One quick and easy way would be apply copyright and other IP protections on individual data.
After all it has worked so well for corporations why not give some benefit to individual with same rules.
There it is, no need for any new legislation corporations have already provided solution for once.
You do realize that data doesnt need to reach Google. It can very well be on your computer considering well its your data not some marketing companies.
*In version 0.1
Subject to terms changing further at Googles discretion. Just because they are so nice we should trust that they always will be when they have control over market and are in hard need to monetize it.
Several aftermarket solutions dont harvest and sell it for profit. If they do we can have same conversation about them as well.
This isnt about Google or others. Its about practices where personal information is farmed and sold off.
If its for users benefit then it should be in users control to turn it on/off. Guess what, its not.
Or Google could choose to do it locally, for sure memory is so cheap and persistent that this is possible.
Backups you say? Well guess what there is way to do that as well with local encryption keys.
Anything beyond this just very unlikely to be encountered by normal users or pack of lies sold to uninformed users who in turn are product to be sold at profit.
"When you communicate with your friends, family, and business associates, like text messaging (SMS, MMS, etc.) on a Windows device, we have to get the content of the message to deliver it to your inbox, display it to you, enable you to reply to it, and store it for you until you delete it."
"For real-time communications, a phone-calling app needs to know the phone number of the contact you want to reach. "
Do they really think this low of their customers?
If the calling, texting app needs to know all this, where does MS come into picture. Its ok app needs to know it but why does this information have to leave my device to their server? Why does app on my device needs a Big Brother?
It may not be FCCs intention but perhaps language they are using to define new rules is open to different interpretation than original intentions which is what Open Source parties are trying to highlight.
Possibly they see new alliance as defense from those mines.
You sue us with phony patents, Alliance will answer with hookey dokey patents of their own.
In brave new world of codecs everyone will stay inside their walled gardens(because mines) and there will be peace finally(or at least until someone turns greedy)
If this has Google hands this looks far worse than Microsofts policy of Embrace...Extend...Extinguish.
The direction browser is taking is simply in-explainable for any open source project on its own.
The King is dead...Long live the King.
Once it becomes public knowledge that there is such a key that opens all digital locks, murderers will simply work their way around it by avoiding these things.
Crimes were committed before smartphones and they can be committed even without them.
Where will prosecutors go next? We cannot solve crimes with backdoors, so let us put cctv cameras and watch everyone real time?
Or will they pass a law requiring all murderers and criminals to visit their nearest LEO to register their crimes so that LEO can do their jobs.
Giving back doors to your government will not solve crimes or make their jobs easier. It just gives them more power which can be abused in unrelated events and circumstances.
After RTFA, it looks they want to compare both open source and close source solutions with special emphasis on costs.
In other words the government want close source solutions to cost same as open source solutions.
Nothing to do with promotion of open source or transparency which would be going against themselves.
This is hitting a blow to both fronts to reduce overall price. I dont know why more private corporations dont adopt similar strategy for their projects.
They can steal what is already out there and may be gain some benefit from it.
But without robust protection for anyones IP they will never be able to support indigenous creation. As there will be no incentive for anyone to do so.
As such they will always trail or depend on others.
Those products wont work by hardware themselves. As can be seen from profit margins that they are being sourced from compared to margins on IP and content.
It doesnt matter if those countries get 100 bucks if 99 of them end up going back to cost of manufacturing.
If mimicking is to prevent other drivers from getting confused, maybe we can have an Android powered by Android Auto (TM). Who can keep other drivers sane while at the same time also entertain fellow passengers.
They are not going Windows only as single product. But as Windows ecosystem like Android and iOS where hardware was not the focus.
The Windows ecosystem is still quite diverse. I guess other than Google they are the only company having footprint in all major platforms.
What they are saying is they will focus on this ecosystem of services(Windows as service model) more than making phone or device hardware.
How much they deliver on it or how much people will want these services is another question specially given their past record.
Yes it is. They continuously test unfinished services on their products(people like you and me) all the time.
I wont be surprised if this debacle would be added as unit test for the product. The result of field testing if there is such a term.
Well there are may be like 90% people who just click next, next.
And if they dont bother to check at that point, they pretty much wont notice/or have clue where that crap came from.
For rest 10% Oracle says but we give you checkbox to opt out.
So its like making money from peoples ignorance. But as long as its money Oracle doesnt care.
Well, one way could be put responsibility in hands of users or within product itself.
So even if some one comes up with "give us this or else", companies can just say go take it from device its yours. We dont have information you request but we can point you to person whom we sold the device.
This can make difference between companies that voluntarily cooperate and put backdoors and those that just choose to push this responsibility to end users and their devices.
I suspect it is more likely that they are using a critical library that is easier to code around than to reimplement in another language.
That library could be their face recognition stuff written by some research team.
Which "app" developers have no idea how to figure out in corresponding platform language.
They will hire people who are more willing or even ready to sell their privacy. There is no shortage of such people who have more important needs to meet than their privacy or freedom.
And then there are those who dont care. There is never shortage of ignorance in this world.
Slashdot Mirror
One quick and easy way would be apply copyright and other IP protections on individual data.
After all it has worked so well for corporations why not give some benefit to individual with same rules.
There it is, no need for any new legislation corporations have already provided solution for once.
You do realize that data doesnt need to reach Google. It can very well be on your computer considering well its your data not some marketing companies.
*In version 0.1
Subject to terms changing further at Googles discretion. Just because they are so nice we should trust that they always will be when they have control over market and are in hard need to monetize it.
Several aftermarket solutions dont harvest and sell it for profit. If they do we can have same conversation about them as well.
This isnt about Google or others. Its about practices where personal information is farmed and sold off.
If its for users benefit then it should be in users control to turn it on/off. Guess what, its not.
Or Google could choose to do it locally, for sure memory is so cheap and persistent that this is possible.
Backups you say? Well guess what there is way to do that as well with local encryption keys.
Anything beyond this just very unlikely to be encountered by normal users or pack of lies sold to uninformed users who in turn are product to be sold at profit.
"When you communicate with your friends, family, and business associates, like text messaging (SMS, MMS, etc.) on a Windows device, we have to get the content of the message to deliver it to your inbox, display it to you, enable you to reply to it, and store it for you until you delete it."
"For real-time communications, a phone-calling app needs to know the phone number of the contact you want to reach. "
Do they really think this low of their customers?
If the calling, texting app needs to know all this, where does MS come into picture. Its ok app needs to know it but why does this information have to leave my device to their server? Why does app on my device needs a Big Brother?
Works fine on my CRT. I dont know what the fuss is all about. What low res?
Also licensing deals with ghostery seems to suggest it was well thought out plan not just overnight act of hack to come up with app like that.
It may not be FCCs intention but perhaps language they are using to define new rules is open to different interpretation than original intentions which is what Open Source parties are trying to highlight.
"... it's okay if WE do it."
That would be authorized party list which they are certifying during approval so it should include FCC by default I guess.
Possibly they see new alliance as defense from those mines.
You sue us with phony patents, Alliance will answer with hookey dokey patents of their own.
In brave new world of codecs everyone will stay inside their walled gardens(because mines) and there will be peace finally(or at least until someone turns greedy)
Or maybe this is what Google want you to think ;)
If this has Google hands this looks far worse than Microsofts policy of Embrace...Extend...Extinguish.
The direction browser is taking is simply in-explainable for any open source project on its own.
The King is dead...Long live the King.
Once it becomes public knowledge that there is such a key that opens all digital locks, murderers will simply work their way around it by avoiding these things.
Crimes were committed before smartphones and they can be committed even without them.
Where will prosecutors go next? We cannot solve crimes with backdoors, so let us put cctv cameras and watch everyone real time?
Or will they pass a law requiring all murderers and criminals to visit their nearest LEO to register their crimes so that LEO can do their jobs.
Giving back doors to your government will not solve crimes or make their jobs easier. It just gives them more power which can be abused in unrelated events and circumstances.
After RTFA, it looks they want to compare both open source and close source solutions with special emphasis on costs.
In other words the government want close source solutions to cost same as open source solutions.
Nothing to do with promotion of open source or transparency which would be going against themselves.
This is hitting a blow to both fronts to reduce overall price. I dont know why more private corporations dont adopt similar strategy for their projects.
They can steal what is already out there and may be gain some benefit from it.
But without robust protection for anyones IP they will never be able to support indigenous creation. As there will be no incentive for anyone to do so.
As such they will always trail or depend on others.
Those products wont work by hardware themselves. As can be seen from profit margins that they are being sourced from compared to margins on IP and content.
It doesnt matter if those countries get 100 bucks if 99 of them end up going back to cost of manufacturing.
If mimicking is to prevent other drivers from getting confused, maybe we can have an Android powered by Android Auto (TM). Who can keep other drivers sane while at the same time also entertain fellow passengers.
Are these things not insured anyways?
Or this just mean that tax payer are funding insurance companies too?
They are not going Windows only as single product. But as Windows ecosystem like Android and iOS where hardware was not the focus.
The Windows ecosystem is still quite diverse. I guess other than Google they are the only company having footprint in all major platforms.
What they are saying is they will focus on this ecosystem of services(Windows as service model) more than making phone or device hardware.
How much they deliver on it or how much people will want these services is another question specially given their past record.
Yes it is. They continuously test unfinished services on their products(people like you and me) all the time.
I wont be surprised if this debacle would be added as unit test for the product. The result of field testing if there is such a term.
Well there are may be like 90% people who just click next, next.
And if they dont bother to check at that point, they pretty much wont notice/or have clue where that crap came from.
For rest 10% Oracle says but we give you checkbox to opt out.
So its like making money from peoples ignorance. But as long as its money Oracle doesnt care.
Well, one way could be put responsibility in hands of users or within product itself.
So even if some one comes up with "give us this or else", companies can just say go take it from device its yours. We dont have information you request but we can point you to person whom we sold the device.
This can make difference between companies that voluntarily cooperate and put backdoors and those that just choose to push this responsibility to end users and their devices.
I suspect it is more likely that they are using a critical library that is easier to code around than to reimplement in another language.
That library could be their face recognition stuff written by some research team.
Which "app" developers have no idea how to figure out in corresponding platform language.
They will hire people who are more willing or even ready to sell their privacy. There is no shortage of such people who have more important needs to meet than their privacy or freedom.
And then there are those who dont care. There is never shortage of ignorance in this world.