He provides some background and comments from companies effected by the attacks. And he offers some opposing views from SANS and Symantec Corp. on whether this is a serious concern or not.
In regard to the prior suit by the Apple-authorized resellers:
If Apple is truly engaging in unlawful (or unfair) business practices, or broken a contract, such as underpricing their product sales to their stores, then the the resellers may have a claim.
But is that really the only problem?
There was previously an Apple-authorized reseller near my home. The store went out of business three or four years ago. Prior to that, I shopped there on occasion but generally found that there prices were much higher than what I would find online. Most of what I bought there was used components or inexpensive items that weren't worth the shipping costs (if bought online). Part of the reason I shopped there is that I philosophically believe it is a could idea to spend money with locally-owned retailers. In doing so, I expect that some prices might be higher, but they have to be reasonable.
A couple of days ago I stopped in an Apple-owned retail store. Standing at the entrance, the store reminded me of a museum, and I entered quietly, slightly in awe at all the well lit hardware (a.k.a art) on display. A dozen or so employees were working, all dressed in black. It was 10 or 15 minutes before one of them approached me. I must admit that I was not in a hurry. I'm definitely an Apple-geek, and I felt like I had came home to my people. Next time I'll wear a black shirt.
I was interested in buying a mini and a couple of unrelated accessories - none of which they had in-stock. After the employee checked to make sure that there was no returns that were available, he went off to do other things. He made no attempt to ask me if I was interested in anything else or to show me any possible options. While I was there I noticed little or no effort to sell anything, and the other non-employees seemed like they were mostly browsing.
The store is located in a very fancy, very expensive mall. The rent is likely well in excess of $10,000 a month. Factor in the wages of a dozen or so employees and other expenses, and that's a fair amount of sales each month, just to cover expenses.
However, if a significant purpose of the store is to provide a mundane-world presence for Apple, then the cost of the store can largely be marked up to advertising or customer service expense. And that's a bookkeeping line item that a locally-owned retailer could not absorb.
The playing field may not be level, but isn't that at least partly due to the different businesses models.
I'd like it to be in Apple's best interest to support resellers, and I think that they would have to in order to significantly expand their market share. But whether or not Apple caters to them, seems to me to be mainly a business decision. It's only a legal one if Apple is shown to be in violation of a contractual agreement with the Apple-authorized resellers.
"Department representatives have said many times in the past that their contractors never received data."
"In September 2003, Wired News asked TSA spokesman Nico Melendez whether those four contractors had used real passenger records to test and develop their systems. Melendez denied it, saying, 'We have only used dummy data to this point.'"
On Monday the TSA did release a non-statement, saying nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
which to me is not that new.
Nothing exists until the mainstream media notices it. It's new to them so it must me new to everyone else.
Wrote about this today in his blog:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/
He provides some background and comments from companies effected by the attacks. And he offers some opposing views from SANS and Symantec Corp. on whether this is a serious concern or not.
In regard to the prior suit by the Apple-authorized resellers:
If Apple is truly engaging in unlawful (or unfair) business practices, or broken a contract, such as underpricing their product sales to their stores, then the the resellers may have a claim.
But is that really the only problem?
There was previously an Apple-authorized reseller near my home. The store went out of business three or four years ago. Prior to that, I shopped there on occasion but generally found that there prices were much higher than what I would find online. Most of what I bought there was used components or inexpensive items that weren't worth the shipping costs (if bought online). Part of the reason I shopped there is that I philosophically believe it is a could idea to spend money with locally-owned retailers. In doing so, I expect that some prices might be higher, but they have to be reasonable.
A couple of days ago I stopped in an Apple-owned retail store. Standing at the entrance, the store reminded me of a museum, and I entered quietly, slightly in awe at all the well lit hardware (a.k.a art) on display. A dozen or so employees were working, all dressed in black. It was 10 or 15 minutes before one of them approached me. I must admit that I was not in a hurry. I'm definitely an Apple-geek, and I felt like I had came home to my people. Next time I'll wear a black shirt.
I was interested in buying a mini and a couple of unrelated accessories - none of which they had in-stock. After the employee checked to make sure that there was no returns that were available, he went off to do other things. He made no attempt to ask me if I was interested in anything else or to show me any possible options. While I was there I noticed little or no effort to sell anything, and the other non-employees seemed like they were mostly browsing.
The store is located in a very fancy, very expensive mall. The rent is likely well in excess of $10,000 a month. Factor in the wages of a dozen or so employees and other expenses, and that's a fair amount of sales each month, just to cover expenses.
However, if a significant purpose of the store is to provide a mundane-world presence for Apple, then the cost of the store can largely be marked up to advertising or customer service expense. And that's a bookkeeping line item that a locally-owned retailer could not absorb.
The playing field may not be level, but isn't that at least partly due to the different businesses models.
I'd like it to be in Apple's best interest to support resellers, and I think that they would have to in order to significantly expand their market share. But whether or not Apple caters to them, seems to me to be mainly a business decision. It's only a legal one if Apple is shown to be in violation of a contractual agreement with the Apple-authorized resellers.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has repeatedly issued false statements about CAPPS II and stonewalls on release of Freedom of Information Act requests, Wired News is reporting.
An excerpt from the article -
On Monday the TSA did release a non-statement, saying nothing.