduling reactivation if they are not aware of the extent of the attacks? Something tells me that Sony just has poor handle on everything security related.
Really? This is something you are berating Sony for?
They are doing the exact right thing here. First, they assessed the damage and worked to get PSN up as fast as possible. During that process, they discovered that the intrusion was more extensive than they thought, and instead of simply bringing PSN back up on their original schedule, they are allowing new information to alter their plans.
If this were some Linux archive, like for example sourceforge, or the Debian repositories, and they did the exact same thing, you'd be heaping praise upon them for doing the right thing and not adhering to bullshit corporate image demands, but since it's Sony who's doing the right thing, it must be bad somehow, right?
A sandwich is not insurance, it isn't even in any way like or symbolic of insurance.
It's a sandwich.
lousy analogy.
Um... If a sandwich was insurance, it wouldn't be an analogy.
You consume both, that's the analogy.
Judging by the negative reactions already, I wonder.. what should SONY do?
You're new here, aren't you?
Viable options only, please. "Die in a fire" and "pay me $1M" and such I'm gonna guess aren't viable - solid arguments as to why they would be are welcomed nevertheless, they might yield a +5 Funny if nothing else.
Well, that answers my previous question...
The only thing Sony could do to please the haters is become a 100% open source Linux company, and even that's a long shot. Sony has raised the religious ire of the nerds, and only complete repentance and conversion, or ceasing to exist altogether, will suffice. Such are the non-negotiable demands of religious crusaders.
So what Sony should do is completely ignore the peanut gallery and simply do right by their *actual* customers. Catering to the Slashdot crowd would virtually ensure Sony's failure. It would be like someone actually going through the effort to appease the Westboro nutters. No matter what you do, you probably won't make them happy, and, even if you do, you'll have alienated everyone else.
Why would someone who wants to sue SONY for incompetence want to keep using their products?
Because it's a damned fine console?
If I give you a free sandwich, is it also not free because I didn't give you a second one?
That day will never, ever come.
yeah it will, eventually...to all the devices that matter anyway.
Stated with out even the slightest bit of evidence or reasoning.
too bad too as the companies that will do this would be nowhere if their engineers had grown up in a locked era.
And this should be the biggest clue. Engineers design computers. There will never be a shortage of engineers who want to design open computers, and never be a shortage of companies who wish to cater to these engineers and those that would also like to use open computers.
Always and forever.
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware.
..and if controlling people will allow them to sell more hardware by creating false scarcity of functionality?
Apple has never, ever, attempted to, or even shown a desire to, "control people". Never. They do, however, exert control over their products. This is to make their products more trouble-free and easier to use, and thus more appealing in order to sell more. By using a phrase like "false scarcity of functionality", you show you do not understand why Apple does what they do, most likely because you don't see the value in it.
If Apple simply created a "false scarcity of functionality", and people cared about functionality, they'd just buy more functional devices. But they don't care the same way you do. Furthermore, Apple's 'limited' products are actually significantly more functional to the average person than products without what you've called "false scarcity of functionality".
The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
ok but why should the consumer care what apple wants/needs? that's not his problem. why should the consumer drink corporatist koolaid? what apple does to fatten its bottom line isn't always in the consumer interest. they shouldn't have a right to dictate to consumers how sold hardware is used. if they do, then the politicians who passed such a thing should be shot. it undermines the whole concept of owning property.
Again, completely missing the point. Apple cares what the consumer wants. Apple doesn't force anyone to buy their products, so they have to rely solely on whether consumers want to buy their products.
The only thing Apple can do to "fatten its bottom line" is to put out products people want to buy. Closed/limited products (from a nerd's point of view) are what consumers prefer. They aren't "fattening their bottom line" by controlling their customers, forcing them to buy Apple products that are more crippled than they would prefer, but by controlling their products to make them more desirable to their customers.
By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
they can still lock it down and have it provide more advanced applications. the issue is one of control, not of functionality.
Just a few moments back you coined the term "false scarcity of functionality". Apple has always exerted control over their products. They have never exerted control (beyond basic copyright, which they don't really enforce anyway) over their users. Never.
Your sig is wrong - webkit is open because it's a re-branded and altered KHTML. WebCore and JavaScriptCore are under the LGPL. So, really, you can thank KDE for causing Apple to produce some of its technology in an open manner.
Apple has more Open Source projects that most other software or hardware makers. Quite often, when they come up with a new protocol or service or other low level process, they release it as open source. KDE didn't force anything. Apple knowingly forked KHTML, it wasn't some sort of unwitting happenstance that WebKit is open source.
I shudder to think that we may one day look back and ask "Hey, remember when you could install whatever software you wanted on your computer without having to jailbreak it or void the warranty?"
That day will never, ever come. Even if Apple does what you imagine (and it's definitely not coming any time soon, how exactly do you think Apple is going to get Adobe and Microsoft, for example, on board? Games? Do you thin Apple is going to tell Steam to fuck off? Seriously, this notion is idiotic on the fact of it, but more on that in a sec), anyway, even if Apple were to do this, you will *ALWAYS* be able to buy a generic computer and run Linux. Forever and always.
On the topic of Apple doing this with the Mac, it's foolish, and very clearly not indicated by any existing facts. It's technically possible, but you have to ask why Apple would do this in the first place? It's obvious they'd like the Mac App Store to be the primary software distribution method, but they can't simply excise their existing vast software market, and there is plenty of software which is a very poor match for the Mac App Store. And to what benefit?
Apple doesn't exist to control people (as many of your fellow tinfoil comrades like to claim), the exist to sell hardware. The one and only question you have to ask yourself is this: Does Apple think it will sell more Macs if they close it like iOS?
If no, then they won't do it. If yes, then why is it a bad thing? The reason yes doesn't make any sense is that Apple already sells a closed OS. If you want to compare iOS and Mac OS X in your mind, think of iOS as the "true consumer OS" and Mac OS X as the "OS for power users". By locking down Mac OS X, they would essentially set it up as both an inferior iOS, and an inferior Mac OS. It's irrational.
This notion makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you hate Apple, and just need to make up some narrative to further justify it (to you) and perhaps help scare other people into joining in with your nonsense.
In other words, no, they never sued anyone. And they hold that their software is subject to copyright law!
Oh, the horror!
I'm sure Google doesn't copyright their software, right? Wait, they do? Umm... What exactly where you trying to say, other than simply a bit of pointless hand-waving?
How do you reconcile your world view with the fact that Apple bought mobile ad companies, launched iAds, and collects your location for various reasons? How is that different from what you're grilling Google for?
Do explain what needs reconciliation? Apple has a small advertising component, which is clearly intended to make iOS better (by making ads less annoying), and is deliberately designed to minimize the amount of personal data collected on users, including oo.apple.com, which allows you to completely opt out of iAds data collection.
Google, on the other hand, almost solely makes their money from ads.
Sure, Apple also sells you the plastic, but ultimately they are in the same markets, just by different amounts.
"Just by different amounts", you might as well say filling your lungs with air and filling your lungs with water is "ultimately the same" because both contain water, "just by different amounts".
And, Apple doesn't "also sell you the plastic", they sell you the glass and aluminum, and *also* broker ads. First and foremost Apple makes their money from selling hardware to consumers. The consumer is the primary customer. With Google, the consumer is the primary product. Also, Google collects much more data than just from ad impressions. Everything you do on Google is mined. Again, very much unlike Apple and very much like comparing water vapor in the air with a large mass of liquid water.
And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
Except when Apple wants to show you ads on their mobile products, where they changed policies so that only they can collect personal information to give their ad system an edge.
They changed their policies so no one could collect personal information to give their users an edge.
Well, since Google is the ultimate Big Brother, it only makes sense newspeak would become involved. Collecting data is "not evil", but protecting users from being tracked, logged, and monitored is. Now if you'll excuse me, two minutes hate is about to start...
And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
Except when Apple wants to show you ads on their mobile products, where they changed policies so that only they can collect personal information to give their ad system an edge. In that case you're a customer and a product -- is that better?
That's an auxiliary product, not their main product, unlike Google where ads are by far their most important revenue stream. And yes, it's better if Apple limits the data collected on you, how can it not be?
Also: oo.apple.com
Please point me to Google's equivalent.
Of course, by your definition this is also true of TV, radio, magazines, and most websites. Go ahead though, lead by example and damn the man and live off-grid beholden to no ad-supported interests. You can start by not coming to slashdot and stop following the news. Bye.
"Example"? Of what? I never said to avoid ads, just that Google is by no means better than Apple here, and are in fact objectively significantly worse.
Yes, it does. It is very clear. You can also turn it off very easily. THIS suit should get thrown out. The Apple one has merit simply because of the storage part.
How so? Both Apple and Google store a cache on the phone. And the cache on Apple's phone isn't *your* location anyway, it's a subset of Apple's location database, and any incidental privacy concerns are going to be addressed very soon.
Apple collects data, too. The difference is, I trust Google with my data. Same with Sony.
The difference is Google collects EVERYTHING you do with them, they don't anonymize it immediately (and sometimes never do), and you aren't even their proper customer. All of which are the exact opposite of Apple, yet you trust Google more? WTF?
Google's never sued their customers for modifying devices they bought. Can't say the same for Apple or Sony.
Apple never sued a customer, Sony sued *one*. One who completely hacked their system. You can be damned sure if someone did the equivalent to Google, they'd sue just the same.
Which has what to do with data privacy, anyway?
Overall, of the three, Google acts like it gives more of a crap about its customers than its competitors.
That's a huge load of bullshit. YOU ARE NOT GOOGLE'S CUSTOMER, YOU ARE THEIR PRODUCT. At least with Apple, you are the customer. It's more of a mix with Sony, but you are still more of a customer with them than you will ever be with Google.
Bottom line, I use Gmail for my mail, I have a Chrome OS laptop, I have a (rooted) Android phone, I use Chrome for my browser, and I use Docs for storing all my documents- and I've yet to get screwed over yet.
And neither has a single Apple customer. And you've just demonstrated a point of mine above: Google knows far more about you than Apple ever could. Google uses YOUR OWN emails to give you ads. And will do so with Google Docs (I think they don't now).
They mine the shit out of you, have built an extensive profile about you, and use that data in order to sell their actual product, which is YOU, and their customers are the advertisers.
Ok, fine. You trust Google more than Apple, but not only can you not seem to explain why, but you also completely fail to accept the fact that Google knows WAY more about you than Sony or Apple ever could, and that unlike with Apple the data Google collects isn't even anonymous!
Um, that doesn't refute the fact that it's not open. In fact, it does nothing but bolster it.
Google's was accidental, and they reported it themselves. Sony got hacked and potentially exposed 10 million credit card numbers. Apple was collecting location data this whole time without informing the consumer. So yeah, I trust Google.
Um... Wow...
Google collects everything you ever do with them. That's why they recorded the WiFi data. It wasn't "accidental", it's Google's default mode of operation: record everything.
And you're right, Sony got hacked. They didn't deliberately violate your personal data. But you're wrong about Apple, they informed their users in the EULA (unlike Google, who rarely notifies anyone about anything... Did the Google Street View van tell you they were taking your photo and collecting your WiFi data today?). Additionally, the scope of the data Apple collects is infinitesimal compared to what Google collects, and unlike with Google, Apple's data is anonymized from the get go. You can also completely opt out of Apple's data collection, unlike with Google.
By comparing Apple and Sony with Google, you completely undermine your entire argument.
Google provides free software, e-books, search engines, etc., as its bait. And based upon your slavish fanboi gushing, you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker...
I'm not trying to be a "fanboi" and I'm still confused. You've listed what I gain but what exactly have I lost? My privacy? Don't I already lose that to Facebook and Apple? My point still stands.
You lose far more privacy to Google than Apple. Many orders more. Google even outshines Facebook as a data collector. The only real difference is that Facebook's data is made more publicly available.
But if you don't think Google isn't the biggest Big Brother ever to exist, you have been misled.
Facebook has a track record of both violating privacy as default policy and refusing to share it with others.
And seemingly randomly changing policy. They're all kinda bad about this, I just think FB achieves the "worst in class".
Off the top of my head I can't remember GOOG ever changing policies... Maybe on something no one uses, so we never hear about it?
That's because Google's policy is that they have the right to use every bit of data you give them. They even got into hot water with book publishers and TV networks for using their data without permission.
And they have changed their policies publicly from time to time, usually referring to how long they keep their data intact before anonymizing it, and have also changed public warnings about how a few of their most egregious privacy concerns work, like search history.
Apple pops up a new 50 page itunes agreement every week, but it never seems much different than last weeks agreement.
Good job at making it sound scary ("50 pages" (hyperbole, as is the idea that it changes weekly)) while admitting it's not ("never seems much different"). If you've ever read it, you'll see that it basically states the standard boilerplate, covers all the various terms their different products are licensed under, they tell you what sort of information they collect, and outline the terms of service (administrative/billing/account type stuff).
Every time they add a new product (like magazine subscriptions), they have to update the terms to include the related terms.
Wait, how was it blown out of proportion? Either they recorded wifi traffic, or they didn't. And they didn't have to in order to do what they were ostensibly supposed to be doing.
By "blown out of proportion", I assume you mean, "but they're Google, not Apple or Sony, so no big deal".
Its no surprise that if you know where someone is you can deliver more targeted results. Is this really news? Besides, Google has a good track record of protecting consumer privacy and making it clear what they collect. Apple collected all their data without telling users and Facebook has a track record of both violating privacy as default policy and refusing to share it with others.
What a load of shit. Google collects everything you do using Google services, and they don't "make it clear" what they collect (unless the answer is "everything"). They also, unlike Apple, don't anonymize the data from the outset.
You're pretty much right about Facebook though. But Google invades privacy far more than any other corporation on Earth. In fact, that collected data is the very foundation of their business.
Apple never collected data without telling its users and they have always made it clear that the privacy of their users has always been important to them. And Apple's users are their actual customers, while Google's users are their product.
It's a joke, but it's also true. It's not really just the browser that is using the memory, but the web pages themselves. After a few tabs, any difference in memory use between different browsers becomes far eclipsed by the data. Lynx keeps a lower memory footprint because it doesn't show you all the data, just the text with a very minimal amount of formatting.
As long as you only keep a very small number of tabs/windows open, you should be fine. You may have to restart the browser now and then to clear up any leaked memory, and if you do open too many tabs, you may have to restart the computer to clear out the pagefile, but other than buying more RAM, there's not a whole lot you can do. Even if you go through the effort of clearing out services and startup items, you'll still only gain maybe two or three tabs worth, at best.
The location isn't determinable from the file on the phone... But when your phone sees a cell tower it can query the database file ON THE PHONE, without telling Apple or anyone else, and determine a more close approximation.
helping the phone to identify its more exact location (within a few meters)
So yes, the phone does contain everything it needs to determine a 'close approximation' of your location.
NO IT DOESN'T. It is just a database that can be queried. The only way you can tell where you are, roughly, is by looking at nearby cell towers and WiFi access points, and asking the database where they are.
The database + current radio signals = rough location.
The database alone is not enough.
The database is like a map. You can't tell where on a map a person has been just because they have a map, unless they were to mark it. The iPhone uses that map to locate radio signals, but doesn't log the queries to the map. In other words, the iPhone never marks the map.
That file, by definition, will never be "city block resolution". Also, Apple is addressing this by encrypting the file, culling it more quickly, and if you're really paranoid, you can just turn off location services, and the phone will delete the file.
So *now* Apple is encrypting the info, first admission of guilt, then culling it more quickly, 2nd admission, and oops, turning off location tracking does *not* turn off the location tracking. That's just 'a bug'.
"Guilt" of what? You fool, the file is not your location, and cannot determine where you phone has been except that it was in somewhere in or around a very large geographical location.
The police can't just read it from your phone without either a search warrant or your consent.
Might want to talk to Michigan about that statement. They specifically now allow troopers to read data from your phone. Google 'michigan troopers reading cell phone' and enjoy reading. How long do you suspect before other states follow that lead?
The police anywhere can ask you to search your person, belongings, or premises. And the Constitution allows you to decline, except under certain circumstances, none of which should automatically apply to a traffic stop.
Also, they can search your phone all they want, unless they jailbreak it, or back it up to their computer (neither of which are likely), they can't read the file. Starting soon, even of they do jailbreak or back it up, they can't read the file. And even if they do read the file, they can't get any specific location information.