It depends on whether the right is negotiable or not.
Here there are rights "availble" for negotiation, meaning they can be waived or transferred, and right "unavailable" for negotiation, which cannot be waived nor transferred. Fundamental rights, like freedom of expression etc. are "unavailable" for negotiation: no matter what I sign I cannot waive or be stripped of my right of freedom of expression.
Arbitration clauses exist, but can be applied only on matters pertaining "available" rights. For issues pertaining "unavailable" rights, arbitration cannot be imposed. Most employee rights here are "unavailable".
I guess in the US most rights, and especially employee rights, are actually available for negotiation and can be waived in a contract.
415 millions might be a relatively small amount compared to Apple's overall revenue and assets, but it's a fine to their ebook operations and compared to their ebook yearly revenue it's about 25%: it's actually quite a big deal.
I'm unsure what you would consider "adequate" if disrupting a multi-billion dollar business and a 13B dollar tax recovery are "not enough". What would you impose, a 50B fine? 100B?
For reference, the larges fine ever against a company was 20B, against BP for the Deepwater Horizon environmental disaster.
Slap on the wrist means there is punishment but it's bland enough to be ineffective. In the ebook case the sentence barred Apple from doing business in the ebook marked the way they wanted for years, not including the damages it had to pay.
I'm unsure what people expected if what amounted to effectively a death sentence to their business strategy in that market was apparently only a "slap on the wirst".
The alternative I was discussing was about drawing power from a spent battery. Nobody questions the mistake in communication, but if a device is able to attempt to draw more power from a batter than it safely should there is no discussion it has to be prevented doing it.
Libertarianism includes Anarcho-Capitalism though, which advocates the elimination of the state in favour of privately operated courts, police and armed forces.
The throttling only affected old devices with a spent battery which was unable to safely provide the power required at peak usage anyway. It was not communicated well and that was a PR mistake, but the solution itself was sound.
The alternative would have been letting devices draw more powers from a spent battery than they safely could. The only mistake was about the communication, not the solution itself which was technically and ethically sound.
In the ebook case the court disrupted the whole business strategy Apple tried to put in place to win the ebooks market.
In the Irish tax case we're talking about the largest tax fine in history (although technically it's more a tax recovery).
Claiming these were "slap on the wrists" is just ridiculous.
Having cash in the pockets didn't stop courts from find Apple in the wrong in the past, from the ebook antitrust issue in the US to the Irish taxation issue in the EU just to cite a couple egregious examples.
No, the PR damage would be much worse. Apple has stated multiple times it's stance is to protect the privacy of its users and has promoted multiple times this stance to differentiate itself from Google.
Furthermore, class actions are the least of your problems if you have provided the EU a reason to fine you 4% of your global turnover.
Tinfoil hats are fine, but they should not stop you from thinking logically. Why would they risk withholding information? It would be a PR nightmare for Apple when found out and as far as I know it would make them non-compliant with the GDPR. The EU would be jumping somersaults at the prospect of being able to fine Apple 4% of their annual global turnover and Apple would be very foolish in risking that.
That's a well known scientific truth, but focusing on long term rehabilitation requires cultural progress.
First of all it has to be recognised as long term investment: if all you care is the next financial quarter, how a released inmate will fare 10 years down the line is basically never going to be on the radar.
Second, but not least important: focus has to switch away from punishment and revenge.
The point is that geo-fencing is a misguided attempt to avoid liability since a user can be outside the EU and still be protected by the law.
You argue that the law might be unenforceable for companies not having a legal presence in the EU, but assuming this to be correct, it makes the geo-fencing even more useless: why geo-fencing away users when by your assumption you can ignore EU liabilities anyway?
Changing tires has to be allowed. It’s true tires degrade slowly under VSC, but if your tires are done you cannot just wait, a done tire has dramatically lower performance and if kept running easily risks rupturing.
You are arguing for the VSC to be perfect, but this is unrealistic. It's a matter of fact that it can disrupt strategies and you cannot push too hard for perfection. As example, laps under VSC might allow a car with high tire consumption to spare an additional pit stop, giving them a huge advantage compared to those who maybe decided to sacrifice performance betting in doing a stop less than the competitors.
The current regulation allows entering the pit lane only to change tires and you have to meet minimum lap times before entering with the VSC deployed. It's not perfect, but it's simple and good enough.
Perhaps just slowing down pit road speeds to exactly match the transit time of the track? Include a "full stop" requirement unless the trip though the pits was unavoidable due to a racing event or track obstruction.
During VSC a car can enter the pit lane only to change tires. The pit lane has already a very slow speed limit, which makes taking the pit lane always a huge time sink compared to the track transit time, even with the (V)SC deployed.
Making a car drive through without stopping is actually a form of penalty for misconduct, since it makes the car lose many seconds.
It's not a flaw in the rules: the VSC regulation explicitly allows entering the pit lane to change tires as long as the car meets the minimum lap time at the time of entry.
If I remember correctly part of the rationale was that baking a cake does not constitute "expression of free speech", so no "free speech" consideration applies.
Having higher protection against legal subpoenas is still valuable even if it doesn't make illegal access to the data impossible. It should be obvious, but apparently it's not...
It’s simply because data protection in Switzerland is granted at the Constitutional level (read: can be changed only with popular vote) and applies to data of legal entities (the EU equivalent is only for personal data as far as I know).
There is a big difference between the rifle issued by the Swiss army and a privately owned gun. The rifle issued by the army belongs to the army: the soldier has no right to use it for anything not related to the service, including self defense when off duty.
It might look like a lot of Swiss citizens privately own guns, but most of them are actually Swiss soldiers off duty keeping their issued equipment at home, rifle included, but it's not a private gun and mostly a liability, since it cannot be legally used for anything except service-related activites.
Another small correction: standard service is about 10 months.
I don't see the alternative except paying the service through taxes, which is ultimately another form of premium, only compulsive and handled by some public entity.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he his: that's why you should read his analysis and debate its merits, not whoever wrote it.
It depends on whether the right is negotiable or not.
Here there are rights "availble" for negotiation, meaning they can be waived or transferred, and right "unavailable" for negotiation, which cannot be waived nor transferred. Fundamental rights, like freedom of expression etc. are "unavailable" for negotiation: no matter what I sign I cannot waive or be stripped of my right of freedom of expression.
Arbitration clauses exist, but can be applied only on matters pertaining "available" rights. For issues pertaining "unavailable" rights, arbitration cannot be imposed. Most employee rights here are "unavailable".
I guess in the US most rights, and especially employee rights, are actually available for negotiation and can be waived in a contract.
415 millions might be a relatively small amount compared to Apple's overall revenue and assets, but it's a fine to their ebook operations and compared to their ebook yearly revenue it's about 25%: it's actually quite a big deal.
I'm unsure what you would consider "adequate" if disrupting a multi-billion dollar business and a 13B dollar tax recovery are "not enough". What would you impose, a 50B fine? 100B?
For reference, the larges fine ever against a company was 20B, against BP for the Deepwater Horizon environmental disaster.
Slap on the wrist means there is punishment but it's bland enough to be ineffective. In the ebook case the sentence barred Apple from doing business in the ebook marked the way they wanted for years, not including the damages it had to pay.
I'm unsure what people expected if what amounted to effectively a death sentence to their business strategy in that market was apparently only a "slap on the wirst".
The alternative I was discussing was about drawing power from a spent battery. Nobody questions the mistake in communication, but if a device is able to attempt to draw more power from a batter than it safely should there is no discussion it has to be prevented doing it.
Libertarianism includes Anarcho-Capitalism though, which advocates the elimination of the state in favour of privately operated courts, police and armed forces.
The throttling only affected old devices with a spent battery which was unable to safely provide the power required at peak usage anyway. It was not communicated well and that was a PR mistake, but the solution itself was sound.
The alternative would have been letting devices draw more powers from a spent battery than they safely could. The only mistake was about the communication, not the solution itself which was technically and ethically sound.
In the ebook case the court disrupted the whole business strategy Apple tried to put in place to win the ebooks market.
In the Irish tax case we're talking about the largest tax fine in history (although technically it's more a tax recovery).
Claiming these were "slap on the wrists" is just ridiculous.
Having cash in the pockets didn't stop courts from find Apple in the wrong in the past, from the ebook antitrust issue in the US to the Irish taxation issue in the EU just to cite a couple egregious examples.
No, the PR damage would be much worse. Apple has stated multiple times it's stance is to protect the privacy of its users and has promoted multiple times this stance to differentiate itself from Google.
Furthermore, class actions are the least of your problems if you have provided the EU a reason to fine you 4% of your global turnover.
Tinfoil hats are fine, but they should not stop you from thinking logically. Why would they risk withholding information? It would be a PR nightmare for Apple when found out and as far as I know it would make them non-compliant with the GDPR. The EU would be jumping somersaults at the prospect of being able to fine Apple 4% of their annual global turnover and Apple would be very foolish in risking that.
The best kind of correct...
That's a well known scientific truth, but focusing on long term rehabilitation requires cultural progress.
First of all it has to be recognised as long term investment: if all you care is the next financial quarter, how a released inmate will fare 10 years down the line is basically never going to be on the radar.
Second, but not least important: focus has to switch away from punishment and revenge.
The point is that geo-fencing is a misguided attempt to avoid liability since a user can be outside the EU and still be protected by the law.
You argue that the law might be unenforceable for companies not having a legal presence in the EU, but assuming this to be correct, it makes the geo-fencing even more useless: why geo-fencing away users when by your assumption you can ignore EU liabilities anyway?
Changing tires has to be allowed. It’s true tires degrade slowly under VSC, but if your tires are done you cannot just wait, a done tire has dramatically lower performance and if kept running easily risks rupturing.
You are arguing for the VSC to be perfect, but this is unrealistic. It's a matter of fact that it can disrupt strategies and you cannot push too hard for perfection. As example, laps under VSC might allow a car with high tire consumption to spare an additional pit stop, giving them a huge advantage compared to those who maybe decided to sacrifice performance betting in doing a stop less than the competitors.
The current regulation allows entering the pit lane only to change tires and you have to meet minimum lap times before entering with the VSC deployed. It's not perfect, but it's simple and good enough.
Perhaps just slowing down pit road speeds to exactly match the transit time of the track? Include a "full stop" requirement unless the trip though the pits was unavoidable due to a racing event or track obstruction.
During VSC a car can enter the pit lane only to change tires. The pit lane has already a very slow speed limit, which makes taking the pit lane always a huge time sink compared to the track transit time, even with the (V)SC deployed.
Making a car drive through without stopping is actually a form of penalty for misconduct, since it makes the car lose many seconds.
It's not a flaw in the rules: the VSC regulation explicitly allows entering the pit lane to change tires as long as the car meets the minimum lap time at the time of entry.
If I remember correctly part of the rationale was that baking a cake does not constitute "expression of free speech", so no "free speech" consideration applies.
Having higher protection against legal subpoenas is still valuable even if it doesn't make illegal access to the data impossible. It should be obvious, but apparently it's not...
It’s simply because data protection in Switzerland is granted at the Constitutional level (read: can be changed only with popular vote) and applies to data of legal entities (the EU equivalent is only for personal data as far as I know).
I guess you are talking about Nitrogen Triiodide.
There is a big difference between the rifle issued by the Swiss army and a privately owned gun. The rifle issued by the army belongs to the army: the soldier has no right to use it for anything not related to the service, including self defense when off duty.
It might look like a lot of Swiss citizens privately own guns, but most of them are actually Swiss soldiers off duty keeping their issued equipment at home, rifle included, but it's not a private gun and mostly a liability, since it cannot be legally used for anything except service-related activites.
Another small correction: standard service is about 10 months.
I don't see the alternative except paying the service through taxes, which is ultimately another form of premium, only compulsive and handled by some public entity.