I wonder if this is the same issue that AT&T experienced when the new iPhone 4 came out and there was some issue on AT&T's side, when users were routed through Alcatel Lucent equipment that caused a hit to transfer speeds.
This isn't about branding or at least not in the sense you seem to be referring to. According to TFA, they have two issues with Google; one being anti-competitive actions by google regarding the way they deal with handset vendors and their own Google branded software (as opposed to 3rd party software), and the other issue relating to patent violations regarding the use of WiFi to determine location.
I've never seen the stipulation that a phone using Android must use Google branded core services, and I assume, therein lies Skyhook's beef. They claim Google uses unfair advantage pushing it's own services over 3rd party solutions with handset vendors, basically withholding OS releases to 3rd party developers while they make deals with handset vendors behind the scenes. The 3rd partie developers are then pretty much shut out and can't compete at all in those areas as a result.
I read an interesting article from a.GOV website that talks about anti-competitive behavior without market dominance, and apparently there is precedence:
Market Power from "Consumer Protection" Market Failures A firm also can obtain the ability to raise prices from the types of market failures most often associated with consumer protection violations.(8) The most common of these fall within five categories: (1) coercion; (2) undue influence; (3) deception; (4) incomplete or asymmetric information; or (5) unreliable, uncertain or overly confusing information.(9)
This list of "consumer protection" market failures is really not all that different from the types of market failures that prevent entry to challenge a monopoly's dominance. However, consumer protection problems cannot occur absent market failures occurring "inside the head" of ultimate purchasers. Hypothetical purchasers who are perfectly informed, rational, and intelligent can never be subject to consumer protection abuses. Ordinary consumers, however, can have greater difficulties.
...
It is crucial to note, however, that these consumer protection violations, flowing from these "consumer protection" market failures, can occur even if the firm committing the act in question does not have a monopoly market share. We prosecute a company that commits consumer fraud even if its market share is small. We prosecute fraudulent companies even if 80% of the sellers in their market are honest.(13)
Although the first bit talks about simple mechanisms like raising prices, anti-competitive behavior can easily encompass more obscure aspects like preventing others from entering a market, manipulating markets through coercion, etc.
They could most definitely have a case against Google.
Am I missing something here? This is the way it should work, and the true strength of open source. Assuming they have the skillset to address the security issues found, I just don't see an issue. This isn't release level software yet, and I would expect that anyone putting up such a site based on it would publish that fact. I'm pleased that they are getting such great input on key security flaws.
Yes but the issue is larger than just open or closed. Skyhook is claiming that Google doesn't provide them equal footing to peddle their services with handset vendors. The gist from the article indicated that perhaps the handset vendors are receiving OS distributions from Google first. The handset vendors then develop their platforms around Google's offerings before 3rd party vendors like Skyhook were given an opportunity to develop, package, and sell a service to a handset maker before they are already invested in the Google solution.
Apple avoids this by banning apps that compete with core functionality while leaving 3rd party apps alone when competing against each other. Google has no such protection since they claim everything is open.
I agree with you in general, but I believe Google tripped up here when they claimed it was an 'open' platform, but structured like a closed system for certain core apps. Folks like Apple never claimed it was open and never promised such. I believe that's where Skyhook's beef is.
Sure it was popular, among college students, which is obviously not where it is today once it opened it up to everyone. Although there are a lot of college students out there, they are minuscule compared to the number of folks on Facebook today. It was an interesting social network before they opened it up. Now it's a mainstream site used by millions. It was a college site before with limited exposure and appeal. Now it's a piece of today's pop culture. The difference should be obvious, and that was all due t the fact that they opened it up to everyone.
Facebook once had an extremely limited audience- college students. And only students of those universities that Facebook had expanded to. That did not stop it from taking off like crazy.
A social network that limits it's audience to a specific group of people isn't very 'social'. It would fail if it was only for those interested in FOSS, at least on the scale of MySpace and Facebook and I don't think that's what the designers intended. From what I recall, they just want an open network that is a little more concerned with privacy than the existing giants. Diaspora is a perfect fit for that goal.
As to being the current 'number 1', I don't think that is even a goal as of yet, but rather just getting it off the ground and out there. If it's good and follows through on it's privacy and transparency goals, it will get there on it's own as there are a large segment of users on Facebook who are very unhappy with the way their data is being handled.
Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.
The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.
If a child were to get around the issue illegally, then that is a parental issue that no law can resolve. In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.
That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.
Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.
And that is the problem with rhetoric. They aren't talking about 'banning' anything. They are talking about putting controls on it so that a parent must decide to purchase a game for their child.
The parents you're describing should be banned from having any more kids. Violent entertainment shouldn't be banned for everyone else because of these dickheads.
Pay particular attention to the chart. Why such a high statistic in violence in the US? It shows the homicide rate for males 15-24 years of age in the U.S. We essentially blow the curve with nearly 5 times the homicide rate in this group as compared to the next closest nation:
Just like a 12 year old can walk into a liquor store and pick up a 5th of gin? I don't think so...
No one said this would remove all responsibility from a parent, and certainly current parents don't just assume their kids can't smoke, do drugs, etc. It will make it more difficult for them however, which achieves something that is better than no control at all.
I find it curious how you accept that fact that not all parents are good parents, then go on to suggest that such a solution wouldn't help the situation. You equate it as totalitarian, when it would simply force parents to purchase it for them.
If such proposed legislation simply put parents in the loop, where is the issue? As a parent, wouldn't you prefer to know what your children are buying and take comfort in the fact that it would be more difficult to get such material without your consent as a child's parent? Do you think controls on liquor and cigarets are totalitarian, or acceptable?
You seem to think that it must be black or white with either complete freedom, or iron fisted control. The reality is that there are all sorts of solutions that work in the middle.
On a personal note, you can present all the studies in the world, when a simple look back on the last 50 years of history shows real world examples of exposure to violence in media. TV, movies, music. Hell, it's celebrated in reality shows. If a child doesn't have proper guidance, and their only role models are the local gang, or characters from TV, drunk and disorderly trash from Jersey, you have to accept that 'monkey see monkey do' from a behavioral perspective will eventually come into play. They are drawn to it like months to a flame, and the popularity of such in popular culture is an end result IMO.
And if the parents are just bad parents, or not engaged with their children's development, should they still be trusted with the keys, so to speak? All too often, you end up with parents who simply aren't engaged in their children's lives, and as a result, children with no respect for authority, behavioral problems, resentment, and an overblown sense of entitlement.
Of course in my opinion, I think we already have way too much of that already. Your argument on it's face seems reasonable, but then again, it assumes that the parents are doing their job and raising good children. Just turn on the TV and it proves that theory wrong. Today's children all seem to think that money will be thrown at them, they will either become a rap star, a winner on American Idol, or 'internet famous', and never have to work again. They go beyond practical jokes and verge on cruel and inhuman far too often, and often just for the shock value. These sorts of things tell me their parents went horribly wrong in modifying that sort of behavior, which means the parents need help in controlling that behavior. Acid attacks, drive by's, hate crimes. I don't think these things happen in a vacuum.
If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.
Agreed. The only people who should be able to ban violent video games for minors are parents.
Exactly. The first few lines tell you everything you need to know about 'loaded questions' for a poll:
From TFA:
This week, parent watchdog group Common Sense Media released the results of a survey it commissioned on children's access to violent games.
Of course the poll results returned what Common Sense Media wanted. They commissioned it. If the polling groups want return business, they aim to please the folks who pay their bills. This would have had more impact if it was an independent poll.
That said, I actually find that I agree with the general idea. No so much with the sexual content, but with the violent content. Violence in the U.S. is out of control, with youth today showing no respect for life, and peer pressure to do violence all to easy to find. Hell, I haven't been in school for 25 years, and the images I see on the news and represented in pop-culture today is shocking to me. I can't imagine sending a child off to such a place. It reminds me of those prison films where you send off your child and you get back a thug.
I would prefer more controls that prevent exposure to young children to violent media, but I actually think they need to lighten up on the sexual content. They turn something as natural as breathing into something forbidden and dirty, which I've never thought was healthy.
Seconded. I don't think the issue of retrofitting is the governments fault, as it was a necessary step. I think they made the right choice to force folks to move to a more efficient light. I DO think they need to address the real point of concern. Why can China produce a CFL for 50% less than the same bulb in the US. The trade discrepancy in value between the US and China is the real problem here. If our local economy can't compete with artificial limits on chinese goods, then they need to be taxed appropriately to make their cost comparable without our own. I realize we are in a recession, but failure to do so causes a much larger concern like this one where our manufacturing jobs all disappear due to trade imbalances. Although the initial costs may be higher here, the jobs we save may be our own.
Just efficiency levels. You can choose any technology that meets that efficiency standard.
When energy costs and availability affect our way of life and security so much, using a statism to attack a move as logical as this just doesn't make sense.
I wasn't aware they had updated the policy. I just opted back out of the web history and deleted any existing history that was there. This is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to participate in.
If anyone else is curious, you can find out how here:
When you search at Google, information is recorded along with the search conducted, such as the time of day, browser type you used, your internet address and an anonymous user ID provided by our cookie.
Personal information, such as your name or email address, is not recorded. Google does not require such information to be provided in order to search the web. It may be collected if you use other Google services, such as Google Groups. However, no personal information collected is ever linked with the anonymous ID assigned to your search requests.
Google never provides search histories to third parties, unless required to by law. In these cases, the search histories provided carry no personal information about you.
My concern is one day they may start linking my Google accounts to my searches such as my iGoogle account.
That is my point. If Google ties my searches to targeted advertising, then it's a form of data mining being sold for-profit to advertisers interested in what I'm interested in. I actually don't mind targeted ads as I simply block all of them anyway, but I do have privacy concerns that at some point they may tie my search to the 'ME' identity of my iGoogle account.
Wrong! You are confusing just plain advertising with "behavior tracking".
Google is a data miner. Although I know they collect information, I also use their services for free. I understand it's a trade of services for something of value, so I'm not totally opposed to it, although it does give me pause when I use google to search and I have a google account. Although it's easy to claim they don't tie my account info to my searches, It would be a goldmine (literally) if they did so. I find it hard to believe they aren't collecting more than I'm aware of. I applaud this intent by the FTC. After all, Google will still have billions who never install such a plugin, or turn such a feature to exclude them from data mining on in their browser.
I don't want no stinking toolbar to help me out... F those data miners!
They are talking about recording and playback, not just recording alone.
It seems they are talking about recording 1080p, not viewing 1080p. You don't have to view your recorded videos on the phone.
From TFA:
Samsung said the processor will enable full HD video playback and recording at 1080p resolution, which is a huge step up from the 720p that is possible in today’s high-end smartphones. Also, we should remember that 1080p was a big challenge for mainstream desktop processors – and was not possible until the introduction of dual-core processors at the end of 2005 and capable discrete graphics cards at about the same time.
I don't think an Attorney General would risk his job with such weak claims. I really don't see a problem with this, as I would rather have anti-trust err on the side of caution, at least in the investigative phase. Make no mistake, this isn't a lawsuit against Google, it is simply a probe into claims of such. If Google has done no wrong here, then the probe will turn up nothing, and the companies claiming such will end up with a black eye. If Google is stacking the deck so to speak, the probe might show enough evidence that this proceeds to the next phase.
So by you reasoning, all hackers properly implement security features?
Do you even know what ASLR and DEP are? They are not 'features' that an app uses. They are built into the OS. If the OS can be exploited to bypass these then the exposure lies in the OS.
You seem to be missing the disconnect between what your saying and reality. If bypassing OS security was as simple as 'not properly implementing the security features available', then hackers jobs would be all to easy. They could simply opt-out of using things like Virus Scan, Firewalls, Permissions, ASLR, or DEP.
So any application (including malware) that does not use ASLR or DEP gets a free pass vulnerability? You don't elect to use these things. They are a keystone of the OS Security, not some feature you 'opt into'.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this is the same issue that AT&T experienced when the new iPhone 4 came out and there was some issue on AT&T's side, when users were routed through Alcatel Lucent equipment that caused a hit to transfer speeds.
Could this be something similar in nature?
This isn't about branding or at least not in the sense you seem to be referring to. According to TFA, they have two issues with Google; one being anti-competitive actions by google regarding the way they deal with handset vendors and their own Google branded software (as opposed to 3rd party software), and the other issue relating to patent violations regarding the use of WiFi to determine location.
I've never seen the stipulation that a phone using Android must use Google branded core services, and I assume, therein lies Skyhook's beef. They claim Google uses unfair advantage pushing it's own services over 3rd party solutions with handset vendors, basically withholding OS releases to 3rd party developers while they make deals with handset vendors behind the scenes. The 3rd partie developers are then pretty much shut out and can't compete at all in those areas as a result.
I read an interesting article from a .GOV website that talks about anti-competitive behavior without market dominance, and apparently there is precedence:
"Market Power Without A Large Market Share:
The Role of Imperfect Information and other
"Consumer Protection" Market Failures"
[Excerpt]
Although the first bit talks about simple mechanisms like raising prices, anti-competitive behavior can easily encompass more obscure aspects like preventing others from entering a market, manipulating markets through coercion, etc.
They could most definitely have a case against Google.
Am I missing something here? This is the way it should work, and the true strength of open source. Assuming they have the skillset to address the security issues found, I just don't see an issue. This isn't release level software yet, and I would expect that anyone putting up such a site based on it would publish that fact. I'm pleased that they are getting such great input on key security flaws.
Yes but the issue is larger than just open or closed. Skyhook is claiming that Google doesn't provide them equal footing to peddle their services with handset vendors. The gist from the article indicated that perhaps the handset vendors are receiving OS distributions from Google first. The handset vendors then develop their platforms around Google's offerings before 3rd party vendors like Skyhook were given an opportunity to develop, package, and sell a service to a handset maker before they are already invested in the Google solution.
Apple avoids this by banning apps that compete with core functionality while leaving 3rd party apps alone when competing against each other. Google has no such protection since they claim everything is open.
I agree with you in general, but I believe Google tripped up here when they claimed it was an 'open' platform, but structured like a closed system for certain core apps. Folks like Apple never claimed it was open and never promised such. I believe that's where Skyhook's beef is.
No, you are getting 'stuff' for selling your private information. Nothing in the corporate world is free...
Sure it was popular, among college students, which is obviously not where it is today once it opened it up to everyone. Although there are a lot of college students out there, they are minuscule compared to the number of folks on Facebook today. It was an interesting social network before they opened it up. Now it's a mainstream site used by millions. It was a college site before with limited exposure and appeal. Now it's a piece of today's pop culture. The difference should be obvious, and that was all due t the fact that they opened it up to everyone.
A social network that limits it's audience to a specific group of people isn't very 'social'. It would fail if it was only for those interested in FOSS, at least on the scale of MySpace and Facebook and I don't think that's what the designers intended. From what I recall, they just want an open network that is a little more concerned with privacy than the existing giants. Diaspora is a perfect fit for that goal.
As to being the current 'number 1', I don't think that is even a goal as of yet, but rather just getting it off the ground and out there. If it's good and follows through on it's privacy and transparency goals, it will get there on it's own as there are a large segment of users on Facebook who are very unhappy with the way their data is being handled.
Considering it's illegal to give alcohol to a minor, most parents would never give a child liquor. By the same reasoning, if they gave this Rated M the force of law rather than the honor system, the situations you describe would become far less likely.
The comparison to alcohol is accurate, you're simply confusing the comparison I made. I'm comparing the fact that alcohol is a controlled access substance, meaning a minor can't just walk into a store and buy it. The same is true if they passed legislation for games. The end result would be EXACTLY the same, requiring an adult to purchase them and for the same reason (to keep it out of the hands of minors), hence the comparison is valid.
If a child were to get around the issue illegally, then that is a parental issue that no law can resolve. In your world view, no law would be useful if they can't be 100% infallible, which of course will never happen. Laws curb irresponsible behavior, but they can never stop it. In other words, laws against auto-theft might make you avoid stealing a car due to the consequences, but they can never prevent you from doing so.
That is up to the individual to choose whether to break it or not and whether the action is worth the risk. If there are no consequences of concern to the individual, of course they will break it. If you make the consequences worrisome enough, they are far more likely to comply. It is the basis of behavioral teaching for all children. Slap their hand hard enough, and they won't do something 'bad' again. Ignore them and they will continue to do so.
Such a law would also give incentive and consequences to parents and 'friends' who would break such a law to help a buddy out. Any such law could easily be setup as a 'PG' law, meaning parents could give their children such if they deemed it appropriate.
And that is the problem with rhetoric. They aren't talking about 'banning' anything. They are talking about putting controls on it so that a parent must decide to purchase a game for their child.
Pay particular attention to the chart. Why such a high statistic in violence in the US? It shows the homicide rate for males 15-24 years of age in the U.S. We essentially blow the curve with nearly 5 times the homicide rate in this group as compared to the next closest nation:
http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/domesticv/graph.gif
http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/article542.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/violence_12-16.html
This last one is one that I find most troubling from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5329a1.htm
Just like a 12 year old can walk into a liquor store and pick up a 5th of gin? I don't think so...
No one said this would remove all responsibility from a parent, and certainly current parents don't just assume their kids can't smoke, do drugs, etc. It will make it more difficult for them however, which achieves something that is better than no control at all.
I find it curious how you accept that fact that not all parents are good parents, then go on to suggest that such a solution wouldn't help the situation. You equate it as totalitarian, when it would simply force parents to purchase it for them.
If such proposed legislation simply put parents in the loop, where is the issue? As a parent, wouldn't you prefer to know what your children are buying and take comfort in the fact that it would be more difficult to get such material without your consent as a child's parent? Do you think controls on liquor and cigarets are totalitarian, or acceptable?
You seem to think that it must be black or white with either complete freedom, or iron fisted control. The reality is that there are all sorts of solutions that work in the middle.
On a personal note, you can present all the studies in the world, when a simple look back on the last 50 years of history shows real world examples of exposure to violence in media. TV, movies, music. Hell, it's celebrated in reality shows. If a child doesn't have proper guidance, and their only role models are the local gang, or characters from TV, drunk and disorderly trash from Jersey, you have to accept that 'monkey see monkey do' from a behavioral perspective will eventually come into play. They are drawn to it like months to a flame, and the popularity of such in popular culture is an end result IMO.
And if the parents are just bad parents, or not engaged with their children's development, should they still be trusted with the keys, so to speak? All too often, you end up with parents who simply aren't engaged in their children's lives, and as a result, children with no respect for authority, behavioral problems, resentment, and an overblown sense of entitlement.
Of course in my opinion, I think we already have way too much of that already. Your argument on it's face seems reasonable, but then again, it assumes that the parents are doing their job and raising good children. Just turn on the TV and it proves that theory wrong. Today's children all seem to think that money will be thrown at them, they will either become a rap star, a winner on American Idol, or 'internet famous', and never have to work again. They go beyond practical jokes and verge on cruel and inhuman far too often, and often just for the shock value. These sorts of things tell me their parents went horribly wrong in modifying that sort of behavior, which means the parents need help in controlling that behavior. Acid attacks, drive by's, hate crimes. I don't think these things happen in a vacuum.
If this were to put parents back into the loop as to what their children were buying, then I think it's a good thing.
Exactly. The first few lines tell you everything you need to know about 'loaded questions' for a poll:
From TFA:
Of course the poll results returned what Common Sense Media wanted. They commissioned it. If the polling groups want return business, they aim to please the folks who pay their bills. This would have had more impact if it was an independent poll.
That said, I actually find that I agree with the general idea. No so much with the sexual content, but with the violent content. Violence in the U.S. is out of control, with youth today showing no respect for life, and peer pressure to do violence all to easy to find. Hell, I haven't been in school for 25 years, and the images I see on the news and represented in pop-culture today is shocking to me. I can't imagine sending a child off to such a place. It reminds me of those prison films where you send off your child and you get back a thug.
I would prefer more controls that prevent exposure to young children to violent media, but I actually think they need to lighten up on the sexual content. They turn something as natural as breathing into something forbidden and dirty, which I've never thought was healthy.
Seconded. I don't think the issue of retrofitting is the governments fault, as it was a necessary step. I think they made the right choice to force folks to move to a more efficient light. I DO think they need to address the real point of concern. Why can China produce a CFL for 50% less than the same bulb in the US. The trade discrepancy in value between the US and China is the real problem here. If our local economy can't compete with artificial limits on chinese goods, then they need to be taxed appropriately to make their cost comparable without our own. I realize we are in a recession, but failure to do so causes a much larger concern like this one where our manufacturing jobs all disappear due to trade imbalances. Although the initial costs may be higher here, the jobs we save may be our own.
I suppose I could agree with that, as long as you could always go to an open source 'non-denominational church ;)
I wasn't aware they had updated the policy. I just opted back out of the web history and deleted any existing history that was there. This is exactly the sort of thing I don't want to participate in.
If anyone else is curious, you can find out how here:
http://www.google.ca/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=54052
It's in the Google privacy policy:
My concern is one day they may start linking my Google accounts to my searches such as my iGoogle account.
That is my point. If Google ties my searches to targeted advertising, then it's a form of data mining being sold for-profit to advertisers interested in what I'm interested in. I actually don't mind targeted ads as I simply block all of them anyway, but I do have privacy concerns that at some point they may tie my search to the 'ME' identity of my iGoogle account.
Google is a data miner. Although I know they collect information, I also use their services for free. I understand it's a trade of services for something of value, so I'm not totally opposed to it, although it does give me pause when I use google to search and I have a google account. Although it's easy to claim they don't tie my account info to my searches, It would be a goldmine (literally) if they did so. I find it hard to believe they aren't collecting more than I'm aware of. I applaud this intent by the FTC. After all, Google will still have billions who never install such a plugin, or turn such a feature to exclude them from data mining on in their browser.
They are talking about recording and playback, not just recording alone.
From TFA:
I don't think an Attorney General would risk his job with such weak claims. I really don't see a problem with this, as I would rather have anti-trust err on the side of caution, at least in the investigative phase. Make no mistake, this isn't a lawsuit against Google, it is simply a probe into claims of such. If Google has done no wrong here, then the probe will turn up nothing, and the companies claiming such will end up with a black eye. If Google is stacking the deck so to speak, the probe might show enough evidence that this proceeds to the next phase.
So by you reasoning, all hackers properly implement security features?
Do you even know what ASLR and DEP are? They are not 'features' that an app uses. They are built into the OS. If the OS can be exploited to bypass these then the exposure lies in the OS.
You seem to be missing the disconnect between what your saying and reality. If bypassing OS security was as simple as 'not properly implementing the security features available', then hackers jobs would be all to easy. They could simply opt-out of using things like Virus Scan, Firewalls, Permissions, ASLR, or DEP.
So any application (including malware) that does not use ASLR or DEP gets a free pass vulnerability? You don't elect to use these things. They are a keystone of the OS Security, not some feature you 'opt into'.