It's actually pretty common. If you build a phone that is compatible with 3G, 4G standards, then be ready to whip out your checkbook for industry groups like Broadcom who will come a-knocking with their hand out looking for patent royalty payments.
This means that I'll be able to use my new favorite Chrome extension - Video Speed Controller - to crank up the speed of more videos I encounter in my clickings. Not affiliated with that extension.
If the risks in the new set of problems are more-manageable, that's a good strategy..
Yep, agree with what you said. But you don't know whether new problems are more manageable until much later. Only point I am trying to make is that re-architecting out old problems is great, but with any non-trivial project you introduce new (improved!:^) cracks for things to fall through. Kind of like how the military is always preparing new methods to win the last war.
This is an architectural change, not a patch for a security vulnerability. It doesn't remove a vulnerability; it changes the nature of a type of theoretical vulnerabilities.
Yep. Trading in one set of problems for a different set of problems.
Why doesn't law enforcement get it? I think the question assumes that a tiger wants to change his stripes. Law enforcement, like all organizations, always wants to expand its power and reach, especially if it's free for the asking. It is up to you and me to hold our elected leaders to task. Law enforcement has always been happy to use extra-constitutional methods to these ends until they get called to the carpet for it, and you can't expect that they will ever stop trying.
"Slowdown". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Depends whether they are referring to the first derivative (rate of phone shipments), which is still positive, or the second derivative (change in rate of phone shipments), which is sharply negative.
No, dear reader, I'm saying that the user knows and accepts that he's giving up some deliberately obfuscated amount of personal information, so she is not free of all blame. I'm just saying that a "feature" so intrusive - your device listening to your private conversations in your private residence, with no technical reason why it can't be 24x7 - is 10X more on Facebook, and trying to dismiss it as "user getting what she deserves" is unfair, and victim blaming. Which I will stand by.
That's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I don't think that people are stupid or uncaring just because they want to enjoy, or are seduced by, the benefits of Facebook's front door, and don't fully appreciate what they are giving up on the back door. This is a "feature" that no doubt was snuck in and pushed out via automatic update without user any the wiser, and the documentation is online but not in a place where a casual user would find it.
Jaded veterans like you and me are not surprised by this - Facebook has a long track record of playing fast and loose with what most people consider private data (Remember when they started posting Visa purchases on Friend's News Feed? "Archangel Michael just bought tickets to Star Wars movie.")
In the end, laziness and short-term memory will prevail, and Facebook will succeed in boiling live frogs.
There are reasonable expectations and there are unreasonable expectations. Users may be guilty of being naive and giving an inch, but Facebook has taken that inch and run 10 miles down Big Brother Blvd. all the way out to Creepytown. So yes, users have some role, but it's no more than 10%, and a whole lot less in my opinion.
I suspect that in your haste you forgot to mention that you have deleted your Facebook account, and furthermore don't even own a TV.:^)
I don't think I buy this argument. Companies are ultimately driven by people, people are people, and human nature is human nature. A tiger who is plays shenanigans at a 35% or 28% tax rate does not magically change his stripes if the tax rate drops to 20% or 15%. It's still more than zero, so he will play jurisdictional arbitrage to try and make it so.
In Apple's case, it's probably a demand to never compromise the bonuses your product has (e.g. insane battery life, etc) just to make room for a new-shiny. That's why it hadn't shown up in the iPhone yet (Mind, I say this as a guy who owns an Android phone.)
I pretty much agree with you, with the exception of battery life. IPhone is known for insanely bad batter life. In the day, it was Blackberry which could run for days on a single charge -- and they could never fathom why people were flocking to the iPhone, even with its well-known bandwidth and battery performance problems.
It's a separate topic, but what Blackberry never got was how Apple turned a functional item to a fashion/fetish item, and the tech specs became largely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
So other than "the rich keep getting richer", is there a point here?
Wish I had mod points for you today.
Ah! Ah! Godwinium!
Sorry, no mod points for you today, Mr. A.C.
Heh, build that fire-wall. Make the pirates pay for it!
It's actually pretty common. If you build a phone that is compatible with 3G, 4G standards, then be ready to whip out your checkbook for industry groups like Broadcom who will come a-knocking with their hand out looking for patent royalty payments.
This means that I'll be able to use my new favorite Chrome extension - Video Speed Controller - to crank up the speed of more videos I encounter in my clickings. Not affiliated with that extension.
... They won't know or care about the security implications until it goes badly wrong.
And that is how it should be. We - the tech creators - need to step it up and get past "it just works" to "it just works, securely."
If the risks in the new set of problems are more-manageable, that's a good strategy. .
Yep, agree with what you said. But you don't know whether new problems are more manageable until much later. Only point I am trying to make is that re-architecting out old problems is great, but with any non-trivial project you introduce new (improved! :^) cracks for things to fall through. Kind of like how the military is always preparing new methods to win the last war.
This is an architectural change, not a patch for a security vulnerability. It doesn't remove a vulnerability; it changes the nature of a type of theoretical vulnerabilities.
Yep. Trading in one set of problems for a different set of problems.
It's not either/or. You build security in layers.
You may have had a point, but I stopped reading at the first very unnecessary F-bomb.
If Apple gets away with this, everyone else will follow.
Actually, it seems that only Apple has ever been able to get away with this.
Why doesn't law enforcement get it? I think the question assumes that a tiger wants to change his stripes. Law enforcement, like all organizations, always wants to expand its power and reach, especially if it's free for the asking. It is up to you and me to hold our elected leaders to task. Law enforcement has always been happy to use extra-constitutional methods to these ends until they get called to the carpet for it, and you can't expect that they will ever stop trying.
RNC didn't want to advertise there anyway. They're low energy. Losers.
"Slowdown". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Depends whether they are referring to the first derivative (rate of phone shipments), which is still positive, or the second derivative (change in rate of phone shipments), which is sharply negative.
No, dear reader, I'm saying that the user knows and accepts that he's giving up some deliberately obfuscated amount of personal information, so she is not free of all blame. I'm just saying that a "feature" so intrusive - your device listening to your private conversations in your private residence, with no technical reason why it can't be 24x7 - is 10X more on Facebook, and trying to dismiss it as "user getting what she deserves" is unfair, and victim blaming. Which I will stand by.
What is reasonable expectation?
That's really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I don't think that people are stupid or uncaring just because they want to enjoy, or are seduced by, the benefits of Facebook's front door, and don't fully appreciate what they are giving up on the back door. This is a "feature" that no doubt was snuck in and pushed out via automatic update without user any the wiser, and the documentation is online but not in a place where a casual user would find it.
Jaded veterans like you and me are not surprised by this - Facebook has a long track record of playing fast and loose with what most people consider private data (Remember when they started posting Visa purchases on Friend's News Feed? "Archangel Michael just bought tickets to Star Wars movie.")
In the end, laziness and short-term memory will prevail, and Facebook will succeed in boiling live frogs.
Displaying an ad based on a word I say is the biggest waste of advertising money I can think of.
Actually, displaying an ad based on a word you say is the holy grail for advertisers.
There are reasonable expectations and there are unreasonable expectations. Users may be guilty of being naive and giving an inch, but Facebook has taken that inch and run 10 miles down Big Brother Blvd. all the way out to Creepytown. So yes, users have some role, but it's no more than 10%, and a whole lot less in my opinion.
I suspect that in your haste you forgot to mention that you have deleted your Facebook account, and furthermore don't even own a TV. :^)
Perhaps if taxes weren't so high...
I don't think I buy this argument. Companies are ultimately driven by people, people are people, and human nature is human nature. A tiger who is plays shenanigans at a 35% or 28% tax rate does not magically change his stripes if the tax rate drops to 20% or 15%. It's still more than zero, so he will play jurisdictional arbitrage to try and make it so.
In Apple's case, it's probably a demand to never compromise the bonuses your product has (e.g. insane battery life, etc) just to make room for a new-shiny. That's why it hadn't shown up in the iPhone yet (Mind, I say this as a guy who owns an Android phone.)
I pretty much agree with you, with the exception of battery life. IPhone is known for insanely bad batter life. In the day, it was Blackberry which could run for days on a single charge -- and they could never fathom why people were flocking to the iPhone, even with its well-known bandwidth and battery performance problems.
It's a separate topic, but what Blackberry never got was how Apple turned a functional item to a fashion/fetish item, and the tech specs became largely irrelevant.
Silly Mayor, don't you know that unlike all other Evil Corp., Apple gets an automatic 'pass'? Because iPhone.
...time for your meds.
Too long; skipped ahead