Disney says they are doing this to control busy times at the park. That is pure BS. Disney is doing this, not because of supply and demand, but to gouge even more profits. Why are summer and holiday visits the most popular? That's a no brainer - it's because people are off work or out of school. Changing the pricing won't change that reality.
If Disney was truly concerned with limiting overcrowding, a very simple solution would be limit the number of tickets sold. Once the park is sold out for the day, it is sold out. Works at stadiums, works on Broadway, works just about everywhere. But then, that solution won't increase the profits like a 20% price increase will.
I wonder if Disney will pass those extra fees on to the employees who have to work on those overly crowded days? After all, they are the ones who have to deal with the problem first hand.
Gas prices will most likely be the limiting factor to how much extra driving people will do. It is already fairly easy to drive from place to place.
Or the cost of autonomous vehicles. It's not like they are going to be given away for free. The average household income in the US is around $45,000. How many of these households will be able to afford one?
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Unless laws requiring the occupant of the autonomous vehicle to be able to take over control of the vehicle change, it is unlikely that too many young, elderaly or visually or otherwise impaired people will be using autonomous vehicles independently.
Is it the new thing on slashdot to criticize developments that are 'lab demos' ?
No, we've been critizing lab demos for years. Could be because most lab demos never make it past that stage and will always remain a novelty. Kind of like you can power a clock from a potato, but it doesn't scale very well as an energy source.
Our cells are powered by Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and according to a new study, they could be a power source for the next generation of biological supercomputers
When did we get this generation of biological supercomputers?
So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do this work for free.
If I were Tim Cook, I'd say "We'd be happy to decrypt that phone for you. The Professional Services cost for this will be TEN BILLION DOLLARS, payable in advance. My programmers will begin work as soon as your check clears."
Those are two separate issues -- the unlocking of THIS phone versus EVERY phone. Apple won't even unlock this phone. Actually, they were not asked to, they were asked to remove the feature that automatically slows down retry attempts and then wipes the phone if still unsuccessful. According to the court records, Apple refused to do that so the FBI went to the courts for a remedy. That's how the system is supposed to work.
If Apple tried to charge an enormous fee like you suggest, it would probably result in additional Justice Department investigations into Apple and various practices. Remember the Samsung case that Apple lost, but then somehow won?
The government's relationship with Apple is a lot like it was with Saddam Hussein. As long as you do what they want, they protect you. Cross the line and they put their full force on you. Apple has billions in cash. Of course, if they get charged with something, the government could freeze those accounts and their accounts in countries that the US has treaties with.
As previously reported, Apple has unlocked phones for the FBI over 70 times. What is different about this one?
I am not saying that he used his government issued phone for planning any of this. However, it is his government issued phone that is locked and Apple is claiming it violates personal privacy if they unlock it.
My point was that on a government issued phone to a government employee, there is not personal privacy, whether phone, messages, email, etc. That has been decided by the courts long ago. If Apple doesn't want to unlock it fine, defy the court order. But don't claim it is for personal liberties of its users.
Furthermore, I do agree that there is FBI overreach here. It would be one thing to ask to unlock THIS phone. It is quite another to ask to be able to unlock EVERY phone. However, that is a separate issue from whether or not Apple should unlock this particular phone.
This is why I don't remove my shoes or jacket until they explicitly ask me to. I also always refuse the nudie cancer machine. They want to waste my time and take my dignity, so I waste their time and take their dignity as well
And the time of everybody else behind you in line. Thanks.
Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.
According to the article, this is a government issued phone, issued by his employer. As such, there is no "privacy" issue as anything on the phone belongs to the government. If this was his personal phone, that might be a different situation. But, now, after hearing this, it sounds like the government is asking Apple to allow them into their own phone that may have data related to a crime that one of their employees committed. That is not a personal privacy issue.
One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.
I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.
Yes, it does, but it has been held that the senate must meet to either give or deny consent. Not holding the hearing is a violation of Article II as it has been interpreted. Of course, Obama simply needs to wait until the senate is in recess and he can make a temporary appointment. Then the senate must address the issue when they return.
My point was that given the history of security in the information age, one should not assume that anything you store on a connected device is save. Regardless of the government gaining access, devices lack enough security for identity theft to be rampant.
Most people would not leave their valuables on the front seat of a locked vehicle because it is easy to gain access. The same is true for our phones and tablets. While that doesn't give somebody the right to your data, there is enough evidence to show that it is not adequately protected, backdoor or not. Therefore, if one is truly concerned with security and privacy, one does not store data on such devices.
It matters not whether people want to share it or not, one should assume that anything stored on these devices is not private.
Where does the constitution obligate them to approve someone? What if it was the only person nominated? Well I guess that has to do? No way! THis isn't the first time that this has happened. It is just when the shoe is on the other foot, people want to bitch and moan.
The Democrats started it with Bork and they'll support the same thing if they control Congress, at which time some people will suddenly be okay with it.
You seem to be assuming that they have to consent to somebody. They do not.
No, the Democrats allowed the hearings to proceed. The Republicans are saying they will not even hold the hearings. There is a difference.
"That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee. "
Under the Senate powers to advise the President on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court it would appear that they have the authority to advise the President that eight justices is sufficient for the time being. I am not aware of any obligation of the Senate to keep nine justices on the court, it's merely tradition.
1) The Senate takes an oath to uphold the constitution. 2) The Constitution states that the Senate must confirm or reject a Supreme Court nomination. 3) Blocking the appointment by not letting it out of committee for a vote is a violation of #1
But hey, the Constitution also allows the president to make a recess appointment, so unless Congress plans on staying in session each and every day until the next president takes office, well, there could easily be an appointment, albeit temporary. As for eight is enough, it could be, but one would think that the current vacancy shifts the balance to the left and the current Congress would not want that particularly with the cases coming up.
The only reason to explain them violating the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold would be pandering to their constituents -- at least the ones with deep pockets.
If the local authorities needed access to your house to save a life, they would just break in the door. They wouldn't need your keys. If police enter a home without probable cause or a warrant, then whatever they find cannot be used.
In the US, you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The shooters in CA, have been shown to be guilty, if they were still alive, they would still have rights, but being dead, it is hard to argue that they have the right to privacy, particularly if others might have been involved.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Well, if your phone has information which can save someone's life, then of course you have the option of unlocking it for the government. No one is forcing people to keep their phones locked. But Apple is giving people the choice.
What if you phone has information that can save someone's life, but you are dead and can't unlock it?
It isn't Apple that is protecting people. It is the constitution and law. The law says the data is protected unless a court deems your right to privacy is subordinate to public safety, which is the case, in this case. As such, what Apple is doing is determining that its views on privacy are more important than the constitution's. If you don't like how the law works, then work to change the law.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Don't forget though, Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened. It's an easy platitude when you've got both.
One would think that his involvement with the US Declaration of Independence, the revolution, etc., would certainly be evidence that he felt his safety and liberty were threatened.
Well said. We give up what little privacy we have left at our own peril.
Smart phones, like the iPhone, don't give up our privacy. We do, everytime we use them to post our whereabouts, pictures online, etc. The iPhone is just a device. We control the data we put on it or through it. Using the connect features of a smart phone and desiring privacy are an oxymoron. Put differently, those who truly value their privacy don't post their intimate details online, with or without a smart phone.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Considering how much people divulge about themselves online these days, the government or other actors don't need a back door persecute the innocents. Maybe, if we want protection from prying eyes, we should be more conscious about what we put out for the world to see.
The biggest reason why Apple would not help, other than the possibility that there is no help they are capable of offering (which is conceivable), is that by doing so, they would be confirming beyond any shadow of doubt that it is even actually possible.
The realization that something is physically possible is a *HUGE* incentive for some people to try and figure out how it is done, and if Apple can do it, then so can other people... people with much more nefarious intentions than even an untrustworthy government.
According to the WSJ, Apple has done this for the authorities some 70 times. They can keep the phone from wiping the data. They don't want to write a program so the FBI can do it on their onw.
Slashdot Mirror
Disney says they are doing this to control busy times at the park. That is pure BS. Disney is doing this, not because of supply and demand, but to gouge even more profits. Why are summer and holiday visits the most popular? That's a no brainer - it's because people are off work or out of school. Changing the pricing won't change that reality.
If Disney was truly concerned with limiting overcrowding, a very simple solution would be limit the number of tickets sold. Once the park is sold out for the day, it is sold out. Works at stadiums, works on Broadway, works just about everywhere. But then, that solution won't increase the profits like a 20% price increase will.
I wonder if Disney will pass those extra fees on to the employees who have to work on those overly crowded days? After all, they are the ones who have to deal with the problem first hand.
Gas prices will most likely be the limiting factor to how much extra driving people will do. It is already fairly easy to drive from place to place.
Or the cost of autonomous vehicles. It's not like they are going to be given away for free. The average household income in the US is around $45,000. How many of these households will be able to afford one?
Automation will open up car travel to populations (the young, the elderly, the visually or otherwise impaired) who did not previously have access. Self-driving cars could increase the overall amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Unless laws requiring the occupant of the autonomous vehicle to be able to take over control of the vehicle change, it is unlikely that too many young, elderaly or visually or otherwise impaired people will be using autonomous vehicles independently.
The ISP shouldn't serve you ads, you already pay it with money.
That doesn't stop Hulu.
Is it the new thing on slashdot to criticize developments that are 'lab demos' ?
No, we've been critizing lab demos for years. Could be because most lab demos never make it past that stage and will always remain a novelty. Kind of like you can power a clock from a potato, but it doesn't scale very well as an energy source.
Our cells are powered by Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and according to a new study, they could be a power source for the next generation of biological supercomputers
When did we get this generation of biological supercomputers?
So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do this work for free.
If I were Tim Cook, I'd say "We'd be happy to decrypt that phone for you. The Professional Services cost for this will be TEN BILLION DOLLARS, payable in advance. My programmers will begin work as soon as your check clears."
Those are two separate issues -- the unlocking of THIS phone versus EVERY phone. Apple won't even unlock this phone. Actually, they were not asked to, they were asked to remove the feature that automatically slows down retry attempts and then wipes the phone if still unsuccessful. According to the court records, Apple refused to do that so the FBI went to the courts for a remedy. That's how the system is supposed to work.
If Apple tried to charge an enormous fee like you suggest, it would probably result in additional Justice Department investigations into Apple and various practices. Remember the Samsung case that Apple lost, but then somehow won?
The government's relationship with Apple is a lot like it was with Saddam Hussein. As long as you do what they want, they protect you. Cross the line and they put their full force on you. Apple has billions in cash. Of course, if they get charged with something, the government could freeze those accounts and their accounts in countries that the US has treaties with.
As previously reported, Apple has unlocked phones for the FBI over 70 times. What is different about this one?
I am not saying that he used his government issued phone for planning any of this. However, it is his government issued phone that is locked and Apple is claiming it violates personal privacy if they unlock it.
My point was that on a government issued phone to a government employee, there is not personal privacy, whether phone, messages, email, etc. That has been decided by the courts long ago. If Apple doesn't want to unlock it fine, defy the court order. But don't claim it is for personal liberties of its users.
Furthermore, I do agree that there is FBI overreach here. It would be one thing to ask to unlock THIS phone. It is quite another to ask to be able to unlock EVERY phone. However, that is a separate issue from whether or not Apple should unlock this particular phone.
This is why I don't remove my shoes or jacket until they explicitly ask me to. I also always refuse the nudie cancer machine. They want to waste my time and take my dignity, so I waste their time and take their dignity as well
And the time of everybody else behind you in line. Thanks.
Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.
According to the article, this is a government issued phone, issued by his employer. As such, there is no "privacy" issue as anything on the phone belongs to the government. If this was his personal phone, that might be a different situation. But, now, after hearing this, it sounds like the government is asking Apple to allow them into their own phone that may have data related to a crime that one of their employees committed. That is not a personal privacy issue.
One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.
I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.
Yes, it does, but it has been held that the senate must meet to either give or deny consent. Not holding the hearing is a violation of Article II as it has been interpreted. Of course, Obama simply needs to wait until the senate is in recess and he can make a temporary appointment. Then the senate must address the issue when they return.
My point was that given the history of security in the information age, one should not assume that anything you store on a connected device is save. Regardless of the government gaining access, devices lack enough security for identity theft to be rampant.
Most people would not leave their valuables on the front seat of a locked vehicle because it is easy to gain access. The same is true for our phones and tablets. While that doesn't give somebody the right to your data, there is enough evidence to show that it is not adequately protected, backdoor or not. Therefore, if one is truly concerned with security and privacy, one does not store data on such devices.
It matters not whether people want to share it or not, one should assume that anything stored on these devices is not private.
You should re-read it, because it has everything to do with what you posted.
Where does the constitution obligate them to approve someone? What if it was the only person nominated? Well I guess that has to do? No way! THis isn't the first time that this has happened. It is just when the shoe is on the other foot, people want to bitch and moan.
Article II
The Democrats started it with Bork and they'll support the same thing if they control Congress, at which time some people will suddenly be okay with it.
You seem to be assuming that they have to consent to somebody. They do not.
No, the Democrats allowed the hearings to proceed. The Republicans are saying they will not even hold the hearings. There is a difference.
"That's not what they are threatening. They have been very public in stating they will not even debate the nominee. "
Under the Senate powers to advise the President on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court it would appear that they have the authority to advise the President that eight justices is sufficient for the time being. I am not aware of any obligation of the Senate to keep nine justices on the court, it's merely tradition.
1) The Senate takes an oath to uphold the constitution.
2) The Constitution states that the Senate must confirm or reject a Supreme Court nomination.
3) Blocking the appointment by not letting it out of committee for a vote is a violation of #1
But hey, the Constitution also allows the president to make a recess appointment, so unless Congress plans on staying in session each and every day until the next president takes office, well, there could easily be an appointment, albeit temporary. As for eight is enough, it could be, but one would think that the current vacancy shifts the balance to the left and the current Congress would not want that particularly with the cases coming up.
The only reason to explain them violating the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold would be pandering to their constituents -- at least the ones with deep pockets.
If the local authorities needed access to your house to save a life, they would just break in the door. They wouldn't need your keys. If police enter a home without probable cause or a warrant, then whatever they find cannot be used.
In the US, you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The shooters in CA, have been shown to be guilty, if they were still alive, they would still have rights, but being dead, it is hard to argue that they have the right to privacy, particularly if others might have been involved.
I want security, but if access to the data on the phone could potentially save lives, that seems pretty important too.
Well, if your phone has information which can save someone's life, then of course you have the option of unlocking it for the government. No one is forcing people to keep their phones locked. But Apple is giving people the choice.
What if you phone has information that can save someone's life, but you are dead and can't unlock it?
It isn't Apple that is protecting people. It is the constitution and law. The law says the data is protected unless a court deems your right to privacy is subordinate to public safety, which is the case, in this case. As such, what Apple is doing is determining that its views on privacy are more important than the constitution's. If you don't like how the law works, then work to change the law.
this is because the fbi screwed up on purpose and refused to use a very easy way to get the data to try and break American freedom to privacy
Actually, it was the county officials who screwed up and locked the phone, not the FBI.
Don't forget though, Ben Franklin is someone who never had his liberty or his safety threatened. It's an easy platitude when you've got both.
One would think that his involvement with the US Declaration of Independence, the revolution, etc., would certainly be evidence that he felt his safety and liberty were threatened.
Well said. We give up what little privacy we have left at our own peril.
Smart phones, like the iPhone, don't give up our privacy. We do, everytime we use them to post our whereabouts, pictures online, etc. The iPhone is just a device. We control the data we put on it or through it. Using the connect features of a smart phone and desiring privacy are an oxymoron. Put differently, those who truly value their privacy don't post their intimate details online, with or without a smart phone.
If the lack of security--due to government mandated back doors--allows for state sponsored persecution of innocents, enemy state or NGO attacks, etc. where would you stand then? You do grasp the concept that a security vulnerability may be exploited by any actor, at any time, not solely the "right and just" United States government after receiving a lawfully obtained court warrant?
Considering how much people divulge about themselves online these days, the government or other actors don't need a back door persecute the innocents. Maybe, if we want protection from prying eyes, we should be more conscious about what we put out for the world to see.
You must not be aware of prison work programs. Are you telling me all those prisoners want to make license plates and clean up litter as a hobby?
You find a way to put VW in prison and then we can discuss prison work programs. Until then, its a moot point.
The biggest reason why Apple would not help, other than the possibility that there is no help they are capable of offering (which is conceivable), is that by doing so, they would be confirming beyond any shadow of doubt that it is even actually possible.
The realization that something is physically possible is a *HUGE* incentive for some people to try and figure out how it is done, and if Apple can do it, then so can other people... people with much more nefarious intentions than even an untrustworthy government.
According to the WSJ, Apple has done this for the authorities some 70 times. They can keep the phone from wiping the data. They don't want to write a program so the FBI can do it on their onw.