"What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?"
I forgot to address this. In the US under federal law, there is no law against this. However, some states, counties, and cities do have laws making it illegal to block cellular 911 signals. So it all depends on where exactly you are.
A store that is open to the public is a quasi-public space. It is private property, but allowing the general public to enter makes it a "public space" for a lot of (but not all) legal purposes.
If your response to the inability to use your cell phone inside a store during an emergency is to ask bystanders to try theirs instead of going straight to an employee or security guard, then I think that's more on you than on the faraday cage.
That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).
Even then you can probably refuse service to anyone as long as you can dodge the maze of "discrimination" laws.
That's pretty easy in the US. It is legally permissible to discriminate against anyone for any reason that isn't in the list of specifically prohibited reasons (age, gender, etc.).
So, the only reason needed is "we just don't like you".
This patent is not really counter to what net neutrality is about, unless the store is selling you their WiFi connection with the intention of being your ISP.
It's trivially easy to identify (and block) VPNs, and has been for decades. Personally, if I'm using someone else's WiFi and my VPN doesn't work through it, then I'm not using that WiFi.
That was my first thought - a defensive patent might make sense for Amazon here.
There's no such thing as a "defensive" patent. If you want to prevent others from patenting something, there are better ways to do it. If you're patenting something without the intention of enforcing the patent, then you're thinking that some time in the future you'll be able to sell your patent to someone else.
With HTTPS this is impossible. With HTTPS connections the only thing Amazon could tell is what address you were connecting to and everything from there is encrypted.
Not quite. If the search terms are part of the URL, as is common, then HTTPS doesn't hide them.
Offsite backups can be very useful. Maybe you don't push everything offsite but there's probably a class of data you'd like to know will survive when something happens to your freenas.
They provide the best service for the lowest price
Perhaps, perhaps not, but that question is 100% irrelevant to the fact that they are a shit company. That you personally don't care that they're a shit company is your business, of course, but they're a shit company nonetheless.
Published source makes it a lot easier to spot problems with the code.
It makes it possible, not easier. When you're looking at the math, it's the next best thing to impossible to notice a weakening of the crypto unless you're a crypt expert. And even if you are a crypto expert, it's not an easy thing to spot.
some forcing is necessary because some people will turn off all automatic updates and never update (or update very rarely).
How does the fact that some people will never update mean that forcing them is necessary? It's their machine, if they don't want to update, that's their choice. There is zero excuse for forcing people to do it.
Companies who do not release security patches alone, but insist on folding them into updates that effect larger changes (feature additions, UI changes, etc.), are a factor for many people. Those who do not want to apply patches that make large changes to their systems will also not get security updates.
But, you know.....the people getting those nice, convenient rides at reasonable prices, couldn't care less about all this.
An awful lot do. As you say, many (perhaps most) aren't even really aware of how disastrously awful the company is, but plenty of them, once they find out, stop using Uber.
Slashdot Mirror
The last toner cart I ordered was an HP color and it was $240.
And you actually paid that? That's simply insane.
"What law do you think covers creating a Faraday cage?"
I forgot to address this. In the US under federal law, there is no law against this. However, some states, counties, and cities do have laws making it illegal to block cellular 911 signals. So it all depends on where exactly you are.
A store that is open to the public is a quasi-public space. It is private property, but allowing the general public to enter makes it a "public space" for a lot of (but not all) legal purposes.
Sure. I repair laptops every so often. I just repaired my daughters, which is about a year old.
I wouldn't. My reaction to this would be no different if Apple did it: I won't buy it, and I'll recommend against others buying it.
If your response to the inability to use your cell phone inside a store during an emergency is to ask bystanders to try theirs instead of going straight to an employee or security guard, then I think that's more on you than on the faraday cage.
That said, I don't think it's OK for public spaces to block radio signals (and, quite often, the law doesn't as well).
Even then you can probably refuse service to anyone as long as you can dodge the maze of "discrimination" laws.
That's pretty easy in the US. It is legally permissible to discriminate against anyone for any reason that isn't in the list of specifically prohibited reasons (age, gender, etc.).
So, the only reason needed is "we just don't like you".
You are correct, I am wrong. I shouldn't comment pre-coffee.
This patent is not really counter to what net neutrality is about, unless the store is selling you their WiFi connection with the intention of being your ISP.
It's trivially easy to identify (and block) VPNs, and has been for decades. Personally, if I'm using someone else's WiFi and my VPN doesn't work through it, then I'm not using that WiFi.
You're not the only one. I avoid them whenever possible (which is 99.99% of the time), and use a VPN when I absolutely must use one.
Great plan... until someone dies in the store because calling 911 from a cell phone didn't work.
Wait, you mean the store itself doesn't have landlines that a 911 call could be made from?
Weird store.
Even better, just don't shop at Best Buy. They tend to be overpriced and provide substandard service anyway.
That was my first thought - a defensive patent might make sense for Amazon here.
There's no such thing as a "defensive" patent. If you want to prevent others from patenting something, there are better ways to do it. If you're patenting something without the intention of enforcing the patent, then you're thinking that some time in the future you'll be able to sell your patent to someone else.
With HTTPS this is impossible. With HTTPS connections the only thing Amazon could tell is what address you were connecting to and everything from there is encrypted.
Not quite. If the search terms are part of the URL, as is common, then HTTPS doesn't hide them.
This. Of course, anyone who is still using any WiFi they don't control without going through a VPN probably doesn't care about their privacy at all.
Offsite backups can be very useful. Maybe you don't push everything offsite but there's probably a class of data you'd like to know will survive when something happens to your freenas.
True, but you don't need the cloud to do that.
Or go with the easier solution of just not using it.
I don't trust Google Drive with any file of mine, let alone my entire computer.
They provide the best service for the lowest price
Perhaps, perhaps not, but that question is 100% irrelevant to the fact that they are a shit company. That you personally don't care that they're a shit company is your business, of course, but they're a shit company nonetheless.
Published source makes it a lot easier to spot problems with the code.
It makes it possible, not easier. When you're looking at the math, it's the next best thing to impossible to notice a weakening of the crypto unless you're a crypt expert. And even if you are a crypto expert, it's not an easy thing to spot.
some forcing is necessary because some people will turn off all automatic updates and never update (or update very rarely).
How does the fact that some people will never update mean that forcing them is necessary? It's their machine, if they don't want to update, that's their choice. There is zero excuse for forcing people to do it.
Companies who do not release security patches alone, but insist on folding them into updates that effect larger changes (feature additions, UI changes, etc.), are a factor for many people. Those who do not want to apply patches that make large changes to their systems will also not get security updates.
What's not to hate about Uber from a Progressive point of view
Forget "progressive". What's not to hate from a fundamental human decency point of view?
But, you know.....the people getting those nice, convenient rides at reasonable prices, couldn't care less about all this.
An awful lot do. As you say, many (perhaps most) aren't even really aware of how disastrously awful the company is, but plenty of them, once they find out, stop using Uber.