Two of the most privacy-destroying forces joined together!
Yup, you'll be constantly prompted to enter your email address and password so it can find people to put into your contact book. At least, until it deems you have enough contacts... yeah, like I'm giving you my password.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Facebook with factual information about me... I'm sure as not going to trust them with my telephone information or a password to another system.
However, I bet there's going to be a market for this.
Yawn. So, I'm forced to conclude you're an idiot who feels he has some special knowledge he's not willing to share with the world -- and even then only if you can define the terms of reference.
I don't need to convince you to share this with me... but I will basically now say that you have provided nothing to support your opinion, that you're mostly full of shit, and that other than some vague and indirect assertions, you have yet to actually say anything of substance.
Have a nice day there skippy.
For the record, I live in a country many consider to be socialist, and I consider myself to lean towards socialism... but you've not motivated me to care any more about what you say.
I don't think you understand the purpose of HIPAA.
Always in the realm of possibility.
But, in the post I replied to:
If they got the records because they were suing a covered entity, they probably aren't in trouble under HIPAA. They'd still be in trouble for disclosing private information, though.
So, if the law firm got those records because of a legal action, that doesn't necessarily mean they got it with the patient's permission.
To me, the obligation to treat the data as secure patient information can't possibly end at a law firm who was somehow involved with a medical provider.
I just fail to see how the people leaking this information haven't breached the HIPAA requirements... surely to hell giving someone's private medical information to a bunch of school children as scrap paper represents a gross violation of the purpose of HIPAA, which was to keep that data confidential and secured in the first place.
I just don't get the magic "???" step two before "profit" that absolves people of responsibility to safeguard this data.
Maybe not... The law firm is probably not a HIPAA covered agency.
Really? That's somewhat appalling... so the easiest way to sidestep these regulations is to give it to someone who isn't covered by them?
I realize that's a gross simplification, but I should think that getting information covered under such a law would extend obligations to you. This information is covered under HIPAA... you've been given this information... therefore you have obligations under HIPAA.
I mean, it's not like someone can give me Classified information and suddenly I'm free to do with it as I please.
Sadly, I fear my version is probably more abstract and less likely to be that way in practice.
give me one good reason why i should waste time trying to enlighten someone who had his brain washed by right wing propaganda, and i will spare the effort. im serious.
Because you incorrectly assert that I believe the right wing propaganda, or that I haven't read up on this stuff. I've read both ends of the spectrum, and while I don't hold any degrees on the topic, I consider myself to be somewhat informed. I also don't think either side is universally "right" on all points.
So far you've made a couple of dismissive assertions with nothing to back it up.
Would you like to provide some evidence that Pol Pot took a vote and this is what people decided on? That Lenin didn't conduct purges? That Chairman Mao wasn't a vicious little tyrant? That Shining Path weren't a bunch of violent extremists who decided to force their views on people by force of gun?
I genuinely think the Libertarian/pure Capitalilst model of how to run a government is a crock... and I genuinely think that those glorious Socialist revolutions you hold up were generally brutal rebellions that lead to a lot of blood-shed in pursuit of an ideology.
You, however, seem to be dismissing anything you consider as coming from the "right", and are merely implying that these shining examples of the "left" are perfect -- fascism and tyranny aren't a left/right issue. The growing American police state is no better than the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
So, yeah, if you would like your position and your assertions to be taken seriously, instead of something off the cuff with nothing to support it... by all means, 'enlighten' me. So far you've stuck with the philosophical equivalent of "did too" and "neener neener".
You've yet to say anything of substance despite making fairly grand claims and ignoring anything you don't like. I would be interested if you'd actually say anything... take a risk, get modded down (or up)... but don't just keep pretending that backing up anything you say is beneath you.
It's a trade-off. Do you reject all poor fingerprints so you can decrease your chance of a false match? If you do that, you are going to reduce the size of the database because a lot of people only have poor fingerprints.
But then you really need to temper how much you actually use this tool... saying there's a "30% chance someone is a known terrorist" (for example) means you have to use that as merely a broad level of screening.
You simply can't go around treating this system if it's absolutely reliable if you know damned well you've dialed down the accuracy of it to account for the fact that the finger-print database is largely useless.
Especially when people's lives (and livelihoods) are involved here. But, now the US has a huge, completely unreliable database that some idiot will use as if it's 100% verified information.
I worked as a paralegal while in college. I'll have you know they get paid minimum wage + tips.
By which you mean they get to, um, service the senior partner's needs in order to retain their position?
Sorry, I'm sure that is libelous and suggests that lawyers are a bunch of miserable, manipulative pricks. That part is merely an opinion and should be stated as such.;-)
there is no such bullshit exist as you speak of. in socialism
Ummm... really? Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung? Vladimir Ilyich Lenin?
Granted, these are communists in some cases... but there has always been an aspect of the "inspired" leaders imposing this on people "for their own good", and then essentially ram it down their throats (or up another orifice).
the people own the government, directly.
Or, were told that.
there were more local and regional assemblies with representatives elected from among those locales than united states had ever had in its history. whatever happened, it happened through people's votes.
A vote at the point of a gun isn't a vote... and I don't think Pol Pot or Chairman Mao were doing a whole of of consensus building.
Now, don't get me wrong... I don't belive that the libertarian free-market-at-all-costs model is working (or can work)... but it's a little hard to accept the notion that some of the harsher implementations of Communism/Socialism were democratic processes in which people voted for it.
Sure, some people voted to have a revolution... but then they didn't exactly ask everyone else how they felt about it. But, make no mistake, it was ultimately spread by force.
Having robots on the front line could change everything.
Yeah, like opening you up for war crimes and really horrible mistakes.
Someone piloting this thing from hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away, or a completely automated device, brings with it the possibility to really screw up. Hell, from the sounds of it, the automated drones are already inflicting more civilian casualties than they should be... they don't sound like they're being used judiciously enough to prevent it. It would seem that Pakistan can attest to that fact.
At the very least, I don't think we want war to "seem like a sport"... it's serious business, for high stakes. It's not some game. I'm all for saving lives, but automated warfare is something which gives one pause for concern. If you make it too arm's length, you risk losing sight of what you're doing... if it's just a game, why not strafe that schoolyard for the hell of it?
Having your people get killed has always been "unpopular"... it's not supposed to be "popular", but it might be a necessary thing to protect others.
And, for the record, pretty much every Canadian who has been killed overseas gets news coverage and attention. No country likes to bring home dead soldiers... but I don't know that I'm entirely cool with the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" approach that seems to be happening with some of these automated drones. Way too many civilians are ending up as "collateral damage".
Why do you have a plate on your car in the first place? It's an identification number... Yes, to identify you in case it's needed by the police or by anyone. Don't like it? Don't use a car then.
Except we have around 6 decades or so in which this was a passive means of identification.
Automatically scanning and recording of these things is a relatively new development, and the technology is outpacing the the law and understanding of how best to treat this.
Some might argue that in the US, automatic plate identification and tracking is creeping a little close to the bounds of the 4th amendment in that there is no need for probably cause or judicial oversight.
I'm glad that you're embracing a surveillance society and think we all need to as well... but unfortunately, some of this automated technologies is somewhat eroding actual rights entrenched in both law and custom.
From a certain perspective, it's hard not to see 1984 and Brave New World hurtling towards us as likely outcomes instead of just speculative fiction. Because law enforcement is charging ahead with these things under the assumption they can do anything they want, and it can take literally years to get these matters settled by the courts, at which point an awful lot of damage can have already been done.
Now, yes, a watch is cool. I like the ones with all the exposed gears and perfectly machined parts that I see in magazine ads. Especially the ones with diving or aeronautical readouts that I don't understand. But is the watch cool, or is it cool because it's being worn by Sir Richard Branson or John Travolta while standing in front of a Learjet? It probably wouldn't look that good on my wrist while I'm climbing out of my Dodge.
Well, no... you'll never be as cool as Travolta in front of a lear jet.;-)
I've got watches that can tell me the timing of the tides, the phase of the moon, current altitude and temperature... watches with nothing but the time of day... watches that have their innards exposed... watches in a variety of bright colors... solar watches... automatic (self winding) watches... watches that sync to the atomic clock signal.
The watches I wear to work are different from the ones I wear casually. I can wear the dressier ones casually, but a bright red G-shock in a client meeting not so much.
My wife has a bunch of brightly colored plastic (and really rugged) watches so she can match it with what she's wearing... she doesn't wear any other jewelry, so it's her one fashion accessory.
It's amazing how quickly you can go from have no watches to having quite a few... especially if you use something like Amazon to track down good buys or watches you'd just not see in a retail outlet.
So I can't figure out why anybody would wear a wrist watch, unless for fashion. And that makes even less sense.
Fashion is part of it. So I can tell time in meetings if there is no clock. Because it takes 2 seconds to look at my watch, and more to dig out my cell phone, so when I'm walking it comes in handy. Because there's something really beautiful about a mechanical watch with its gears exposed. Because you can get used to wearing a watch, and if you're not wearing one it can feel odd. Occasionally having an alarm comes in handy. Or a stopwatch.
Just because it doesn't make any sense to you that doesn't mean that other people don't have reasons for wearing a watch.
They also make more than one flavor of ice-cream, too.
Turns out it's actually mechanisms and gears, which means it's not so alternate.
Funny, but I meant where they had been in continuous usage for all of that time. Not something which got lost and only rediscovered "recently" (by historical measures).
But if we'd had clockworks gears for 2000 years, I can only imagine how many cool things would have been invented centuries ago.
So I'm suddenly imagining an alternate "steam punk" timeline in which we had mechanisms and gears 2000 years ago. It's always amazing to see what was really known back that far.
That's absolutely cool.
As someone with a lot of watches, that Hublot wrist watch is a really cool timepiece. A skeleton watch with 2000 years of history to it.
Though, as other people have pointed out, I bet this would cost a pretty penny.
Well, to continue the pedantry... in and of itself, "Huh?" is merely an interjection.
Interjection is a big name for a little word. Interjections are short exclamations like Oh!, Um or Ah! They have no real grammatical value but we use them quite often, usually more in speaking than in writing. When interjections are inserted into a sentence, they have no grammatical connection to the sentence. An interjection is sometimes followed by an exclamation mark (!) when written.
But with what appears to be a peaceful protest (in NYC), the police have to remove the media from the area.
Of course. If the police are about to do something they know is going to lead to violence and protest, they sure as hell don't want anybody there to report on it. They don't want an abundant supply of evidence to demonstrate that they violated laws and/or people's rights -- which that action is almost guaranteed to provoke.
For the same reason that "free speech zones" aren't intended to foster free speech.
My bet is that most of the people who got arrested will never be charged because there is no grounds for the arrest in the first place. Just some heavy handed police intimidation.
Indeed, cores. And I still don't see any reason, and AMD has 3 core processors. I can have 3G of memory. I can have 9G of memory.
Well, in fairness, on the memory side, you do that with some combination of memory modules which are addressable by powers of two. (eg. 2GB + 1GB, or 4GB + 4GB + 1GB), each of which is discrete from the others. I don't believe you can buy a 3GB or 9GB memory module.
Binary numbers are not pervasive by mandate in all areas of computing.
Nope, absolutely not. Not saying that... just saying that traditionally such things have been architected to use powers of two because it was most efficient.
Obviously, for other reasons, Intel decided to go with 50 cores.
I'm guessing its an incurable condition brought on by exposure to Apple iDevices
Well, since I own 3 iPods and an iPad... you'd think I'd be the one being accused of being an asshole by that logic.
I'm going to go with self-righteous prick who feels entitled to be an ass on the internet because he's got a 5-digit Slashdot ID and therefore considers himself to be l337.
Your average consumer doesn't need the 80386. There's hardly any software compiled to take advantage of its features anyway. I can see maybe someone using them for servers, but that's a pretty small niche.
I remember almost exactly that quote in PC Magazine back in the day. I think at the time it was the 80486, but same thing. they probably said the same thing about the '386 too.
Of course, I have a quad-core machine sitting on my desk at home with 8GB of RAM, and running at a clock speed two orders of magnitude higher than my '486 did.:-P
So, obviously consumer needs for CPU speed is growing far faster than anyone would have predicted in the late 80's/early 90's. I still remember the first time I saw a PC with a 1GB hard-drive... a bunch of us stood around it thinking "WTF will we ever do with that much disk space?".
What natural phenomenon would require that the number of course on a chip be a power of 2? I can't think of any.
Because computers count in binary, which is powers of two. And, I'll assume you meant cores.
Historically such things have been powers of two to make the addressing simpler without having extra magic or control lines left over. So, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 all make sense in terms of being expressable in a fixed number of bits... 50 to some of us seems like a fairly arbitrary choice. Since you use an unusual combination of wiring, it might as well be 37 or 51 since it's not a number that 'naturally' lends itself to computers. The device is likely wired in such a way that it could count to 64... or they're doing things in a slightly odd way.
Anyway, that's why some of us find it to be a little odd. And it's also why the hard-drive makers deciding "1 GIG" is "1,000,000,000 bytes" is irksome... with all of those extra powers of two, it should be "1 073 741 824 bytes". Which means you lose about 72MB/GIG... so my 2TB drive isn't.
you would have to be pretty naive to belive that they arent tracking your web useage just as closely.
In fact, they are also doing things in such a way as to cost you more money on your data plan.
A bunch of years ago, a co-worker was trying to figure out why the ability to directly go to an URL from his cell phone wasn't working as it was described in the manual.
It turns out the carrier (Rogers/AT&T) had tweaked the settings so that *every* request you did more or less went through one of their servers. It had the net effect of effectively doubling the amount of data needed for any request... I don't recall the specifics, but he spent a good portion of a weekend working it out.
And, as much as we know they have all of the calling info... keylogging, for example, might be a little too far over the line for them. They only need what they need for billing purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, you'll be constantly prompted to enter your email address and password so it can find people to put into your contact book. At least, until it deems you have enough contacts ... yeah, like I'm giving you my password.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Facebook with factual information about me ... I'm sure as not going to trust them with my telephone information or a password to another system.
However, I bet there's going to be a market for this.
The sheer fallacy of that statement boggles the mind.
Have a nice day.
Yawn. So, I'm forced to conclude you're an idiot who feels he has some special knowledge he's not willing to share with the world -- and even then only if you can define the terms of reference.
I don't need to convince you to share this with me ... but I will basically now say that you have provided nothing to support your opinion, that you're mostly full of shit, and that other than some vague and indirect assertions, you have yet to actually say anything of substance.
Have a nice day there skippy.
For the record, I live in a country many consider to be socialist, and I consider myself to lean towards socialism ... but you've not motivated me to care any more about what you say.
Always in the realm of possibility.
But, in the post I replied to:
So, if the law firm got those records because of a legal action, that doesn't necessarily mean they got it with the patient's permission.
To me, the obligation to treat the data as secure patient information can't possibly end at a law firm who was somehow involved with a medical provider.
I just fail to see how the people leaking this information haven't breached the HIPAA requirements ... surely to hell giving someone's private medical information to a bunch of school children as scrap paper represents a gross violation of the purpose of HIPAA, which was to keep that data confidential and secured in the first place.
I just don't get the magic "???" step two before "profit" that absolves people of responsibility to safeguard this data.
Really? That's somewhat appalling ... so the easiest way to sidestep these regulations is to give it to someone who isn't covered by them?
I realize that's a gross simplification, but I should think that getting information covered under such a law would extend obligations to you. This information is covered under HIPAA ... you've been given this information ... therefore you have obligations under HIPAA.
I mean, it's not like someone can give me Classified information and suddenly I'm free to do with it as I please.
Sadly, I fear my version is probably more abstract and less likely to be that way in practice.
Because you incorrectly assert that I believe the right wing propaganda, or that I haven't read up on this stuff. I've read both ends of the spectrum, and while I don't hold any degrees on the topic, I consider myself to be somewhat informed. I also don't think either side is universally "right" on all points.
So far you've made a couple of dismissive assertions with nothing to back it up.
Would you like to provide some evidence that Pol Pot took a vote and this is what people decided on? That Lenin didn't conduct purges? That Chairman Mao wasn't a vicious little tyrant? That Shining Path weren't a bunch of violent extremists who decided to force their views on people by force of gun?
I genuinely think the Libertarian/pure Capitalilst model of how to run a government is a crock ... and I genuinely think that those glorious Socialist revolutions you hold up were generally brutal rebellions that lead to a lot of blood-shed in pursuit of an ideology.
You, however, seem to be dismissing anything you consider as coming from the "right", and are merely implying that these shining examples of the "left" are perfect -- fascism and tyranny aren't a left/right issue. The growing American police state is no better than the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
So, yeah, if you would like your position and your assertions to be taken seriously, instead of something off the cuff with nothing to support it ... by all means, 'enlighten' me. So far you've stuck with the philosophical equivalent of "did too" and "neener neener".
You've yet to say anything of substance despite making fairly grand claims and ignoring anything you don't like. I would be interested if you'd actually say anything ... take a risk, get modded down (or up) ... but don't just keep pretending that backing up anything you say is beneath you.
But then you really need to temper how much you actually use this tool ... saying there's a "30% chance someone is a known terrorist" (for example) means you have to use that as merely a broad level of screening.
You simply can't go around treating this system if it's absolutely reliable if you know damned well you've dialed down the accuracy of it to account for the fact that the finger-print database is largely useless.
Especially when people's lives (and livelihoods) are involved here. But, now the US has a huge, completely unreliable database that some idiot will use as if it's 100% verified information.
By which you mean they get to, um, service the senior partner's needs in order to retain their position?
Sorry, I'm sure that is libelous and suggests that lawyers are a bunch of miserable, manipulative pricks. That part is merely an opinion and should be stated as such. ;-)
Ummm ... really? Pol Pot? Mao Tse Tung? Vladimir Ilyich Lenin?
Granted, these are communists in some cases ... but there has always been an aspect of the "inspired" leaders imposing this on people "for their own good", and then essentially ram it down their throats (or up another orifice).
Or, were told that.
A vote at the point of a gun isn't a vote ... and I don't think Pol Pot or Chairman Mao were doing a whole of of consensus building.
Now, don't get me wrong ... I don't belive that the libertarian free-market-at-all-costs model is working (or can work) ... but it's a little hard to accept the notion that some of the harsher implementations of Communism/Socialism were democratic processes in which people voted for it.
Sure, some people voted to have a revolution ... but then they didn't exactly ask everyone else how they felt about it. But, make no mistake, it was ultimately spread by force.
Yeah, like opening you up for war crimes and really horrible mistakes.
Someone piloting this thing from hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away, or a completely automated device, brings with it the possibility to really screw up. Hell, from the sounds of it, the automated drones are already inflicting more civilian casualties than they should be ... they don't sound like they're being used judiciously enough to prevent it. It would seem that Pakistan can attest to that fact.
At the very least, I don't think we want war to "seem like a sport" ... it's serious business, for high stakes. It's not some game. I'm all for saving lives, but automated warfare is something which gives one pause for concern. If you make it too arm's length, you risk losing sight of what you're doing ... if it's just a game, why not strafe that schoolyard for the hell of it?
Having your people get killed has always been "unpopular" ... it's not supposed to be "popular", but it might be a necessary thing to protect others.
And, for the record, pretty much every Canadian who has been killed overseas gets news coverage and attention. No country likes to bring home dead soldiers ... but I don't know that I'm entirely cool with the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out" approach that seems to be happening with some of these automated drones. Way too many civilians are ending up as "collateral damage".
Except we have around 6 decades or so in which this was a passive means of identification.
Automatically scanning and recording of these things is a relatively new development, and the technology is outpacing the the law and understanding of how best to treat this.
Some might argue that in the US, automatic plate identification and tracking is creeping a little close to the bounds of the 4th amendment in that there is no need for probably cause or judicial oversight.
I'm glad that you're embracing a surveillance society and think we all need to as well ... but unfortunately, some of this automated technologies is somewhat eroding actual rights entrenched in both law and custom.
From a certain perspective, it's hard not to see 1984 and Brave New World hurtling towards us as likely outcomes instead of just speculative fiction. Because law enforcement is charging ahead with these things under the assumption they can do anything they want, and it can take literally years to get these matters settled by the courts, at which point an awful lot of damage can have already been done.
Well, no ... you'll never be as cool as Travolta in front of a lear jet. ;-)
I've got watches that can tell me the timing of the tides, the phase of the moon, current altitude and temperature ... watches with nothing but the time of day ... watches that have their innards exposed ... watches in a variety of bright colors ... solar watches ... automatic (self winding) watches ... watches that sync to the atomic clock signal.
The watches I wear to work are different from the ones I wear casually. I can wear the dressier ones casually, but a bright red G-shock in a client meeting not so much.
My wife has a bunch of brightly colored plastic (and really rugged) watches so she can match it with what she's wearing ... she doesn't wear any other jewelry, so it's her one fashion accessory.
It's amazing how quickly you can go from have no watches to having quite a few ... especially if you use something like Amazon to track down good buys or watches you'd just not see in a retail outlet.
Fashion is part of it. So I can tell time in meetings if there is no clock. Because it takes 2 seconds to look at my watch, and more to dig out my cell phone, so when I'm walking it comes in handy. Because there's something really beautiful about a mechanical watch with its gears exposed. Because you can get used to wearing a watch, and if you're not wearing one it can feel odd. Occasionally having an alarm comes in handy. Or a stopwatch.
Just because it doesn't make any sense to you that doesn't mean that other people don't have reasons for wearing a watch.
They also make more than one flavor of ice-cream, too.
Funny, but I meant where they had been in continuous usage for all of that time. Not something which got lost and only rediscovered "recently" (by historical measures).
But if we'd had clockworks gears for 2000 years, I can only imagine how many cool things would have been invented centuries ago.
So I'm suddenly imagining an alternate "steam punk" timeline in which we had mechanisms and gears 2000 years ago. It's always amazing to see what was really known back that far.
That's absolutely cool.
As someone with a lot of watches, that Hublot wrist watch is a really cool timepiece. A skeleton watch with 2000 years of history to it.
Though, as other people have pointed out, I bet this would cost a pretty penny.
Well, to continue the pedantry ... in and of itself, "Huh?" is merely an interjection.
It's a grammatical equivalent to a grunt.
Ergo, no question was ever posed. :-P
Of course. If the police are about to do something they know is going to lead to violence and protest, they sure as hell don't want anybody there to report on it. They don't want an abundant supply of evidence to demonstrate that they violated laws and/or people's rights -- which that action is almost guaranteed to provoke.
For the same reason that "free speech zones" aren't intended to foster free speech.
My bet is that most of the people who got arrested will never be charged because there is no grounds for the arrest in the first place. Just some heavy handed police intimidation.
Well, in fairness, on the memory side, you do that with some combination of memory modules which are addressable by powers of two. (eg. 2GB + 1GB, or 4GB + 4GB + 1GB), each of which is discrete from the others. I don't believe you can buy a 3GB or 9GB memory module.
Nope, absolutely not. Not saying that ... just saying that traditionally such things have been architected to use powers of two because it was most efficient.
Obviously, for other reasons, Intel decided to go with 50 cores.
Well, since I own 3 iPods and an iPad ... you'd think I'd be the one being accused of being an asshole by that logic.
I'm going to go with self-righteous prick who feels entitled to be an ass on the internet because he's got a 5-digit Slashdot ID and therefore considers himself to be l337.
So, are you always an asshole, or just on Slashdot?
I remember almost exactly that quote in PC Magazine back in the day. I think at the time it was the 80486, but same thing. they probably said the same thing about the '386 too.
Of course, I have a quad-core machine sitting on my desk at home with 8GB of RAM, and running at a clock speed two orders of magnitude higher than my '486 did. :-P
So, obviously consumer needs for CPU speed is growing far faster than anyone would have predicted in the late 80's/early 90's. I still remember the first time I saw a PC with a 1GB hard-drive ... a bunch of us stood around it thinking "WTF will we ever do with that much disk space?".
Because computers count in binary, which is powers of two. And, I'll assume you meant cores.
Historically such things have been powers of two to make the addressing simpler without having extra magic or control lines left over. So, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 all make sense in terms of being expressable in a fixed number of bits ... 50 to some of us seems like a fairly arbitrary choice. Since you use an unusual combination of wiring, it might as well be 37 or 51 since it's not a number that 'naturally' lends itself to computers. The device is likely wired in such a way that it could count to 64 ... or they're doing things in a slightly odd way.
Anyway, that's why some of us find it to be a little odd. And it's also why the hard-drive makers deciding "1 GIG" is "1,000,000,000 bytes" is irksome ... with all of those extra powers of two, it should be "1 073 741 824 bytes". Which means you lose about 72MB/GIG ... so my 2TB drive isn't.
An interjection followed by two statements does not a question make. ;-)
And, I'm betting it's the users paying for the data plan usage that sends this stuff.
So, you're paying extra to be snooped on. I highly doubt they exclude this data from what they charge you.
In fact, they are also doing things in such a way as to cost you more money on your data plan.
A bunch of years ago, a co-worker was trying to figure out why the ability to directly go to an URL from his cell phone wasn't working as it was described in the manual.
It turns out the carrier (Rogers/AT&T) had tweaked the settings so that *every* request you did more or less went through one of their servers. It had the net effect of effectively doubling the amount of data needed for any request ... I don't recall the specifics, but he spent a good portion of a weekend working it out.
And, as much as we know they have all of the calling info ... keylogging, for example, might be a little too far over the line for them. They only need what they need for billing purposes.