That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?
Yes, but accessing a Web server on port 80 plugged into the public internet without any authentication methods is legal.
Copyright infringement is not.
A better analogy would be reaching in to an open car window and removing something that doesn't belong to you: it's easy, quick, technically and physically possible. And it was made easy and quick because the window was down, and you happened to be in the area. So just because it was possible, enabled, or made easier doesn't mean it's okay.
But wait, in my analogy, someone was "deprived" of something, right? And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now).
Ok, then. What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders and quickly photograph every page of the selected book in a very low key and unobtrusive way, and then have a mechanism that converts the content to a nicely formatted PDF, so that the final product is as desirable and functional as the original, albeit in electronic form.
Copyright infringement? Check.
Something made easy/quick by a technological improvement? Check.
No deprivation of a physical object? Check.
So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. If they did so because they believed it was the best thing to do, that was THEIR CHOICE. There is ALWAYS a choice. And any organized framework for managing media content, distribution, and sales, will inevitably involve organizations or groups, no matter how informal or loosely organized, that act on the behalf of their artists. They'll take something for this. Whether it's "too much" is completely subjective, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care of the label takes 99% and the artists gets 1% for the purposes of this argument: it doesn't matter, because that is the arrangement THEY entered into of their own free will, and THEY granted the right for their label and the industry trade organizations to vigorously protect the content that they essentially now legally co-own.
As a particular indie gets more popular, they'll realize they can't do it all themselves, and they'll have their own labels and proxy representation. And if someone doesn't care about how their content is distributed or shared, maybe they'll be able to find labels and trade groups who share this philosophy.
The game may change because of the digital realm. It is changing. But it's not going to happen overnight, and the persons and organization that OWN THE RIGHTS to content under the current system of laws have ever
Imeem is fine and dandy because the CREATORS and OWNERS of the music, or their agents, have agreed that the music can be "shared" there, via the mechanisms Imeem has in place (e.g., playlists, online streaming, no download, etc.). If the record labels tomorrow said music could be freely shared in the form of musical notation as expressionist body art, yes, I'd think it was "fine and dandy" because it's THEIR CHOICE how, when, and where they distribute it, and for what price.
As I said, different mechanisms have different costs, like a radio license versus buying a CD in a store. It's no wonder you can't reconcile this from the comment you just made. P2P "users" don't have any rights to "share" the music under the current framework of law we have. Imeem does, because the creators and owners of the content grant it to them. If you want to try to get them to make this same allowance for P2P, knock yourself out.
The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.
Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
I think you're confusing this with online media stores historically needing to DRM all of their content for reasons for practical, technical, and consistency reasons, and even that is reversing (see iTunes and Amazon) to allow artists and labels who wish to provide un-DRMed content to do just that.
Artists who wish to release un-DRMed music have ALWAYS been able to, and they've ALWAYS been able to be played on all devices that support whatever format they've chosen to distribute the file in, from MP3, to AAC, to Windows Media. Until recently, what they hadn't been able to do was release on some of the major online music stores without DRM, but that didn't stop them from still making the music, or clips, available online. But even that is changing, and artists have more options - not fewer - to release their music, for free or for money, via mutliple online music stores.
So what is the "problem" you were trying to describe, again? Oh yeah, it's saying things that are flatly not true in this tired old debate about how the trade groups are evil. And some of their actions may indeed be, in the eyes of some for other reasons, but not for the one you just outlined.
"these 30 sec peview are dumb u cant even steal songs from here how is ti possible to download. plus these are intended to have em in our page we can never put dem in our ipods and such ya know. get rid of da 30 sec limit quick or da 50 cent guy below u will be right about losing alot of members"
(Imeem is not intended for you to download the music, have it on your iPod, etc...that's the whole point. Oh, so sorry; will they really be losing a lot of members unless they make all the songs full-length and downloadable for free? Why didn't they think of that before!)
"I think this is a good news for all who want to make some good Ipod downloads for themselves or want to have the good music on there PC."
(Yeah, it's great news for people who want to do nothing else other than try to figure out ways to steal* music, and ruin an idea like Imeem for everyone else.)
* Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.
"Imeem.com is a site that offers users to upload songs, make playlists, and embed them on web pages for free with a Flash player. When visitors visit that page, they have the choice to listen to whichever songs the imeem's user has on his or her playlist from the Flash player, but they can't download it. On imeem.com you have the choice of buying it on Amazon.com or on iTunes."
O, the humanity. Yeah, that would be terrible indeed.
"[Some justification about some of the songs not being able to be purchased.] So, do you really think I accept of not owning those songs [...]? I found a way to download them."
Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this.
Oh, I know I know. "What about recording from the radio?" "Shouldn't I be able to preserve sound waves that I have heard with my own ear, and re-listen to them on any device, anywhere I choose?"
Yes, the convenience and ease of each of those things is why there are, and always have been, different costs for different privileges. Think it's bullshit if you want. Call copyright out if you want. But that's the current legal framework we have, and before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA", why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it. Some might even price things -- like the right to play it on a radio station, or be streamed in a web page, or be downloaded from an online music store, or purchased on a CD -- differently. Some might group together under common legal and marketing representation. They may call it, oh, I don't know, a music label. Some might also realize that it's smart to pool their outward legal representation under an umbrella industry trade organization, even given the drawbacks. There may be different frameworks in different countries, necessitating differing systems of handling sales, releases, and legal issues in various places to maximize one's own return on your investment as you see fit, as is your right.
If you really believe in individual freedom AND the notion of compensation from your work, allow others to do it as they see fit.
...on posting an over-four-year-old story to slashdot that has no relationship to the story at hand, other than also involving DNA, and getting modded up for it.
Good if you want to do nothing except try to bring your politics into everything somehow, I suppose. Bet you're loads of fun at parties!
Also, one would presume there is SOME level of checking at the borders, else there isn't really any need for borders or the concept of a nation-state, is there?
You honor me with the traditional spelling of my last name.:-)
Just to briefly respond to your general points:
First, I'm not dishonest at all, and I believe that rhetorically discussing the merits (or otherwise) of a particular issue has value. Often, there is a logical chain that can be followed as to, say, why someone might be motivated to support a particular law or state of affairs when you look at the situation a little more broadly, instead of assuming the worst ulterior motives. However, I routinely include links and references to the most unbiased sources I can find (usually directly to bill or other applicable text, NOT to analysis in, say, conservative media -- I include this because I can just imagine people saying, "links to {insert hated conservative publication du jour here] don't count!)
Second, I'm sure we're all influenced by our upbringing and environment. But I don't have any problems with logical consistency with any of the viewpoints I've articulated here. Your assertion is couched in the belief that, like a creationist biologist, one part of my belief system is wrong, and therefore I must do mental gymnastics to somehow justify it. However, saying that something which is a merely one's view or opinion is "wrong" is pretty arrogant, as is (apparently) believing that your own views or opinions are not merely so, but are actually immutably correct positions.
The general tone of your post seems to be something I regularly encounter: any remotely "conservative" viewpoint must either be dishonest or obviously not based on fact, while views that could traditionally be termed "liberal" or "progressive" are more enlightened and intelligent. Therefore, anyone not agreeing firmly with such a viewpoint must be doing so out of dishonesty, greed, or mental incapacity. After all, it's not possible for anyone who is intelligent or educated to have such a view, is it? (Hint: it is.)
You say my positions are indefensible. That is false. You may disagree with some of them, but that doesn't make you correct, nor does it make my positions "indefensible". Especially when it comes to cases where nearly the entirety of our elected bodies apparently agree with my assessment of the situation. I find it curious that you don't have more of this gentle derision reserved for things like this utter garbage summary, which completely misstates the purpose of this bill, and willfully ignores about the other 98% of of it.
And the point you're missing is that there is absolutely no reason to single out the internet. As a matter of fact, specifically mentioning the internet discredits a good chunk of the purpose of the bill. The internet is a communication medium, and as such, is guaranteed to be used for the purpose of radicalization - just like books, videos, radios, stickypads and smoke signals are. Singling out the internet indicates that there is either a lack of understanding about how propaganda and the internet works, or that the internet will be considered a specific target for fixing the problem of terrorism.
There is every reason to single out the internet. The "internet" is significantly different from other communication media, such as those you mentioned. Significantly. It enables a much quicker interchange of information, and a much more effective way at reaching very targeted groups of people (or broad groups of people), and, conversely, a way for individuals to seek out and expand upon information which reinforces their own lines of thinking.
As for the internet being a force multiplier... uh, no. Force multipliers specifically refer to combat effectiveness. Please do not dilute the term to apply to just any increase in efficiency. If you're willing to argue that combat operations can be streamlined through use of the internet... again, any increase in communication efficiency helps any human activity, and the internet just happens to be the most efficient thing we have in that regard. At that point, you've done nothing more than substitute "force multiplier" for "better". Congratulations.
Actually:
1. The term "force multiplier" DOES NOT refer only or specifically to combat effectiveness. That's just plain incorrect. It refers to any instance where a particular capability, feature, or technology significantly enhances the effectiveness of ANY organization or group, often in comparison with a larger organization or group.
2. I actually am, however, using it in somewhat of a military context; the context of the realm of information being a battlespace, as it is considered in current US IO and other doctrine. The internet is absolutely a force multiplier for terrorist organizations and other small network-organized groups, when viewed against traditional media mechanisms and governments.
The internet doesn't represent just an incremental increase in communications effectiveness. It's not just "better". It's a game-changing tool, one whose usage for some of these purposes we're now only at the cusp of. And when I say "internet", I mean the broad, general term, and everything else that is implied: near-instant interchange of information; easy, specific targeting and organization of groups in widely disparate areas; ability to more effectively reach out quickly and more broadly with "fringe" ideas (ideas that may be termed "dangerous" or "harmful" or "radical" by any given governmental apparatus, not just that of the United States).
This is much different than books and pamphlets, here. I'm surprised you don't see that.
That is NOT to say that the internet needs to be policed or shut down: it is to say that this new realm of information, driven in large part by "the internet", is something that needs to be understood in the context of its application to homegrown radicalization and terrorism. This bill is investigating this, and nothing more, and uses the word "Internet" once.
Your post is deriding my (and/or this bill's) "lack of understanding" about how propaganda or the internet works, when it is you who appears to have the lack of understanding, since you're putting the internet on the same level as all other communications mechanisms, or, at best, a slight, evolutionary improvement. Then you go on to say something that is flatly incorrect about the usage of the term "force multiplier", when its usage, both in and out of combat/military realms, is well understood, and nearly all modern IO practitioners consider the internet to be categorized as just that.
No one is saying speech, or freedom thereof, should be the first of anything to "go".
They're simply stating that the internet is used as a tool for radicalization, and it is: it allows people who may be susceptible to such views, for whatever reasons, to cooperate, organize, communicate, and reinforce one another's positions and ideas. It's significantly different than the conventional press, because the internet, and information sharing in general, is a much greater force multiplier for smaller organizations, or even single persons.
Nice way to bring the crazy elements of Christianity into it, by the way, when in reality the radical Islam problem is about where Christianity was about a thousand or so years ago. I still continue to be amazed that people think that Panislamic radicalism is a manufactured problem, or that, if it is a problem, the US is somehow almost exclusively to blame for it even though we've only been around a little more than two centuries.
You're a fool if you can't see that the internet is a SIGNIFICANT force multiplier for organizations much smaller than traditional governments, such as terrorist networks.
There's this paradigm shift in progress now...some academics call it the "Information Revolution". Perhaps you've heard of it?
But the premise of your statement is all wrong, because the summary is complete garbage and you obviously didn't RTFA (surprise). No one wants to "ban" the internet, or anything close. They simply concluded that the internet is one of many elements that aids in radicalization and "homegrown terrorism", and the bill is looking for ways to study and understand these phenomena.
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh.
No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics.
Consponsored by 10 other Democrats (and 4 Republicans).
Passed 404 - 6.
The summary:
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Wow, sounds like something we really shouldn't be looking into!
The bill contains the word "Internet" ONCE in the Findings section, in the sentence:
"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Hmm. If someone could explain to me how that isn't a factually correct statement, I'm all ears.
Also, if someone could explain how that implies that the "Internet" is exclusively defined as a terrorist tool, as is the implication of the summary, that'd be great.
It says what it says: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
True or false?
And we, as a nation-state that ostensibly values our own existence and structures of government, shouldn't be looking for ways to prevent "violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism"? Of course it all matters how it's done. But it appears there was a good deal of consensus here -- almost complete consensus -- and no one can argue it was done for publicity or because of pressure, since this was a relatively low profile bill.
Conclusion:
Terrible, terrible, terrible summary, from someone who probably buys the hype that every homeland security or terrorism related law is a secret plot to create a police state, shut down the internet, or trample the Constitution -- anything other than, you know, actually legitimately trying to find ways to do what they say they're going to do in the text, and which is the actually the charge of many components of government (e.g., counterterrorism).
Why not include all the articles about the Senate version, too, and how it eviscerates free speech, guts the Constitution, creates a world of "thought crime", and how the mainstream press are covering it all up because they're administration lapdogs, and how liberal Democrats really don't understand what they're authoring, sponsoring, and passing (or, better yet, how Democrats are really far right, and Republicans are ULTRA, super far right, and no "liberals" are left in Congress)?
Or maybe we can just use slashdot as a pulpit for more crackpot garbage instead of any real debate?
Wow! Looks like you don't see things in black and white at all, and have a full understanding and appreciation for the nuance and complexity of issues!
Sorry, the idea of what is essentially a hardware device serial number being used to "track" anything at all, other than perhaps the fact the device is actually an iPhone, was to stupid for even me to grace with a response.;-)
And yeah, products like iTunes, Apple TV, local host discovery, all HP and many other network printers, and similar totally don't use Bonjour, so it's ok to block it.
The lack of documentation alone might make one want to block it!
Ugh. I disagree with this whole thing, too, and think it's a load of crap. But:when they say,
"These early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.'
they don't mean that they were always only intended for grownups; they mean that this release of these early Sesame Street episodes ARE NOW only "intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child".
And that's not a lie at all, because that is EXACTLY what they mean. They're saying they intend the present-day release of these early Sesame Street episodes to be only for grown-ups, not that they weren't originally targeted at children as well when they were originally released.
Apple's "everything just works" niceties depend on things like Bonjour, in particular, being able to be accessed, and most users would end up selecting "Block all incoming collections" when making a firewall choice, because they won't really understand anything else...and "more" is "better", right? So blocking all must mean I'm super secure! Firewall good! Hacker bad!...Except that now when I get my AppleTV and buy my son or daughter an iMac and expect to be able to do all the cool stuff that doesn't require any configuration and "just works"...nothing works. Why doesn't it work?
They won't be able to answer that any more than they know what to pick on the Firewall preferences screen.
So what Apple does is a little bit of deciding for the user what makes sense. The first step was going to an intelligent application level firewall that makes it a lot more functional and easier to use. The next was making some policies that allow services Apple considers "essential" to the whole Mac OS X user experience. And like it or not, Bonjour is an integral part of that.
Anyone who knows enough to know, for certain, that they don't want, e.g., Bonjour open, also knows how to use any of a number of free or commercial commandline or graphical options to set up ipfw or other network level protections any way they wish. That's the bottom line: anyone who knows enough to "know" they "really" want to disable all incoming connections can still easily do so.
This is about making security easy for typical, average users, while still keeping things that make the Mac experience "just work".
Now, I *do* wish that Apple had one more option: Block *everything*, but explain, hey, this is going to break some things like Bonjour, etc., so be SURE that you want to do this, and don't complain if all of a sudden your AppleTV syncing and iTunes sharing and automatic local machine discovery no longer work.
Available for: Mac OS X v10.5, Mac OS X Server v10.5
Impact: The "Block all incoming connections" setting for the firewall is misleading
Description: The "Block all incoming connections" setting for the Application Firewall allows any process running as user "root" (UID 0) to receive incoming connections, and also allows mDNSResponder to receive connections. This could result in the unexpected exposure of network services. This update addresses the issue by more accurately describing the option as "Allow only essential services, and by limiting the processes permitted to receive incoming connections under this setting to a small fixed set of system services: configd (for DHCP and other network configuration protocols), mDNSResponder (for Bonjour), and racoon (for IPSec). The "Help" content for the Application Firewall is also updated to provide further information. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.5.
CVE-ID: CVE-2007-4703
Available for: Mac OS X v10.5, Mac OS X Server v10.5
Impact: Processes running as user "root" (UID 0) cannot be blocked when the firewall is set to "Set access for specific services and applications"
By that reasoning, that's a concern for ANY encryption standard, then.
A lot of people seem to forget that the NSA's only job isn't to "break codes". It's to also provide mechanisms that it believes CANNOT be easily broken to protect OUR OWN information. That's the other half of NSA's mission everyone seems to forget.
"It's possible to implement Dual_EC_DRBG in such a way as to protect it against this backdoor, by generating new constants with another secure random-number generator and then publishing the seed. This method is even in the NIST document, in Appendix A. "
These aren't people "avoiding" AT&T service. They're likely nearly all people who don't even live in the United States, who get phones via people who buy dozens or hundreds at a time to make a side business out of selling unlocked iPhones to people all over the world who simply must have the latest and greatest thing.
The only people "avoiding" AT&T service in the only market where they iPhone was legally sold that quarter could be T-Mobile customers, and, news flash, there is no way 250,000 iPhones are going to T-Mobile customers who have unlocked them. I'd be surprised if it was even 25,000. A more accurate number would probably be 2500.
So these phones are mostly going to people who can't even *have* local AT&T service (other than via roaming partners), not people who are actively avoiding becoming an AT&T customer.
The problem is that it is not at all obvious that ANY of the activity was "illegal" or unconstitutional.
It's just that people like to think of it as being that clear-cut, when it isn't.
Collecting foreign signals intelligence on foreign targets (i.e., non-US persons) outside of the United States DOES NOT (and should not) require a warrant, or any court oversight. That includes:
1.) When the other end of the conversation is also foreign; and
2.) When the other end of the conversation is within the United States
Yes, you read that right. Just because a target of foreign intelligence collection makes a call to even a US citizen within the United States doesn't mean it suddenly requires a warrant. That's how it's always been. A warrant is only required when it is a US citizen and/or the target is on US soil. That has always the case, and is the case with all iterations of the various legislation (Protect America Act, RESTORE, this agreement, etc.).
The "new" issue is that the United States should also be able to do 1.) and 2.) above without a warrant when the traffic travels through the United States, either incidentally or by design. The warrant requirements for domestic surveillance are designed to protect the target of the surveillance, not the mechanisms, processes, techniques, or companies that enable the surveillance. If the target of the surveillance does not fall under warrant requirements, no warrant should be required.
The legal questions arose because the interception of the communication happening on US soil put it in an understandably gray area. But it was NOT clear that it was illegal or unconstitutional, as some seem to think it so clearly was!
The whole process of court oversight and warrants is designed to protect people who are afforded the protections of the laws and constitution of the United States. Foreign persons outside of the United States DO NOT get these protections. You may think they do (you'd be wrong), or think they should (laudable, but laughable, idealism), but the fact of the matter is, they do not.
The Protect America Act was overly broad and prone to abuse because one person, the Attorney General, was the entity to "sign off" on the declaration that a target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person outside of the United States. The new legislation will use FISA processes for that signoff, but still without warrants.
The funny thing everyone is missing here is that the only point of contention was whether or not telecoms should be granted retroactive immunity for the assistance they already provided. The House Democrats are the ones who introduced the RESTORE Act. Here, look and see what it does. It allows warrantless surveillance of communications where a foreign target outside of the United States is a party, regardless of where the other endpoint is, and regardless of whether the intercept is done on US soil. The primary difference between it and the Protect America Act is that FISC (the FISA court) oversees the process, targeting procedures, and signs off on targets being reasonably believed to be outside of the United States.
How is it illegal to provide assistance for the monitoring of things that have have already been found to not require a warrant (in the case of the logging of start and endpoints of phone numbers, but NOT content, which constitutes a "pen register", or of targets that have no warrant requirements whatsoever (non-US persons outside of the US)?
Warrants are there to protect US citizens and other persons afforded the rights of the Constitution and US law. Warrants, in this context, affirm that the target of surveillance is protected by applicable laws and has certain rights. Warrants provide a judicial oversight process.
Foreign targets outside of the United States have NEVER had any of those rights or protection
Yeah, sorry, that post came across completely wrong, and it's my fault.
I wasn't intending that to be a reply directly to him, but rather the others who have been digging up old quotes indicating that there would be no third party apps. Embarrassingly enough, it, of course, comes across as berating him...I had intended to go back and include context at the beginning of my post, saying, essentially, yeah, you found something that actually *supports* this argument, but plenty of others have found the opposite, and, surprise surprise, things change.
Of course, in my rush, I didn't go back and include that and that makes my post seem completely ridiculous as a reply to his.:-/
Yeah, "back on" [month] [day], Apple also said no one wanted to watch video on an iPod, no one wanted an iPod with no screen, that Apple was deeply committed to PowerPC and wasn't interested in changing architectures, and that Apple wasn't interested in making a phone.
Funny, huh?
So what Apple said "back on" any particular day is irrelevant to whether or not some level of plans for third party apps on the iPhone have always been in the works, which they likely have been.
But if it makes you feel better to imagine a band of fearless, renegade hackers "forcing" Apple's hand, knock yourself out, I guess. It also means that every other apparent about-face Apple has made has been "forced" by some external power, which, for the above examples, flies in the face of logic. So, between the choices:
a.) Apple really never intended to have anything but its own apps on the iPhone, even though there is a precedent for third party apps on even the largely closed iPod, AND the iPhone is running Mac OS X, among whose best benefits are its flexibility as a development platform for making great apps, but was forced to surrender its evil position by the third party hacking community, or
b.) Apple actually had plans for third party apps all along, but didn't want to announce it until it was ready, for a variety of legitimate reasons, and was concentrating on the iPhone launch and Apple's huge foray into territory that is completely uncharted for them instead of trying to do multiple things at once,...I'd chose "b."
This is probably Apple's most significant product launch since the Macintosh.
Ever thought that there could be incremental plans at work? You know, doing one thing at a time, considering that the vast, overwhelming majority of iPhone owners know or care approximately zero about the whole third party app issue?
Or would they have had to announce this back at the iPhone intro in order for it to be believed that it had been planned all along?
Seriously, Apple is a pretty secretive company, and this is a major product launch that could help to determine Apple's fortunes - quite literally - for years to come, and itself is probably part of a much larger strategy. Just because the announced it now doesn't mean that they felt like they were "forced" into doing so.
I mean, the phone is essentially running Mac OS X, for heaven's sake...you're telling me that Apple didn't have other designs for an amazing environment like this other than its own mostly mundane stock apps? This has been in the cards for a long time. Perhaps Apple was a but stunned by the robust nature of the third-party app community and accelerated its plans.
But to pretend like this fringe hacker community that represented a vanishingly small percentage of real-world iPhone users "forced" Apple to do this, well, that just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an entirely different argument, Dave. If someone is running a Web server on port 80 and plugged into the public internet, but doesn't have any authentication methods and just assumes that he didn't give explicit permission for anyone to access, therefore no one has access...well, that's just stupid, now, isn't it?
Yes, but accessing a Web server on port 80 plugged into the public internet without any authentication methods is legal.
Copyright infringement is not.
A better analogy would be reaching in to an open car window and removing something that doesn't belong to you: it's easy, quick, technically and physically possible. And it was made easy and quick because the window was down, and you happened to be in the area. So just because it was possible, enabled, or made easier doesn't mean it's okay.
But wait, in my analogy, someone was "deprived" of something, right? And in copyright infringement no one is "deprived" of anything (except the right to manage the music they create, own, or both, in the ways they and their duly authorized agents see fit under our current system of law, but we'll just ignore that for now).
Ok, then. What if you invent a really nifty contraption that makes it easy, practical, and quick to go into Borders and quickly photograph every page of the selected book in a very low key and unobtrusive way, and then have a mechanism that converts the content to a nicely formatted PDF, so that the final product is as desirable and functional as the original, albeit in electronic form.
Copyright infringement? Check.
Something made easy/quick by a technological improvement? Check.
No deprivation of a physical object? Check.
So how is that right, given the recognition and control that we grant to creators and owners of content (and their agents, etc.)?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the record labels are totally benign and that artists get paid fairly. That's also not the case, as recording artist after recording artist has come out and said. You also make it sound like the RIAA don't try to control what gets played on the airwaves. They have rules, you know, for radio stations that says that if they want to play RIAA content, they can't play it alongside of non-RIAA content -- i.e., indie rock. Some radio stations have even expressed this view as completely ridiculous, but abide by it because they feel they have no choice. Doesn't this sound like the tactics of another big monopoly? One that starts with an 'M', ends with a 't' and has a Vista in the middle?
That's right, but you also tend to make it sound like the artists were forced into signing contracts with record labels. If they did so because they believed it was the best thing to do, that was THEIR CHOICE. There is ALWAYS a choice. And any organized framework for managing media content, distribution, and sales, will inevitably involve organizations or groups, no matter how informal or loosely organized, that act on the behalf of their artists. They'll take something for this. Whether it's "too much" is completely subjective, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion. I don't care of the label takes 99% and the artists gets 1% for the purposes of this argument: it doesn't matter, because that is the arrangement THEY entered into of their own free will, and THEY granted the right for their label and the industry trade organizations to vigorously protect the content that they essentially now legally co-own.
As a particular indie gets more popular, they'll realize they can't do it all themselves, and they'll have their own labels and proxy representation. And if someone doesn't care about how their content is distributed or shared, maybe they'll be able to find labels and trade groups who share this philosophy.
The game may change because of the digital realm. It is changing. But it's not going to happen overnight, and the persons and organization that OWN THE RIGHTS to content under the current system of laws have ever
Imeem is fine and dandy because the CREATORS and OWNERS of the music, or their agents, have agreed that the music can be "shared" there, via the mechanisms Imeem has in place (e.g., playlists, online streaming, no download, etc.). If the record labels tomorrow said music could be freely shared in the form of musical notation as expressionist body art, yes, I'd think it was "fine and dandy" because it's THEIR CHOICE how, when, and where they distribute it, and for what price.
As I said, different mechanisms have different costs, like a radio license versus buying a CD in a store. It's no wonder you can't reconcile this from the comment you just made. P2P "users" don't have any rights to "share" the music under the current framework of law we have. Imeem does, because the creators and owners of the content grant it to them. If you want to try to get them to make this same allowance for P2P, knock yourself out.
The problem is groups like the RIAA want *all* devices to enforce DRM... meaning there is no choice for the artist that wants to release music (or even sound bites) unDRM'd.
Oh, really? Where are these devices that ONLY play DRMed content? Every media player and DVD player I have ever seen has always been able to play unprotected content in various forms.
I think you're confusing this with online media stores historically needing to DRM all of their content for reasons for practical, technical, and consistency reasons, and even that is reversing (see iTunes and Amazon) to allow artists and labels who wish to provide un-DRMed content to do just that.
Artists who wish to release un-DRMed music have ALWAYS been able to, and they've ALWAYS been able to be played on all devices that support whatever format they've chosen to distribute the file in, from MP3, to AAC, to Windows Media. Until recently, what they hadn't been able to do was release on some of the major online music stores without DRM, but that didn't stop them from still making the music, or clips, available online. But even that is changing, and artists have more options - not fewer - to release their music, for free or for money, via mutliple online music stores.
So what is the "problem" you were trying to describe, again? Oh yeah, it's saying things that are flatly not true in this tired old debate about how the trade groups are evil. And some of their actions may indeed be, in the eyes of some for other reasons, but not for the one you just outlined.
(Imeem is not intended for you to download the music, have it on your iPod, etc...that's the whole point. Oh, so sorry; will they really be losing a lot of members unless they make all the songs full-length and downloadable for free? Why didn't they think of that before!)
(Yeah, it's great news for people who want to do nothing else other than try to figure out ways to steal* music, and ruin an idea like Imeem for everyone else.)
* Oops, I don't mean "steal". I mean "infringe the copyright of". Because the difference totally matters, and makes the latter totally okay. Because the copyright system is so, "broken", you know. Gotcha. My bad.
Good thing there's so many honest people out there not constantly looking to scam the system!
O, the humanity. Yeah, that would be terrible indeed.
Good for you! After all, if something is technically or physically possible to do, that must mean there is an implicit grant allowing you to do this.
Oh, I know I know. "What about recording from the radio?" "Shouldn't I be able to preserve sound waves that I have heard with my own ear, and re-listen to them on any device, anywhere I choose?"
Yes, the convenience and ease of each of those things is why there are, and always have been, different costs for different privileges. Think it's bullshit if you want. Call copyright out if you want. But that's the current legal framework we have, and before you start tossing around terms like "MAFIAA", why not consider that there will always be groups of artists who want to control their own content, and think they should be paid X, Y, or Z for it. Some might even price things -- like the right to play it on a radio station, or be streamed in a web page, or be downloaded from an online music store, or purchased on a CD -- differently. Some might group together under common legal and marketing representation. They may call it, oh, I don't know, a music label. Some might also realize that it's smart to pool their outward legal representation under an umbrella industry trade organization, even given the drawbacks. There may be different frameworks in different countries, necessitating differing systems of handling sales, releases, and legal issues in various places to maximize one's own return on your investment as you see fit, as is your right.
If you really believe in individual freedom AND the notion of compensation from your work, allow others to do it as they see fit.
...on posting an over-four-year-old story to slashdot that has no relationship to the story at hand, other than also involving DNA, and getting modded up for it.
Good if you want to do nothing except try to bring your politics into everything somehow, I suppose. Bet you're loads of fun at parties!
Good job, slashdot.
Also, one would presume there is SOME level of checking at the borders, else there isn't really any need for borders or the concept of a nation-state, is there?
You honor me with the traditional spelling of my last name. :-)
Just to briefly respond to your general points:
First, I'm not dishonest at all, and I believe that rhetorically discussing the merits (or otherwise) of a particular issue has value. Often, there is a logical chain that can be followed as to, say, why someone might be motivated to support a particular law or state of affairs when you look at the situation a little more broadly, instead of assuming the worst ulterior motives. However, I routinely include links and references to the most unbiased sources I can find (usually directly to bill or other applicable text, NOT to analysis in, say, conservative media -- I include this because I can just imagine people saying, "links to {insert hated conservative publication du jour here] don't count!)
Second, I'm sure we're all influenced by our upbringing and environment. But I don't have any problems with logical consistency with any of the viewpoints I've articulated here. Your assertion is couched in the belief that, like a creationist biologist, one part of my belief system is wrong, and therefore I must do mental gymnastics to somehow justify it. However, saying that something which is a merely one's view or opinion is "wrong" is pretty arrogant, as is (apparently) believing that your own views or opinions are not merely so, but are actually immutably correct positions.
The general tone of your post seems to be something I regularly encounter: any remotely "conservative" viewpoint must either be dishonest or obviously not based on fact, while views that could traditionally be termed "liberal" or "progressive" are more enlightened and intelligent. Therefore, anyone not agreeing firmly with such a viewpoint must be doing so out of dishonesty, greed, or mental incapacity. After all, it's not possible for anyone who is intelligent or educated to have such a view, is it? (Hint: it is.)
You say my positions are indefensible. That is false. You may disagree with some of them, but that doesn't make you correct, nor does it make my positions "indefensible". Especially when it comes to cases where nearly the entirety of our elected bodies apparently agree with my assessment of the situation. I find it curious that you don't have more of this gentle derision reserved for things like this utter garbage summary, which completely misstates the purpose of this bill, and willfully ignores about the other 98% of of it.
And the point you're missing is that there is absolutely no reason to single out the internet. As a matter of fact, specifically mentioning the internet discredits a good chunk of the purpose of the bill. The internet is a communication medium, and as such, is guaranteed to be used for the purpose of radicalization - just like books, videos, radios, stickypads and smoke signals are. Singling out the internet indicates that there is either a lack of understanding about how propaganda and the internet works, or that the internet will be considered a specific target for fixing the problem of terrorism.
There is every reason to single out the internet. The "internet" is significantly different from other communication media, such as those you mentioned. Significantly. It enables a much quicker interchange of information, and a much more effective way at reaching very targeted groups of people (or broad groups of people), and, conversely, a way for individuals to seek out and expand upon information which reinforces their own lines of thinking.
As for the internet being a force multiplier... uh, no. Force multipliers specifically refer to combat effectiveness. Please do not dilute the term to apply to just any increase in efficiency. If you're willing to argue that combat operations can be streamlined through use of the internet... again, any increase in communication efficiency helps any human activity, and the internet just happens to be the most efficient thing we have in that regard. At that point, you've done nothing more than substitute "force multiplier" for "better". Congratulations.
Actually:
1. The term "force multiplier" DOES NOT refer only or specifically to combat effectiveness. That's just plain incorrect. It refers to any instance where a particular capability, feature, or technology significantly enhances the effectiveness of ANY organization or group, often in comparison with a larger organization or group.
2. I actually am, however, using it in somewhat of a military context; the context of the realm of information being a battlespace, as it is considered in current US IO and other doctrine. The internet is absolutely a force multiplier for terrorist organizations and other small network-organized groups, when viewed against traditional media mechanisms and governments.
The internet doesn't represent just an incremental increase in communications effectiveness. It's not just "better". It's a game-changing tool, one whose usage for some of these purposes we're now only at the cusp of. And when I say "internet", I mean the broad, general term, and everything else that is implied: near-instant interchange of information; easy, specific targeting and organization of groups in widely disparate areas; ability to more effectively reach out quickly and more broadly with "fringe" ideas (ideas that may be termed "dangerous" or "harmful" or "radical" by any given governmental apparatus, not just that of the United States).
This is much different than books and pamphlets, here. I'm surprised you don't see that.
That is NOT to say that the internet needs to be policed or shut down: it is to say that this new realm of information, driven in large part by "the internet", is something that needs to be understood in the context of its application to homegrown radicalization and terrorism. This bill is investigating this, and nothing more, and uses the word "Internet" once.
Your post is deriding my (and/or this bill's) "lack of understanding" about how propaganda or the internet works, when it is you who appears to have the lack of understanding, since you're putting the internet on the same level as all other communications mechanisms, or, at best, a slight, evolutionary improvement. Then you go on to say something that is flatly incorrect about the usage of the term "force multiplier", when its usage, both in and out of combat/military realms, is well understood, and nearly all modern IO practitioners consider the internet to be categorized as just that.
The entire premise of your comment is wrong.
No one is saying speech, or freedom thereof, should be the first of anything to "go".
They're simply stating that the internet is used as a tool for radicalization, and it is: it allows people who may be susceptible to such views, for whatever reasons, to cooperate, organize, communicate, and reinforce one another's positions and ideas. It's significantly different than the conventional press, because the internet, and information sharing in general, is a much greater force multiplier for smaller organizations, or even single persons.
Nice way to bring the crazy elements of Christianity into it, by the way, when in reality the radical Islam problem is about where Christianity was about a thousand or so years ago. I still continue to be amazed that people think that Panislamic radicalism is a manufactured problem, or that, if it is a problem, the US is somehow almost exclusively to blame for it even though we've only been around a little more than two centuries.
You're a fool if you can't see that the internet is a SIGNIFICANT force multiplier for organizations much smaller than traditional governments, such as terrorist networks.
There's this paradigm shift in progress now...some academics call it the "Information Revolution". Perhaps you've heard of it?
But the premise of your statement is all wrong, because the summary is complete garbage and you obviously didn't RTFA (surprise). No one wants to "ban" the internet, or anything close. They simply concluded that the internet is one of many elements that aids in radicalization and "homegrown terrorism", and the bill is looking for ways to study and understand these phenomena.
Ooh! Scary!
I visit slashdot for two reasons now:
- Force of habit to see the lion's share of interesting articles related to science and technology, even if some are a bit old.
- To see what politically driven garbage gets submitted and accepted to the main page today, and maybe even have a good laugh.
No one here, is interested in actually discussing the real merits or drawbacks of this bill. Just spreading sensationalist lies based in the belief that any law related to terrorism or homeland security is really interested in oppressing Americans for purposes of control, and nothing else.
When you're that jaded, to the point you really believe that, I guess I can see how it wouldn't be possible to have any real debate or intelligent consideration of the topics.
Sponsored by a Democrat.
Consponsored by 10 other Democrats (and 4 Republicans).
Passed 404 - 6.
The summary:
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Wow, sounds like something we really shouldn't be looking into!
The bill contains the word "Internet" ONCE in the Findings section, in the sentence:
"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Hmm. If someone could explain to me how that isn't a factually correct statement, I'm all ears.
Also, if someone could explain how that implies that the "Internet" is exclusively defined as a terrorist tool, as is the implication of the summary, that'd be great.
It says what it says: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
True or false?
And we, as a nation-state that ostensibly values our own existence and structures of government, shouldn't be looking for ways to prevent "violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism"? Of course it all matters how it's done. But it appears there was a good deal of consensus here -- almost complete consensus -- and no one can argue it was done for publicity or because of pressure, since this was a relatively low profile bill.
Conclusion:
Terrible, terrible, terrible summary, from someone who probably buys the hype that every homeland security or terrorism related law is a secret plot to create a police state, shut down the internet, or trample the Constitution -- anything other than, you know, actually legitimately trying to find ways to do what they say they're going to do in the text, and which is the actually the charge of many components of government (e.g., counterterrorism).
Why not include all the articles about the Senate version, too, and how it eviscerates free speech, guts the Constitution, creates a world of "thought crime", and how the mainstream press are covering it all up because they're administration lapdogs, and how liberal Democrats really don't understand what they're authoring, sponsoring, and passing (or, better yet, how Democrats are really far right, and Republicans are ULTRA, super far right, and no "liberals" are left in Congress)?
Or maybe we can just use slashdot as a pulpit for more crackpot garbage instead of any real debate?
Wow! Looks like you don't see things in black and white at all, and have a full understanding and appreciation for the nuance and complexity of issues!
Sorry, the idea of what is essentially a hardware device serial number being used to "track" anything at all, other than perhaps the fact the device is actually an iPhone, was to stupid for even me to grace with a response. ;-)
This post sums it up quite nicely, though.
Oh yeah, Bonjour is totally undocumented:
- Zeroconf, the internationally standardized RFC 3927 upon which Bonjour is based, isn't documented at all
- Nor are Multicast DNS (mDNS) and DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD), the open standards which make up Apple's Bonjour implementation
Apple also has nearly no Bonjour end user, developer, or technical overview documentation, and certainly doesn't make the source code, or even a binary Windows version, available.
And yeah, products like iTunes, Apple TV, local host discovery, all HP and many other network printers, and similar totally don't use Bonjour, so it's ok to block it.
The lack of documentation alone might make one want to block it!
Ugh. I disagree with this whole thing, too, and think it's a load of crap. But:when they say,
"These early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child.'
they don't mean that they were always only intended for grownups; they mean that this release of these early Sesame Street episodes ARE NOW only "intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child".
And that's not a lie at all, because that is EXACTLY what they mean. They're saying they intend the present-day release of these early Sesame Street episodes to be only for grown-ups, not that they weren't originally targeted at children as well when they were originally released.
Jeez. It's stupid, but it's not a lie.
The * by my name means subscriber, which means I see the articles early, and have an opportunity to compose a reply before the article goes live.
They won't be able to answer that any more than they know what to pick on the Firewall preferences screen.
So what Apple does is a little bit of deciding for the user what makes sense. The first step was going to an intelligent application level firewall that makes it a lot more functional and easier to use. The next was making some policies that allow services Apple considers "essential" to the whole Mac OS X user experience. And like it or not, Bonjour is an integral part of that.
Anyone who knows enough to know, for certain, that they don't want, e.g., Bonjour open, also knows how to use any of a number of free or commercial commandline or graphical options to set up ipfw or other network level protections any way they wish. That's the bottom line: anyone who knows enough to "know" they "really" want to disable all incoming connections can still easily do so.
This is about making security easy for typical, average users, while still keeping things that make the Mac experience "just work".
Now, I *do* wish that Apple had one more option: Block *everything*, but explain, hey, this is going to break some things like Bonjour, etc., so be SURE that you want to do this, and don't complain if all of a sudden your AppleTV syncing and iTunes sharing and automatic local machine discovery no longer work.
Apple describes all of this very explicitly here:
The 10.5.0 Application Firewall blocked all but:
Processes that are running as UID 0
mDNSResponder
The 10.5.1 Application Firewall blocks all but:
configd, which implements DHCP and other network configuration services
mDNSResponder, which implements Bonjour
racoon, which implements IPSec
So, while I haven't extensively tested yet, it does NOT appear to allow UID 0 processes, but rather only the above processes.
And from here:
By that reasoning, that's a concern for ANY encryption standard, then.
A lot of people seem to forget that the NSA's only job isn't to "break codes". It's to also provide mechanisms that it believes CANNOT be easily broken to protect OUR OWN information. That's the other half of NSA's mission everyone seems to forget.
"It's possible to implement Dual_EC_DRBG in such a way as to protect it against this backdoor, by generating new constants with another secure random-number generator and then publishing the seed. This method is even in the NIST document, in Appendix A. "
These aren't people "avoiding" AT&T service. They're likely nearly all people who don't even live in the United States, who get phones via people who buy dozens or hundreds at a time to make a side business out of selling unlocked iPhones to people all over the world who simply must have the latest and greatest thing.
The only people "avoiding" AT&T service in the only market where they iPhone was legally sold that quarter could be T-Mobile customers, and, news flash, there is no way 250,000 iPhones are going to T-Mobile customers who have unlocked them. I'd be surprised if it was even 25,000. A more accurate number would probably be 2500.
So these phones are mostly going to people who can't even *have* local AT&T service (other than via roaming partners), not people who are actively avoiding becoming an AT&T customer.
The problem is that it is not at all obvious that ANY of the activity was "illegal" or unconstitutional.
It's just that people like to think of it as being that clear-cut, when it isn't.
Collecting foreign signals intelligence on foreign targets (i.e., non-US persons) outside of the United States DOES NOT (and should not) require a warrant, or any court oversight. That includes:
1.) When the other end of the conversation is also foreign; and
2.) When the other end of the conversation is within the United States
Yes, you read that right. Just because a target of foreign intelligence collection makes a call to even a US citizen within the United States doesn't mean it suddenly requires a warrant. That's how it's always been. A warrant is only required when it is a US citizen and/or the target is on US soil. That has always the case, and is the case with all iterations of the various legislation (Protect America Act, RESTORE, this agreement, etc.).
The "new" issue is that the United States should also be able to do 1.) and 2.) above without a warrant when the traffic travels through the United States, either incidentally or by design. The warrant requirements for domestic surveillance are designed to protect the target of the surveillance, not the mechanisms, processes, techniques, or companies that enable the surveillance. If the target of the surveillance does not fall under warrant requirements, no warrant should be required.
The legal questions arose because the interception of the communication happening on US soil put it in an understandably gray area. But it was NOT clear that it was illegal or unconstitutional, as some seem to think it so clearly was!
The whole process of court oversight and warrants is designed to protect people who are afforded the protections of the laws and constitution of the United States. Foreign persons outside of the United States DO NOT get these protections. You may think they do (you'd be wrong), or think they should (laudable, but laughable, idealism), but the fact of the matter is, they do not.
The Protect America Act was overly broad and prone to abuse because one person, the Attorney General, was the entity to "sign off" on the declaration that a target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person outside of the United States. The new legislation will use FISA processes for that signoff, but still without warrants.
The funny thing everyone is missing here is that the only point of contention was whether or not telecoms should be granted retroactive immunity for the assistance they already provided. The House Democrats are the ones who introduced the RESTORE Act. Here, look and see what it does. It allows warrantless surveillance of communications where a foreign target outside of the United States is a party, regardless of where the other endpoint is, and regardless of whether the intercept is done on US soil. The primary difference between it and the Protect America Act is that FISC (the FISA court) oversees the process, targeting procedures, and signs off on targets being reasonably believed to be outside of the United States.
How is it illegal to provide assistance for the monitoring of things that have have already been found to not require a warrant (in the case of the logging of start and endpoints of phone numbers, but NOT content, which constitutes a "pen register", or of targets that have no warrant requirements whatsoever (non-US persons outside of the US)?
Warrants are there to protect US citizens and other persons afforded the rights of the Constitution and US law. Warrants, in this context, affirm that the target of surveillance is protected by applicable laws and has certain rights. Warrants provide a judicial oversight process.
Foreign targets outside of the United States have NEVER had any of those rights or protection
Yeah, sorry, that post came across completely wrong, and it's my fault.
:-/
I wasn't intending that to be a reply directly to him, but rather the others who have been digging up old quotes indicating that there would be no third party apps. Embarrassingly enough, it, of course, comes across as berating him...I had intended to go back and include context at the beginning of my post, saying, essentially, yeah, you found something that actually *supports* this argument, but plenty of others have found the opposite, and, surprise surprise, things change.
Of course, in my rush, I didn't go back and include that and that makes my post seem completely ridiculous as a reply to his.
Yeah, "back on" [month] [day], Apple also said no one wanted to watch video on an iPod, no one wanted an iPod with no screen, that Apple was deeply committed to PowerPC and wasn't interested in changing architectures, and that Apple wasn't interested in making a phone.
...I'd chose "b."
Funny, huh?
So what Apple said "back on" any particular day is irrelevant to whether or not some level of plans for third party apps on the iPhone have always been in the works, which they likely have been.
But if it makes you feel better to imagine a band of fearless, renegade hackers "forcing" Apple's hand, knock yourself out, I guess. It also means that every other apparent about-face Apple has made has been "forced" by some external power, which, for the above examples, flies in the face of logic. So, between the choices:
a.) Apple really never intended to have anything but its own apps on the iPhone, even though there is a precedent for third party apps on even the largely closed iPod, AND the iPhone is running Mac OS X, among whose best benefits are its flexibility as a development platform for making great apps, but was forced to surrender its evil position by the third party hacking community, or
b.) Apple actually had plans for third party apps all along, but didn't want to announce it until it was ready, for a variety of legitimate reasons, and was concentrating on the iPhone launch and Apple's huge foray into territory that is completely uncharted for them instead of trying to do multiple things at once,
This is probably Apple's most significant product launch since the Macintosh.
Ever thought that there could be incremental plans at work? You know, doing one thing at a time, considering that the vast, overwhelming majority of iPhone owners know or care approximately zero about the whole third party app issue?
Or would they have had to announce this back at the iPhone intro in order for it to be believed that it had been planned all along?
Seriously, Apple is a pretty secretive company, and this is a major product launch that could help to determine Apple's fortunes - quite literally - for years to come, and itself is probably part of a much larger strategy. Just because the announced it now doesn't mean that they felt like they were "forced" into doing so.
I mean, the phone is essentially running Mac OS X, for heaven's sake...you're telling me that Apple didn't have other designs for an amazing environment like this other than its own mostly mundane stock apps? This has been in the cards for a long time. Perhaps Apple was a but stunned by the robust nature of the third-party app community and accelerated its plans.
But to pretend like this fringe hacker community that represented a vanishingly small percentage of real-world iPhone users "forced" Apple to do this, well, that just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny or common sense.