Yes, I have. Many of them. I've been on local cable regulatory boards that had to deal with franchises on a regular basis. Do you have a link to an actual exclusive franchise agreement that is still in effect? Please? Just one.
Does this mean franchise agreements are not still issued, which include the aforementioned rights-of-way, described as "roads" as it were?
If you don't understand the difference between a franchise agreement and an exclusive franchise agreement, please look it up.
Franchise agreements do not require monopolies, and that word, which you have insistently used, isn't even present.
So this alleged government granted monopoly doesn't exist.
with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
It's pretty clear that you've never read any franchise agreement, since there has never been this alleged agreement to "install... to every home far and wide". Franchise agreements are LOCAL, which means they cover a limited area. Comcast has never signed a franchise agreement where they've agreed to install to "every home far and wide". Their promises are limited to a very specific area, and to specific services.
Yes, yes, it's not censorship, it's merely you being a shitstain, arguing with somebody over a choice of words, rather than honestly inquiring,
You chose the words you wrote, and it is somehow my fault that they don't say what you wanted them to? I don't really care why you hate Comcast, I've dealt with your incorrect claims. You could hate them because their name starts with 'C' for all I care; the fact is that your hatred is your argument against them.
Since you cannot get beyond ad hominem, and cannot properly quote what other people say, we truly are done here.
This way, my ISP choice wouldn't just be Charter or Nothing. It would be Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google, and a dozen smaller companies.
You really believe that Comcast would enter a market as an ISP where it did not already have a cable television presence? If they would, why haven't they?
If Comcast starts abusing their network management, you could threaten to jump ship to any of the other dozen ISPs in the area.
I'm sorry that your area cannot financially support more than one ISP, but the answer to that is not more government regulation. I'm in a pretty small city and we have several ISPs to pick from, only one of which is Comcast. The difference is maybe that we have people in this area who took the risks of creating an ISP instead of everyone just saying "oh woe is us, we can't compete against Comcast as an ISP." It's clear they can compete because they do. And that also makes it clear that Comcast's alleged "monopoly" in the ISP space doesn't exist.
I have. Have you? Exclusive franchises have been illegal for twenty years in the US. When such franchises were issued, they were for CABLE TELEVISION service, not Internet Service Providers. There have been no government monopolies issued for ISPs. None. That's why there are so many of them.
Here, let me reinsert the bits you removed.
I replied to all of this already. The parts about "roads" are irrelevant. The claim about "government licensed the road" are wrong.
Hate is a term that is merely convenient,
Please use the correct terms and not just the ones that are more convenient, if the convenient ones are not correct.
if you wanted to ask for the substantial reasoning behind it, you could have inquired,
Or you could have simply stated them originally, instead of just expressing your hatred. It is not censorship on my part when I do not ask you to say things that you chose not to say.
or you could have simply ascertained it from elsewhere
Yeah, ANONYMOUS COWARD, I'll research your posting history on/. to find out why YOU personally hate Comcast.
Face it, you need to stop being a shitstain.
If all you have is ad hominem, we can end this now.
Unless they're throttling traffic to/from the web site or hijacking DNS to redirect it to their own server,
Those would, indeed, be the "better examples" that the OP asks about. That's not what is happening, and the headline is wrong for tying to imply it. This is an example of a company using available legal avenues to deal with what they see as trademark infringement. It has nothing to do with Comcast being an ISP.
Of course, instead of linking to the actual cease and desist order when the link says "cease and desist order", we get a page from the defendant with their interpretation of what is happening instead. If you can't link to the actual order it makes one wonder if there isn't a bit of "beneficial interpretation" at play. For example, the interpretation that all of the pro-neutrality posters are real people and all of the anti-neutrality posters are bots. Or the interpretation that the activities of FFTF are just "tech-enhanced campaigns" but anything Comcast supports is "astroturf."
Here's the deal: if you cry wolf for everything that Comcast does that you do not like, then you dilute the real issues that you might have some real traction on. If you make it clear that your motives are hate for Comcast then any serious issues you bring up will look like just another hate campaign.
Well in this case the government licensed the road to a few companies with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
In what country did this happen? What US ISP has ever been granted a government monopoly to be an ISP? (The answer is: none.)
This is why the internet needs to be placed under a government mandated monopoly
You've just made the (incorrect) argument that the problems of the Internet are because of government granted monopolies to ISPs, and now you claim that this is why the ISPs must be government granted monopolies.
I hate government overreach but I hate Comcast more.
"Hate" is rarely a valid reason to create more government regulation. I get it that you hate Comcast. Get your internet from someone else and vote with your money.
Comcast having a stupid 10 year exclusive franchise doesn't help.
Where does Comcast still have a ten year exclusive franchise, and why haven't you reported the problem to the federal government that has prohibited exclusive franchises for about 20 years now?
If the Telco can't verify the actual caller phone number and identity, it should present "untrusted" or some words to that effect.
This is trivial. Step 1: find a fine point sharpie. Step 2: write "untrusted" on the caller ID display.
The argument 'this can't be done' doesn't sound credible to me, it implies the Phone Company doesn't know who to bill.
Of course your local phone company knows who to bill for any traffic: the phone company the incoming call comes from. The same company the bogus caller ID data is being given to them from.
Yes, this could be a significant change to Telco switches.
Yes, it would be a significant change. And all to no effect. The originating telco doesn't care and most likely isn't in the US anyway.
This will not stop nuisance calls, but it will make it MUCH EASIER to block or ignore them.
Sorry, but it will change nothing, and thus won't make anything easier.
So, your theory is: a company paying its employees more causes poverty. Really?
No, he said it caused homelessness. If the cost of housing goes up because landlords/sellers can charge more because Amazon pays a premium, and your salary doesn't go up too, eventually you reach a point where you cannot afford to rent or buy a house and you become homeless. Your salary doesn't go down, but the amount of house you can get for that money drops drastically.
most of their revenue comes from actual product sales. Their advertising revenue is comparatively very small.
Exactly how much do they pay themselves to show ads for products they sell? If they pay themselves for showing such ads, those costs will be a direct offset to the revenue they make from paying themselves, and thus show up as 0 in the profit and loss statements.
Most of what you describe is Amazon trying to convince you to buy more stuff from amazon.
Yes. Advertising.
Amazon, at least at present, is an electronic store that dabbles in a bit of advertising.
Considering that amount of space on their pages that consists of advertising, I'd say "dabbles" is a horrendous understatement. I've seen advertiser supported content that doesn't have as many ads as a typical Amazon page.
Your culture becomes one of frequent password resets with idiotic questions to verify identity.
One of the airline sites I use has a policy that if you've not logged in for a certain length of time, or you're using a computer it hasn't seen before, you have to answer idiotic security questions to get on. Unfortunately, it does very poorly at remembering computers so every time I'm logging in at home to check in for a flight, e.g., I have to go through the questions. The questions are also multiple choice and few of them have the correct answer as one of the possible answers.
Heh, I thought, I'll just select the first option when I set up the answers. Ha! they said -- they randomize the answers so what was first isn't always first when they ask. But alphabetically, first is still first. Yes, I do prefer artichokes over icecream. And my childhood pet was an aardvaark.
Google's Sign-In and Security tools are a good example of this.
Google is a wonderful example of good customer support. Yes. I just love getting an email from Google that tells me that someone has my password and tried to log in using my account from a new location and that they helpfully stopped the attempt.
Except that in every case so far, that "someone" has been me, the "new location" was someplace I travel to on a semi-regular basis, and they apparently only block the first attempt because I've never noticed that I cannot access my email or calendar when they've reported they blocked the log-in attempt.
Yes, Google. So helpful.
Removing the password change requirement without providing such an access monitoring tool is a disaster in the making.
Like the email I see after I've returned home, "access monitoring tools" are after-the-fact. Too late to prevent any significant problem.
On the original topic: regular enforced password changes are not just a problem of remembering a new password. I find it a bigger problem that I have at least four devices that require this password to be configured into the email client, I don't use all four on a daily basis (sometimes a month goes by), and the email client does not have a glaring error notification that it couldn't log in. It is entirely possible that I'll pick up a tablet and use it for a couple of days and only after I switch back will I find out I missed a lot of email. Fortunately, currently only two sites I use have such policies. One is central IT at work who gets paid to do this kind of stuff, and the other is a government site. Work won't let me change and then change back; the government site will.
There was a story last week about how Amazon wants to get into advertising in a big way.
I'm sorry, but Amazon has been into advertising in a big way for a very long time. What do you think all those "people who bought what you just bought also bought..." and "recommendations based on your purchase/viewing history" things are if not highly targeted advertising that you cannot opt out of and cannot shut off?
If you love the FCC you blindly trust them when they claim it's a DDOS
If you don't knee-jerk hate the FCC you think about it and see what makes sense. Do you REALLY think that the FCC keeps people on staff on a Sunday night just waiting to cause damage to their own website if someone says something bad about the FCC or the commissioners?
It seems much more likely that at least one of the people who watched the show would see this as an opportunity to show their hate for the FCC by initiating a DDoS. Maybe even someone who was in on setting up the stunt by creating the redirect site -- they knew in advance, and the FCC didn't. We know they already have an anti-FCC bias.
But what makes sense doesn't fit the anti-government world view, so it has to be wrong.
I know you're thinking of a SYN/UDP/Ping type DDoS. It definitely wasn't that because at the time the home page was fine. Only the comments form was broken.
You know that both pages come from the same server? Or that the attack wasn't specific to submitting comments and not just serving the "home page"? It is quite possible that the attack was overloading the database the comments are stored in but not the server for the home page. You can't say what it definitely was or was not.
Lets see the ISPs' logs of all that incoming traffic and find the source.
And Seattle was getting kudos in/. for enacting a law that prohibited an ISP from collecting such information.
You do realize that the first "D" in DDoS stands for "distributed", as in "from many different places"? The ISP log, if it is available, will show the botnet members but not the source of the attack.
And who has infrastructure available to mount a DDoS attack this soon following Oliver's broadcast?
The same kinds of people who launch other DDoS attacks against any company they don't like.
Of course they did not plan for 350 million comments in one evening. Nobody plans for that much traffic. It would make the cost of a website astronomical. Even 3.5 million would be unheard of -- so they don't even plan for 1%. As if that number was relevant.
And people would complain about how much the FCC spends on website services if they DID plan for 350 million comments per day.
Why not just run the report and prove how much traffic there was.
Because the report would only show how many redirects there were and not how much traffic there was at the destination. If you don't understand what a DDoS is, just say so.
Why are we just leaping to the conclusion that it couldn't actually be a DDOS?
Because the FCC being incompetent to deal with IT issues is fodder for conspiracies and part of the current anti-administration dialog, while it being the target of a DDoS isn't.
realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
More likely they did it because it would be "fun*" and might cause just the reaction that it has: added fuel to the conspiracy fire. It is very unlikely that people who don't want net neutrality rules would do something like this, mostly because they don't have to.
* isn't it wonderful what kinds of destructive things some people consider to be "fun" these days? Bricking IoT devices because you don't like people using them, or that they aren't NSA-level secure, is fun! DDoSing the FCC when there are a lot of people who want to post comments is FUN!
Of all the stupid things people say that are attacks on democracy, this one actually *is* an attack on democracy.
No. It will have little effect on anything, and the FCC is not run based on popular votes. They actually look at the reasoning behind comments and "I hates the cable companies" or "a comedian told me to post a comment" isn't a justification for rule making.
A DDOS to prevent public feedback is much more serious than the base issue, and might become more prevalent in the future.
This is one very good argument against any kind of online voting. If it's just "online comments", not so much.
I haven't had a landline for a few years, since I ditched AT&T DSL for cable internet,
I was using my landline phone to call the cable company to report a complete service outage, and as part of the script this agent actually tried to sell me Comcast Voice. As in, how'd I like to put a few more of my eggs in the Comcast basket?
Young adults (25-34) and those who rent are most likely to live wireless-only, as 70 percent of that demographic lives with a landline.
If 70 percent of any demographic lives with landline phone service, how can they be most likely to be without landline phone service? Interesting use of statistics, I think.
'I see that I'm legitimately on the https://www.foobar.com/ site, and Foobar is telling me that Google wants permission. I trust Foobar and Google, so I'll click Allow,'"
Let's see. You're on the attacker's website and you trust it (apparently because it has https in the URL), and you trust Google, so you allow the attacker free access to your google account. How is this Google's fault again? I mean, you give access to your account to people you shouldn't and it's someone else's fault?
Slashdot Mirror
(and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)
Or profit. Or ratings, which will also probably map into profit.
Amongst the sources of political satire are ...
No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. Many of them. I've been on local cable regulatory boards that had to deal with franchises on a regular basis. Do you have a link to an actual exclusive franchise agreement that is still in effect? Please? Just one.
Does this mean franchise agreements are not still issued, which include the aforementioned rights-of-way, described as "roads" as it were?
If you don't understand the difference between a franchise agreement and an exclusive franchise agreement, please look it up.
Franchise agreements do not require monopolies, and that word, which you have insistently used, isn't even present.
So this alleged government granted monopoly doesn't exist.
with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
It's pretty clear that you've never read any franchise agreement, since there has never been this alleged agreement to "install ... to every home far and wide". Franchise agreements are LOCAL, which means they cover a limited area. Comcast has never signed a franchise agreement where they've agreed to install to "every home far and wide". Their promises are limited to a very specific area, and to specific services.
Yes, yes, it's not censorship, it's merely you being a shitstain, arguing with somebody over a choice of words, rather than honestly inquiring,
You chose the words you wrote, and it is somehow my fault that they don't say what you wanted them to? I don't really care why you hate Comcast, I've dealt with your incorrect claims. You could hate them because their name starts with 'C' for all I care; the fact is that your hatred is your argument against them.
Since you cannot get beyond ad hominem, and cannot properly quote what other people say, we truly are done here.
This way, my ISP choice wouldn't just be Charter or Nothing. It would be Charter, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Google, and a dozen smaller companies.
You really believe that Comcast would enter a market as an ISP where it did not already have a cable television presence? If they would, why haven't they?
If Comcast starts abusing their network management, you could threaten to jump ship to any of the other dozen ISPs in the area.
I'm sorry that your area cannot financially support more than one ISP, but the answer to that is not more government regulation. I'm in a pretty small city and we have several ISPs to pick from, only one of which is Comcast. The difference is maybe that we have people in this area who took the risks of creating an ISP instead of everyone just saying "oh woe is us, we can't compete against Comcast as an ISP." It's clear they can compete because they do. And that also makes it clear that Comcast's alleged "monopoly" in the ISP space doesn't exist.
Check your franchise agreements.
I have. Have you? Exclusive franchises have been illegal for twenty years in the US. When such franchises were issued, they were for CABLE TELEVISION service, not Internet Service Providers. There have been no government monopolies issued for ISPs. None. That's why there are so many of them.
Here, let me reinsert the bits you removed.
I replied to all of this already. The parts about "roads" are irrelevant. The claim about "government licensed the road" are wrong.
Hate is a term that is merely convenient,
Please use the correct terms and not just the ones that are more convenient, if the convenient ones are not correct.
if you wanted to ask for the substantial reasoning behind it, you could have inquired,
Or you could have simply stated them originally, instead of just expressing your hatred. It is not censorship on my part when I do not ask you to say things that you chose not to say.
or you could have simply ascertained it from elsewhere
Yeah, ANONYMOUS COWARD, I'll research your posting history on /. to find out why YOU personally hate Comcast.
Face it, you need to stop being a shitstain.
If all you have is ad hominem, we can end this now.
Unless they're throttling traffic to/from the web site or hijacking DNS to redirect it to their own server,
Those would, indeed, be the "better examples" that the OP asks about. That's not what is happening, and the headline is wrong for tying to imply it. This is an example of a company using available legal avenues to deal with what they see as trademark infringement. It has nothing to do with Comcast being an ISP.
Of course, instead of linking to the actual cease and desist order when the link says "cease and desist order", we get a page from the defendant with their interpretation of what is happening instead. If you can't link to the actual order it makes one wonder if there isn't a bit of "beneficial interpretation" at play. For example, the interpretation that all of the pro-neutrality posters are real people and all of the anti-neutrality posters are bots. Or the interpretation that the activities of FFTF are just "tech-enhanced campaigns" but anything Comcast supports is "astroturf."
Here's the deal: if you cry wolf for everything that Comcast does that you do not like, then you dilute the real issues that you might have some real traction on. If you make it clear that your motives are hate for Comcast then any serious issues you bring up will look like just another hate campaign.
Well in this case the government licensed the road to a few companies with the agreement that they would install the road (internet superhighway) to every home far and wide.
In what country did this happen? What US ISP has ever been granted a government monopoly to be an ISP? (The answer is: none.)
This is why the internet needs to be placed under a government mandated monopoly
You've just made the (incorrect) argument that the problems of the Internet are because of government granted monopolies to ISPs, and now you claim that this is why the ISPs must be government granted monopolies.
I hate government overreach but I hate Comcast more.
"Hate" is rarely a valid reason to create more government regulation. I get it that you hate Comcast. Get your internet from someone else and vote with your money.
Comcast having a stupid 10 year exclusive franchise doesn't help.
Where does Comcast still have a ten year exclusive franchise, and why haven't you reported the problem to the federal government that has prohibited exclusive franchises for about 20 years now?
If the Telco can't verify the actual caller phone number and identity, it should present "untrusted" or some words to that effect.
This is trivial. Step 1: find a fine point sharpie. Step 2: write "untrusted" on the caller ID display.
The argument 'this can't be done' doesn't sound credible to me, it implies the Phone Company doesn't know who to bill.
Of course your local phone company knows who to bill for any traffic: the phone company the incoming call comes from. The same company the bogus caller ID data is being given to them from.
Yes, this could be a significant change to Telco switches.
Yes, it would be a significant change. And all to no effect. The originating telco doesn't care and most likely isn't in the US anyway.
This will not stop nuisance calls, but it will make it MUCH EASIER to block or ignore them.
Sorry, but it will change nothing, and thus won't make anything easier.
So, your theory is: a company paying its employees more causes poverty. Really?
No, he said it caused homelessness. If the cost of housing goes up because landlords/sellers can charge more because Amazon pays a premium, and your salary doesn't go up too, eventually you reach a point where you cannot afford to rent or buy a house and you become homeless. Your salary doesn't go down, but the amount of house you can get for that money drops drastically.
most of their revenue comes from actual product sales. Their advertising revenue is comparatively very small.
Exactly how much do they pay themselves to show ads for products they sell? If they pay themselves for showing such ads, those costs will be a direct offset to the revenue they make from paying themselves, and thus show up as 0 in the profit and loss statements.
Most of what you describe is Amazon trying to convince you to buy more stuff from amazon.
Yes. Advertising.
Amazon, at least at present, is an electronic store that dabbles in a bit of advertising.
Considering that amount of space on their pages that consists of advertising, I'd say "dabbles" is a horrendous understatement. I've seen advertiser supported content that doesn't have as many ads as a typical Amazon page.
I found a personal account for a user that had been using the same password for 14 years.
For some systems, I have a password I first created 30 years ago.
Your culture becomes one of frequent password resets with idiotic questions to verify identity.
One of the airline sites I use has a policy that if you've not logged in for a certain length of time, or you're using a computer it hasn't seen before, you have to answer idiotic security questions to get on. Unfortunately, it does very poorly at remembering computers so every time I'm logging in at home to check in for a flight, e.g., I have to go through the questions. The questions are also multiple choice and few of them have the correct answer as one of the possible answers.
Heh, I thought, I'll just select the first option when I set up the answers. Ha! they said -- they randomize the answers so what was first isn't always first when they ask. But alphabetically, first is still first. Yes, I do prefer artichokes over icecream. And my childhood pet was an aardvaark.
It's not advertising for 3rd parties.
Uhh, yeah, I see ads for other sites while on Amazon. And ads is ads, whether it's for someone elses product or your own.
Google's Sign-In and Security tools are a good example of this.
Google is a wonderful example of good customer support. Yes. I just love getting an email from Google that tells me that someone has my password and tried to log in using my account from a new location and that they helpfully stopped the attempt.
Except that in every case so far, that "someone" has been me, the "new location" was someplace I travel to on a semi-regular basis, and they apparently only block the first attempt because I've never noticed that I cannot access my email or calendar when they've reported they blocked the log-in attempt.
Yes, Google. So helpful.
Removing the password change requirement without providing such an access monitoring tool is a disaster in the making.
Like the email I see after I've returned home, "access monitoring tools" are after-the-fact. Too late to prevent any significant problem.
On the original topic: regular enforced password changes are not just a problem of remembering a new password. I find it a bigger problem that I have at least four devices that require this password to be configured into the email client, I don't use all four on a daily basis (sometimes a month goes by), and the email client does not have a glaring error notification that it couldn't log in. It is entirely possible that I'll pick up a tablet and use it for a couple of days and only after I switch back will I find out I missed a lot of email. Fortunately, currently only two sites I use have such policies. One is central IT at work who gets paid to do this kind of stuff, and the other is a government site. Work won't let me change and then change back; the government site will.
There was a story last week about how Amazon wants to get into advertising in a big way.
I'm sorry, but Amazon has been into advertising in a big way for a very long time. What do you think all those "people who bought what you just bought also bought ..." and "recommendations based on your purchase/viewing history" things are if not highly targeted advertising that you cannot opt out of and cannot shut off?
If you love the FCC you blindly trust them when they claim it's a DDOS
If you don't knee-jerk hate the FCC you think about it and see what makes sense. Do you REALLY think that the FCC keeps people on staff on a Sunday night just waiting to cause damage to their own website if someone says something bad about the FCC or the commissioners?
It seems much more likely that at least one of the people who watched the show would see this as an opportunity to show their hate for the FCC by initiating a DDoS. Maybe even someone who was in on setting up the stunt by creating the redirect site -- they knew in advance, and the FCC didn't. We know they already have an anti-FCC bias.
But what makes sense doesn't fit the anti-government world view, so it has to be wrong.
I know you're thinking of a SYN/UDP/Ping type DDoS. It definitely wasn't that because at the time the home page was fine. Only the comments form was broken.
You know that both pages come from the same server? Or that the attack wasn't specific to submitting comments and not just serving the "home page"? It is quite possible that the attack was overloading the database the comments are stored in but not the server for the home page. You can't say what it definitely was or was not.
Lets see the ISPs' logs of all that incoming traffic and find the source.
And Seattle was getting kudos in /. for enacting a law that prohibited an ISP from collecting such information.
You do realize that the first "D" in DDoS stands for "distributed", as in "from many different places"? The ISP log, if it is available, will show the botnet members but not the source of the attack.
And who has infrastructure available to mount a DDoS attack this soon following Oliver's broadcast?
The same kinds of people who launch other DDoS attacks against any company they don't like.
And people would complain about how much the FCC spends on website services if they DID plan for 350 million comments per day.
They just can't win, can they?
Why not just run the report and prove how much traffic there was.
Because the report would only show how many redirects there were and not how much traffic there was at the destination. If you don't understand what a DDoS is, just say so.
Why are we just leaping to the conclusion that it couldn't actually be a DDOS?
Because the FCC being incompetent to deal with IT issues is fodder for conspiracies and part of the current anti-administration dialog, while it being the target of a DDoS isn't.
realized that many people were going to post opinions to the FCC website, and DDOS'd the site to prevent these people from registering an opinion.
More likely they did it because it would be "fun*" and might cause just the reaction that it has: added fuel to the conspiracy fire. It is very unlikely that people who don't want net neutrality rules would do something like this, mostly because they don't have to.
* isn't it wonderful what kinds of destructive things some people consider to be "fun" these days? Bricking IoT devices because you don't like people using them, or that they aren't NSA-level secure, is fun! DDoSing the FCC when there are a lot of people who want to post comments is FUN!
Of all the stupid things people say that are attacks on democracy, this one actually *is* an attack on democracy.
No. It will have little effect on anything, and the FCC is not run based on popular votes. They actually look at the reasoning behind comments and "I hates the cable companies" or "a comedian told me to post a comment" isn't a justification for rule making.
A DDOS to prevent public feedback is much more serious than the base issue, and might become more prevalent in the future.
This is one very good argument against any kind of online voting. If it's just "online comments", not so much.
I haven't had a landline for a few years, since I ditched AT&T DSL for cable internet,
I was using my landline phone to call the cable company to report a complete service outage, and as part of the script this agent actually tried to sell me Comcast Voice. As in, how'd I like to put a few more of my eggs in the Comcast basket?
Young adults (25-34) and those who rent are most likely to live wireless-only, as 70 percent of that demographic lives with a landline.
If 70 percent of any demographic lives with landline phone service, how can they be most likely to be without landline phone service? Interesting use of statistics, I think.
'I see that I'm legitimately on the https://www.foobar.com/ site, and Foobar is telling me that Google wants permission. I trust Foobar and Google, so I'll click Allow,'"
Let's see. You're on the attacker's website and you trust it (apparently because it has https in the URL), and you trust Google, so you allow the attacker free access to your google account. How is this Google's fault again? I mean, you give access to your account to people you shouldn't and it's someone else's fault?