I take this to mean you would have no problem with this ruling if instead of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff had been a business that was not incorporated and whose owners, on religious grounds, objected to providing "morning after" contraceptive products to their employees?
This belief is based, it appears, on the notion that corporations, unlike natural persons, don't have "rights". Is that correct?
However, this case was not decided on Constitutional grounds (i.e., the Free Exercise clause had nothing to do with the case) so "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. It was decided based on the terms of Federal statutory law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which raised the bar with respect to the level of justification the Federal needs to intrude on a person's religious beliefs coupled with the Dictionary Act's well known definition of how all Federal legislation is to be interpreted.
The RFRA refers to 'persons' without, as far as I can tell, any qualification to exclude corporations so the portion Dictionary Act which specifies
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— [...] the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
applies and the therefore the protections in the RFRA apply to corporations as well.
This is a simple question of legislative interpretation and there appears to be little room for debate. There is much yammering about the effect of the decision, but the court's should not, in a matter of statutory law, pay much attention to that and clearly should not override the legislators except in response to Constitutional issues or cases where there is ambiguity, conflict, or vagueness in the law which they must resolve because the legislative process did not.
If it is the will of the people to neuter this opinion, it can be done the same way the RFRA and Dictionary Act were instituted and amended over time -- via the legislative process. If that doesn't happen, then in a democratic society we can safely assume that it is not the will of the governed to do so.
Your characterization of Citizen's United is not complete.
Being "content neutral" (or, perhaps more correctly, "viewpoint neutral" -- fire, crowded theater and all that is considering content, but not of political speech) is necessary, but not sufficient, for a restriction that limits speech to pass constitutional muster.
Roughly speaking (I'm not a constitutional expert or a lawyer), there also has to be, at whatever level of scrutiny the court decides applies, sufficient (and, in practice, generally quite narrow) justification that a speech restriction furthers an important public good and that (depending on level of scrutiny applied) the one chosen is the narrowest possible restriction and there is no other possible solution that doesn't infringe on speech. Look to this week's abortion clinic buffer zone rejection. The justices decided that the ban was, in fact, viewpoint neutral (I don't agree with that, but then I'm no wearing a black robe so my opinion matters little). That didn't save the law though -- the flaw was that the ban was too broad and the government hadn't proven that it was the only solution or even a necessary measure.
In general, SCOTUS has upheld many campaign finance regulations (such as disclosure) on the grounds of preventing bribery and corruption -- NOT for the purpose of "leveling the playing field" (which is what most advocates of campaign finance regulations actually seem to desire).
I've not read Citizen's United in a while, but a main issue there, as I recall it, was that an individual living breathing human with a heartbeat can spend an unlimited amount of money backing a measure or a candidate -- as long as they don't coordinate with the campaign (unless, of course, they are the candidate spending their own money). Citizen's United decided that corporations and organizations had similar rights (being composed of, at their core, humans).
And, the ability and desire to prosecute someone for violating a constitutional law is up to law enforcement and proprietorial discretion. Ayers wasn't "allowed" to do what he did -- he just didn't get prosecuted for it.
The political speech workaround won't work. Mostly because these rules by the FAA are content neutral. You can't burn down a government building and sucessfully claim a "free speech" exemption from arson laws just because you used lighter fluid to spell out your "I hate government" message on the building, lit it, and posted a picture of the start of the fire with your message clearly visible in flames.
That depends on how one defined athletic pursuits.
People get seriously injured (body casts, permanent significant disabilities etc) when skydiving due to, for example, hook turns w/o sufficient altitude, or partial malfunctions they misjudge and ride down, or dust devils they get caught in at low altitude. These sort of things are much rarer in sports such as soccer, tennis, baseball, golf (if that counts as a athletic pursuit), recreational skiing (vs. "extreme" skiing). Skydiving is not as high risk as the general public thinks it is, but risk of serious injury is higher than for most "usual" sports.
One has to consider not the general population (as a very small percentage of the general population skydives and only a fairly small percentage mountain bikes) but only the population engaging in the activity. And, I've seen a much higher injury rate among participants in both than in the sit at home and watch TV crowd.
As far as cigarettes, they are not nearly as harmful to old people who take up late in life as they are likely to die of something unrelated before of something related to smoking -- probably there should be a tax waiver for old smokers.
Well, flab is pretty well known to cause health problems - that ought to be taxed, then there would be no need to tax the activities that lead to it. A weighin once a year at your local revenue office (along with a DNA swab to make sure people are not cheating) should work well.
In the US an ER is not required to treat people for non-emergency care if they can't pay. For liability reasons they probably find it prudent to examine those with what appear to be flu symptoms just in case they are in a life threatening situation (severely dehydrated for example) or if there's really an additional life threatening problem that the flu may be masking.
However, it seems it would have required a giant conspiracy to "let sleeping dogs lie" for about 50 years among almost everyone in the country (it also seems odd that a lot of people wanted the incorporation doctrine interpretation -- just not during their lifetime so they could benefit from it). I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories - esp. those that require the silent, but willing, participation of millions of people.
Else, it seems someone (or, more likely many - including those already in prison for violation of such laws) would have, the day after ratification, started lawsuits to strike down various laws that would be unconstitutional under the incorporation doctrine
Did these cases flood the courts and no lower court sided with the plaintiffs and SCOTUS denied cert on all of them as they wound their way through the system? I truly don't know the answer to this, but I've never heard this happened.
Because the people at the time wanted the wrong interpretation. It slowed transition and was more palatable.
So, the amendment that was passed with the consent of the people (via their state legislators) was interpreted for the first 50 or so years as they thought it was meant to be -- but they didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way? Huh?
The logic of your argument (assuming you believe in a generally democratic process) escapes me.
If the interpretation by the courts was so fatally flawed for the first 50+ years, wouldn't you think there would have been immediate and widespread outrage and the historical record would reflect this as a major political issue at that time? I don't recall reading of such outrage. Why didn't we almost immediately see a move for another amendment to clarify that the Fourteenth Amendment was really intended to also bind state and local governments to all provisions of the BoR (except, until recently, the Second Amendment for some odd reason)?
It takes quite a majority to pass an amendment so it's not like it was just a couple politicians who pushed it through in the dark of the night via parliamentary tricks without being noticed.
Don't you find it odd that the Incorporation Doctrine only took off after the vast majority of the politicians who were behind its passage were no longer alive to argue "Umm, no, that's not what we thought it meant when we backed it"?
Although, the courts can use "legislative history" and the like in their interpretation.
For example the PPACA law which, as written, does not allow low income individuals to receive federal subsidies for their health care if they signed up on the Federal exchange (because their state didn't implement an exchange). This is clearly not a scrivener's error, but the SCOTUS may find that the legislative history coupled with slightly ambiguous wording (to one looking in the penumbras of the law for such ambiguity!) indicates that the "intent" of the legislators was to include subsidies for the Federal exchanges also.
True, but having a PhD does not infer a special privilege to violate employer policy. A Walmart checker with a PhD isn't exempt from any requirement to wear the stylish blue vest (or shirt or whatever they must wear) while on the job by the fact they have a PhD.
Agreed - I picked a bad example due to its possible problem with the establishment clause.
However, substitute an economics teacher "stating that socialism is a better system than capitalism" or "stating that higher taxes on the 1% and increased income redistribution would benefit all" when the approved curriculum states something like "no preferences for alternative economic systems or structures shall be stated by the teacher". Assume that there are no state, county, or local laws that preclude this restriction.
Same argument applies and Constitutional issues are eliminated (employees do not have a general right of free speech under the First Amendment while performing duties for their employer). In this case, if the teacher persists in stating such opinions after being warned, he should be quickly fired just as a Walmart checker should be who stated such opinions while checking out customers if Walmart employment rules stated that employees were not to share their political views with customers while they were "on the clock".
And, the "original wording" is unchanged, activist judges reinterpreted it long after it was amended to the Constitution.
It's telling that this didn't happen immediately after its passage when everyone involved its passage was still around to point out that it said what it meant and meant what it said. Instead the reinterpretation started just about when every adult alive when it was ratified was no longer available to explain what they understood it to mean.
Teachers are supposed to teach the approved curriculum. If they teach something else, yes, they should be fired.
The stupid decision to teach creationism as science is a political decision -- but it's not one for employees of the schools to override, that's for the voters and perhaps the courts.
Suppose the approved curriculum was to teach, correctly, evolution and discuss creationism only in religious history classes. Suppose a bunch of "science" teachers began to teach creationism as fact and not even mention evolution. Would you have the same belief that these teachers shouldn't be fired (at least if they had survived the two years it takes to get tenure in California?)
K-12 teachers are there to teach what they are told to teach. If they don't want to do that, they can find another job. The notion of "academic freedom" is ridiculous at that level -- if they want tenure, they should get their PhD and get a job in academia which includes tenure if they are good enough (most aren't of course).
If Comcast assigns a different IP address to wireless users than to the hosting wired user, there wouldn't be any confusion over if the wired user or a wireless user downloaded evil files.
Unless Comcast assigns a unique IP address to each wireless user (which I suspect they won't on IPV4) sorting out which, of possibly many, wireless users connected at the time of the download may require more tracking -- which I suspect Comcast will do.
I would assume only Comcast ISP subscribers would be able to access the 'public' WiFi network. Why wouldn't whatever a WiFi user consumes be 'charged' against the data cap on their wired connection?
First of all, at this point, it is misguided to talk about x86 as an architecture; there is generally little or no architectural overlap between two x86 processors that are a few generation apart. x86 is an instruction set, or even more correct, a family of instruction sets.
I don't disagree with this technically, but in common usage the term "architecture" has become to, depending on context, mean just the externally visible characteristics of a processor family independent of internal implementations. Mostly this is the instruction set (including memory model, side effects, undefined ops/fields -- all the behavior that is externally visible to software and, to some extent, interfacing hardware at an architectural level). It bugs me too, but I've come to accept it - terms morph sometimes becoming ambiguous w/o context.
Because we think that it means they won't get dates until they are mature enough to not do something stupid that results in a baby geek being born to a 16 year old who then never gets around to going to college?
(Although, I hear that in some schools geeks are "in" now -- maybe it's safer to aspire to have your kid be a dolt in those schools!)
Being over two decades older than you, I recall some of the microprocessor battles:)
The x86 instruction set is really quite a mess -- for some of the same reasons it's been a success. The company made what was largely a marketing decision (correctly) to maintain high levels of compatibility between generations - but that resulted in the mess we have now. Once Intel had volume (mostly thanks to the IBM PC adopting the 8088), they then had the money to fund massive efforts to crank out ever faster designs even with the cruft tacked on. Intel has been able to fund such development not because the architecture was particularly better, but because they built enormous volume on the shoulders of the PC. Interestingly, as a result, Intel was able to withstand such colossal disasters as the Itanium (as well as other smaller disasters). The story is a bit more similar to the Betamax vs. VHS story than one of pure technical excellence.
It's really (I think) impossible to love the x86 instruction set -- one tolerates it and accepts it understanding how it got that way. Fortunately, not many developers (except for those building compilers) have to deal with it anymore except when debugging.
For the youngsters out there, Wikipedia has an interesting article that includes some history of the Intel microprocessor we know today. Bob Noyce apparently initially wasn't interested in the building a microprocessor for the Datapoint machine (I programmed on one of those - a later one than the 2200 whose model number I forget and can't find quickly online) but changed his mind - if he hadn't, you might be saying the same thing about a TI microprocessor family that you are saying about the x86 family.
BTW, I don't see that x86 microprocessor architecture had a meaningful relationship to Y2K. Y2K may have spurred replacement of some old systems that didn't use x86 processors with those that did. But they were not replaced because they used another processor -- mostly they would have been replaced even if they had been running an 8088. Also, they were replaced with the common machine of the time - which often happened to be a x86 based machine. SPARC, PowerPC, and all the other architectures were perfectly capable of handing Y2K and all that were still being sold, did (and had for many years) support Y2K (of course, absolutely no changes were required in the hardware to do so).
Slashdot Mirror
I take this to mean you would have no problem with this ruling if instead of Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff had been a business that was not incorporated and whose owners, on religious grounds, objected to providing "morning after" contraceptive products to their employees?
This belief is based, it appears, on the notion that corporations, unlike natural persons, don't have "rights". Is that correct?
However, this case was not decided on Constitutional grounds (i.e., the Free Exercise clause had nothing to do with the case) so "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it. It was decided based on the terms of Federal statutory law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which raised the bar with respect to the level of justification the Federal needs to intrude on a person's religious beliefs coupled with the Dictionary Act's well known definition of how all Federal legislation is to be interpreted.
The RFRA refers to 'persons' without, as far as I can tell, any qualification to exclude corporations so the portion Dictionary Act which specifies
applies and the therefore the protections in the RFRA apply to corporations as well.
This is a simple question of legislative interpretation and there appears to be little room for debate. There is much yammering about the effect of the decision, but the court's should not, in a matter of statutory law, pay much attention to that and clearly should not override the legislators except in response to Constitutional issues or cases where there is ambiguity, conflict, or vagueness in the law which they must resolve because the legislative process did not.
If it is the will of the people to neuter this opinion, it can be done the same way the RFRA and Dictionary Act were instituted and amended over time -- via the legislative process. If that doesn't happen, then in a democratic society we can safely assume that it is not the will of the governed to do so.
Your characterization of Citizen's United is not complete.
Being "content neutral" (or, perhaps more correctly, "viewpoint neutral" -- fire, crowded theater and all that is considering content, but not of political speech) is necessary, but not sufficient, for a restriction that limits speech to pass constitutional muster.
Roughly speaking (I'm not a constitutional expert or a lawyer), there also has to be, at whatever level of scrutiny the court decides applies, sufficient (and, in practice, generally quite narrow) justification that a speech restriction furthers an important public good and that (depending on level of scrutiny applied) the one chosen is the narrowest possible restriction and there is no other possible solution that doesn't infringe on speech. Look to this week's abortion clinic buffer zone rejection. The justices decided that the ban was, in fact, viewpoint neutral (I don't agree with that, but then I'm no wearing a black robe so my opinion matters little). That didn't save the law though -- the flaw was that the ban was too broad and the government hadn't proven that it was the only solution or even a necessary measure.
In general, SCOTUS has upheld many campaign finance regulations (such as disclosure) on the grounds of preventing bribery and corruption -- NOT for the purpose of "leveling the playing field" (which is what most advocates of campaign finance regulations actually seem to desire).
I've not read Citizen's United in a while, but a main issue there, as I recall it, was that an individual living breathing human with a heartbeat can spend an unlimited amount of money backing a measure or a candidate -- as long as they don't coordinate with the campaign (unless, of course, they are the candidate spending their own money). Citizen's United decided that corporations and organizations had similar rights (being composed of, at their core, humans).
And, the ability and desire to prosecute someone for violating a constitutional law is up to law enforcement and proprietorial discretion. Ayers wasn't "allowed" to do what he did -- he just didn't get prosecuted for it.
The political speech workaround won't work. Mostly because these rules by the FAA are content neutral. You can't burn down a government building and sucessfully claim a "free speech" exemption from arson laws just because you used lighter fluid to spell out your "I hate government" message on the building, lit it, and posted a picture of the start of the fire with your message clearly visible in flames.
That depends on how one defined athletic pursuits.
People get seriously injured (body casts, permanent significant disabilities etc) when skydiving due to, for example, hook turns w/o sufficient altitude, or partial malfunctions they misjudge and ride down, or dust devils they get caught in at low altitude. These sort of things are much rarer in sports such as soccer, tennis, baseball, golf (if that counts as a athletic pursuit), recreational skiing (vs. "extreme" skiing). Skydiving is not as high risk as the general public thinks it is, but risk of serious injury is higher than for most "usual" sports.
One has to consider not the general population (as a very small percentage of the general population skydives and only a fairly small percentage mountain bikes) but only the population engaging in the activity. And, I've seen a much higher injury rate among participants in both than in the sit at home and watch TV crowd.
As far as cigarettes, they are not nearly as harmful to old people who take up late in life as they are likely to die of something unrelated before of something related to smoking -- probably there should be a tax waiver for old smokers.
Well, flab is pretty well known to cause health problems - that ought to be taxed, then there would be no need to tax the activities that lead to it. A weighin once a year at your local revenue office (along with a DNA swab to make sure people are not cheating) should work well.
In the US an ER is not required to treat people for non-emergency care if they can't pay. For liability reasons they probably find it prudent to examine those with what appear to be flu symptoms just in case they are in a life threatening situation (severely dehydrated for example) or if there's really an additional life threatening problem that the flu may be masking.
Is there a per jump tax on skydiving or how do you'll handle that?
Is there a per mile tax on mountain biking or how do you'll handle that.
Is there a tax on watching TV (instead of exercising)? On reading (instead of exercising)?
Is there a tax on flab?
How, exactly, does all this work?
It's not unbelievable.
However, it seems it would have required a giant conspiracy to "let sleeping dogs lie" for about 50 years among almost everyone in the country (it also seems odd that a lot of people wanted the incorporation doctrine interpretation -- just not during their lifetime so they could benefit from it). I tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories - esp. those that require the silent, but willing, participation of millions of people.
Else, it seems someone (or, more likely many - including those already in prison for violation of such laws) would have, the day after ratification, started lawsuits to strike down various laws that would be unconstitutional under the incorporation doctrine
Did these cases flood the courts and no lower court sided with the plaintiffs and SCOTUS denied cert on all of them as they wound their way through the system? I truly don't know the answer to this, but I've never heard this happened.
So, the amendment that was passed with the consent of the people (via their state legislators) was interpreted for the first 50 or so years as they thought it was meant to be -- but they didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way? Huh?
The logic of your argument (assuming you believe in a generally democratic process) escapes me.
If the interpretation by the courts was so fatally flawed for the first 50+ years, wouldn't you think there would have been immediate and widespread outrage and the historical record would reflect this as a major political issue at that time? I don't recall reading of such outrage. Why didn't we almost immediately see a move for another amendment to clarify that the Fourteenth Amendment was really intended to also bind state and local governments to all provisions of the BoR (except, until recently, the Second Amendment for some odd reason)?
It takes quite a majority to pass an amendment so it's not like it was just a couple politicians who pushed it through in the dark of the night via parliamentary tricks without being noticed.
Don't you find it odd that the Incorporation Doctrine only took off after the vast majority of the politicians who were behind its passage were no longer alive to argue "Umm, no, that's not what we thought it meant when we backed it"?
Similar to agile development principles.
Although, the courts can use "legislative history" and the like in their interpretation.
For example the PPACA law which, as written, does not allow low income individuals to receive federal subsidies for their health care if they signed up on the Federal exchange (because their state didn't implement an exchange). This is clearly not a scrivener's error, but the SCOTUS may find that the legislative history coupled with slightly ambiguous wording (to one looking in the penumbras of the law for such ambiguity!) indicates that the "intent" of the legislators was to include subsidies for the Federal exchanges also.
True, but having a PhD does not infer a special privilege to violate employer policy. A Walmart checker with a PhD isn't exempt from any requirement to wear the stylish blue vest (or shirt or whatever they must wear) while on the job by the fact they have a PhD.
Agreed - I picked a bad example due to its possible problem with the establishment clause.
However, substitute an economics teacher "stating that socialism is a better system than capitalism" or "stating that higher taxes on the 1% and increased income redistribution would benefit all" when the approved curriculum states something like "no preferences for alternative economic systems or structures shall be stated by the teacher". Assume that there are no state, county, or local laws that preclude this restriction.
Same argument applies and Constitutional issues are eliminated (employees do not have a general right of free speech under the First Amendment while performing duties for their employer). In this case, if the teacher persists in stating such opinions after being warned, he should be quickly fired just as a Walmart checker should be who stated such opinions while checking out customers if Walmart employment rules stated that employees were not to share their political views with customers while they were "on the clock".
Very true. A.k.a.the Incorporation Doctrine.
And, the "original wording" is unchanged, activist judges reinterpreted it long after it was amended to the Constitution.
It's telling that this didn't happen immediately after its passage when everyone involved its passage was still around to point out that it said what it meant and meant what it said. Instead the reinterpretation started just about when every adult alive when it was ratified was no longer available to explain what they understood it to mean.
Teachers are supposed to teach the approved curriculum. If they teach something else, yes, they should be fired.
The stupid decision to teach creationism as science is a political decision -- but it's not one for employees of the schools to override, that's for the voters and perhaps the courts.
Suppose the approved curriculum was to teach, correctly, evolution and discuss creationism only in religious history classes. Suppose a bunch of "science" teachers began to teach creationism as fact and not even mention evolution. Would you have the same belief that these teachers shouldn't be fired (at least if they had survived the two years it takes to get tenure in California?)
K-12 teachers are there to teach what they are told to teach. If they don't want to do that, they can find another job. The notion of "academic freedom" is ridiculous at that level -- if they want tenure, they should get their PhD and get a job in academia which includes tenure if they are good enough (most aren't of course).
Opt out (and, presumably, that also opts you out of accessing the Comcast WiFi 'network').
If Comcast assigns a different IP address to wireless users than to the hosting wired user, there wouldn't be any confusion over if the wired user or a wireless user downloaded evil files.
Unless Comcast assigns a unique IP address to each wireless user (which I suspect they won't on IPV4) sorting out which, of possibly many, wireless users connected at the time of the download may require more tracking -- which I suspect Comcast will do.
Anything that isn't illegal is legal -- that's how the system works in the US.
What about this is illegal? If you can't answer that, you have your answer.
I would assume only Comcast ISP subscribers would be able to access the 'public' WiFi network. Why wouldn't whatever a WiFi user consumes be 'charged' against the data cap on their wired connection?
I don't disagree with this technically, but in common usage the term "architecture" has become to, depending on context, mean just the externally visible characteristics of a processor family independent of internal implementations. Mostly this is the instruction set (including memory model, side effects, undefined ops/fields -- all the behavior that is externally visible to software and, to some extent, interfacing hardware at an architectural level). It bugs me too, but I've come to accept it - terms morph sometimes becoming ambiguous w/o context.
For example, if one looks at the document titled The SPARC Architecture Manual Version 9 (© 1994), one finds a description of the instruction set and a little about hardware issues like MMU:Processor interactions. About the only hint of "architecture" as you (and I used to before I gave up worrying about it) consider it appears in notes like "IMPL. DEP. #: xxx" and these only implicitly acknowledge that underlying implementations may not all be the same.
Because we think that it means they won't get dates until they are mature enough to not do something stupid that results in a baby geek being born to a 16 year old who then never gets around to going to college?
(Although, I hear that in some schools geeks are "in" now -- maybe it's safer to aspire to have your kid be a dolt in those schools!)
Being over two decades older than you, I recall some of the microprocessor battles :)
The x86 instruction set is really quite a mess -- for some of the same reasons it's been a success. The company made what was largely a marketing decision (correctly) to maintain high levels of compatibility between generations - but that resulted in the mess we have now. Once Intel had volume (mostly thanks to the IBM PC adopting the 8088), they then had the money to fund massive efforts to crank out ever faster designs even with the cruft tacked on. Intel has been able to fund such development not because the architecture was particularly better, but because they built enormous volume on the shoulders of the PC. Interestingly, as a result, Intel was able to withstand such colossal disasters as the Itanium (as well as other smaller disasters). The story is a bit more similar to the Betamax vs. VHS story than one of pure technical excellence.
It's really (I think) impossible to love the x86 instruction set -- one tolerates it and accepts it understanding how it got that way. Fortunately, not many developers (except for those building compilers) have to deal with it anymore except when debugging.
For the youngsters out there, Wikipedia has an interesting article that includes some history of the Intel microprocessor we know today. Bob Noyce apparently initially wasn't interested in the building a microprocessor for the Datapoint machine (I programmed on one of those - a later one than the 2200 whose model number I forget and can't find quickly online) but changed his mind - if he hadn't, you might be saying the same thing about a TI microprocessor family that you are saying about the x86 family.
BTW, I don't see that x86 microprocessor architecture had a meaningful relationship to Y2K. Y2K may have spurred replacement of some old systems that didn't use x86 processors with those that did. But they were not replaced because they used another processor -- mostly they would have been replaced even if they had been running an 8088. Also, they were replaced with the common machine of the time - which often happened to be a x86 based machine. SPARC, PowerPC, and all the other architectures were perfectly capable of handing Y2K and all that were still being sold, did (and had for many years) support Y2K (of course, absolutely no changes were required in the hardware to do so).
Do you think that when you're in Apple's walled garden that you're not also under constant surveillance, recorded for later use?