"Why would we destroy ZTE over some small infraction rather than have them pay a fine?"
Because loss of the US market couldn't come close to destroying ZTE. And possibly because of their acknowledgment and payment of US based IP they've used on a world wide basis for years may be more profitable for us. And possibly to keep the market oscillating until election time.
Because we all know what will win the next election, not ideals, but our retirement account performances.
"These numbers will tell us just how often governments are trying to block access to certain apps, and how many of those orders are actually obeyed."
Not even close. Those numbers tell us about court orders that they are allowed to disclose. It tells us nothing about orders that they are prevented to disclose even happened or the quantity of such orders.
" Governments also requested information on 3,358 Apple accounts, and data was provided in 82 percent of cases."
Except, when they are even prohibited from disclosing there was even a request for disclosure. See above, wash.. rinse.. repeat. These numbers mean nothing.
Turn their back on local and state LEA that use and purchase "cell-simulators" that break multiple federal laws regarding spectrum allocation and type accepted equipment use without even discussing privacy issues, AND WE PAY STUPID money for them, AND the agencies are prohibited by an EULA to even admit they posses these devices. HOW DOES THAT WORK? That's even worse than a commercial entity breaking the law.
Back then I resisted "webmail" as Yahoo and Hotmail's TOS were ridiculous, worse than their bloated interface. I thoroughly read Google's and understood that my mail would be used for their spam filter (useful then), malware (useless for me) and to target ads and I could still use POP3/IMAP if I chose.
10 years later the TOS was updated to clarify the fact that the same data would be used for other of their services that I opted to use. At that point, they may have made it more clear that they would parse the data throughout their products, but it didn't change the original TOS, it just updated and clarified it to the brain-dead.
And surely, my long-term memory is better than (my) short term:-)
" My recollection is that they denied reading people's email for years and in 2012 "
Well, I've used Gmail since it was invite only service. It's always been disclosed that your mail would be parsed by algorithms for experimentation, targeted ads from their network and to improve user experience and services. I also remember disclosure of the fact that the content used was never processed with an identifier (that could be seen by human eyes) with attributes identifying the account. That was the deal when it was "Beta" and it's never been altered without notification. Each updated notification was due to newer available service or technology that I chose to utilize and followed the same permissive use of my data in return for use of the optional service.
I've benefited from the deal, so have they. More importantly, they've kept up their end for years and have proven to be trusted. So there's no invasion of privacy that wasn't permissive.
ZTE had been a major international producer long before entering the US market. I doubt elimination from the US market makes it insolvent by any means. Whereas the US market may have possibly been the most profitable, they didn't play nice and got kicked off the playground. Boohoo, wake up, they're just another arm of the party.
". To Stallman,. proprietary software is EVIL, an evil which must be defeated."
Without freely distributed code we'd all be running windows fucking 10, sold and subjugated worse than BookFace. Proprietary software isn't evil, just a good proportion of the creators are. Without BSD's starting distribution of a high quality OS able to control X8* hardware, we'd all be fucked. As far as proprietary software needing to be defeated, well seems it's in the design.
" If I say to you "I might be committing fraud" (that some exchanges do), and I do, my statement does not absolve me."
And likewise, being a participant (after hearing that type of disclosure) doesn't absolve you, it actually confirms your complicity of any/all fraud thereafter committed.
If you trust your money with BOA, you are a fool. They're full blown criminals who enjoy toying with their clients money and trust. When they're caught they figure the fine was cheap enough... rinse, dry and repeat.
A trusted, decentralized, secure and liquid blockchain is something bankers (and the Fed) need to be scared of. I believe we now are seeing demonstrative examples of such systems. I also believe it's in the best interest of the banking community to either participate in, or assure these create huge losses for current participants, securing their job stability. The last thing bankers want to deal with is having to pony up (and not earn from) their float.
That they are. They aren't required to maintain an orderly market (fill orders at best available price at that time). They're not required to post a bid/ask that they can't front run and they can buy and sell from their own account when there's better pricing available.
This allows them to manipulate the spread that a listed or transparent market automatically corrects.
The main issue is front running and not being required to maintain an orderly market. Spot sellers need to provide their own lubricant.
All they need is one weak link, one participant mandated against disclosure. They already have this, and have had this for years. The sad thing is that we have had the ability to protect our private communication from third parties for a little longer. PGP is secure and the infrastructure has been in place for 15 years or so.
The fact that people don't secure their communication and data with strong crypto is just plain laziness and a gift for the jackboots.
This book hasn't been released yet. The link provides a short quote and opinions about the context without sufficient information to be useful for anything but marketing hype. The link is an advertorial designed to generate hype.
And, why would you want to run a high performance OS virtualized on a bloated OS when you can virtualize the bloated OS on top of the high performance OS that has provided this ability for years?
90% of those infected will wonder how they got "hacked" and probably the same percentage won't change their behavior or implement any protective process. Next time they'll pay or loose data and still be just as clueless.
I would imagine that they will be "enticing" or migrating all desktop users to their cloud with the goal of eventually eliminating air-gapped desktop functionality and executable / product delivery. Then, once again they'll have free reign to rape and pillage. Service fees for everything, storage, CPU access time, and various "value added services" (like anything more than notebook).
One would think that their user base would wake up after all the bloated, invasive, insecure and underperforming product they've been using or "upgraded" to, but possibly they're just used to it.
"Communists also do not believe in God" And neither do a good proportion of intelligent, educated people in all other economic systems.
The only difference is politicians who seem to always acknowledge existence of a deity to ingratiate themselves to masses. It's incredible how for we've be able to progress with the acknowledgment and acceptance of such prevalent ignorance.
Wrong. If they work, they're felons. If they entered without permission, they're felons. If they let their visa expire and did nothing about it, felons.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why would we destroy ZTE over some small infraction rather than have them pay a fine?"
Because loss of the US market couldn't come close to destroying ZTE. And possibly because of their acknowledgment and payment of US based IP they've used on a world wide basis for years may be more profitable for us. And possibly to keep the market oscillating until election time.
Because we all know what will win the next election, not ideals, but our retirement account performances.
They didn't learn too well..
"These numbers will tell us just how often governments are trying to block access to certain apps, and how many of those orders are actually obeyed."
Not even close. Those numbers tell us about court orders that they are allowed to disclose. It tells us nothing about orders that they are prevented to disclose even happened or the quantity of such orders.
" Governments also requested information on 3,358 Apple accounts, and data was provided in 82 percent of cases."
Except, when they are even prohibited from disclosing there was even a request for disclosure. See above, wash.. rinse.. repeat. These numbers mean nothing.
Turn their back on local and state LEA that use and purchase "cell-simulators" that break multiple federal laws regarding spectrum allocation and type accepted equipment use without even discussing privacy issues, AND WE PAY STUPID money for them, AND the agencies are prohibited by an EULA to even admit they posses these devices. HOW DOES THAT WORK? That's even worse than a commercial entity breaking the law.
Back then I resisted "webmail" as Yahoo and Hotmail's TOS were ridiculous, worse than their bloated interface. I thoroughly read Google's and understood that my mail would be used for their spam filter (useful then), malware (useless for me) and to target ads and I could still use POP3/IMAP if I chose.
10 years later the TOS was updated to clarify the fact that the same data would be used for other of their services that I opted to use. At that point, they may have made it more clear that they would parse the data throughout their products, but it didn't change the original TOS, it just updated and clarified it to the brain-dead.
And surely, my long-term memory is better than (my) short term:-)
" My recollection is that they denied reading people's email for years and in 2012 "
Well, I've used Gmail since it was invite only service. It's always been disclosed that your mail would be parsed by algorithms for experimentation, targeted ads from their network and to improve user experience and services. I also remember disclosure of the fact that the content used was never processed with an identifier (that could be seen by human eyes) with attributes identifying the account. That was the deal when it was "Beta" and it's never been altered without notification. Each updated notification was due to newer available service or technology that I chose to utilize and followed the same permissive use of my data in return for use of the optional service.
I've benefited from the deal, so have they. More importantly, they've kept up their end for years and have proven to be trusted. So there's no invasion of privacy that wasn't permissive.
ZTE had been a major international producer long before entering the US market. I doubt elimination from the US market makes it insolvent by any means. Whereas the US market may have possibly been the most profitable, they didn't play nice and got kicked off the playground. Boohoo, wake up, they're just another arm of the party.
". To Stallman,. proprietary software is EVIL, an evil which must be defeated."
Without freely distributed code we'd all be running windows fucking 10, sold and subjugated worse than BookFace. Proprietary software isn't evil, just a good proportion of the creators are. Without BSD's starting distribution of a high quality OS able to control X8* hardware, we'd all be fucked. As far as proprietary software needing to be defeated, well seems it's in the design.
"No, 1000 calories from potatoes or parsnips are not good for you."
Until you cover them with chilli, cheese and bacon! Now you're eating healthy.
Yes, just what we need. Experienced, professional sharks trading in an unregulated market where they can make their own rules. Would you trust them?
" If I say to you "I might be committing fraud" (that some exchanges do), and I do, my statement does not absolve me."
And likewise, being a participant (after hearing that type of disclosure) doesn't absolve you, it actually confirms your complicity of any/all fraud thereafter committed.
If you trust your money with BOA, you are a fool. They're full blown criminals who enjoy toying with their clients money and trust. When they're caught they figure the fine was cheap enough... rinse, dry and repeat.
Hazen Audel dove with these people on season 3 episode 1 called "Trial by Ocean". And, they're not really Nomads. Pretty interesting watch.
A trusted, decentralized, secure and liquid blockchain is something bankers (and the Fed) need to be scared of. I believe we now are seeing demonstrative examples of such systems. I also believe it's in the best interest of the banking community to either participate in, or assure these create huge losses for current participants, securing their job stability. The last thing bankers want to deal with is having to pony up (and not earn from) their float.
"Far from being unregulated,"
That they are. They aren't required to maintain an orderly market (fill orders at best available price at that time). They're not required to post a bid/ask that they can't front run and they can buy and sell from their own account when there's better pricing available.
This allows them to manipulate the spread that a listed or transparent market automatically corrects.
The main issue is front running and not being required to maintain an orderly market. Spot sellers need to provide their own lubricant.
All they need is one weak link, one participant mandated against disclosure. They already have this, and have had this for years. The sad thing is that we have had the ability to protect our private communication from third parties for a little longer. PGP is secure and the infrastructure has been in place for 15 years or so.
The fact that people don't secure their communication and data with strong crypto is just plain laziness and a gift for the jackboots.
This book hasn't been released yet. The link provides a short quote and opinions about the context without sufficient information to be useful for anything but marketing hype. The link is an advertorial designed to generate hype.
And, why would you want to run a high performance OS virtualized on a bloated OS when you can virtualize the bloated OS on top of the high performance OS that has provided this ability for years?
90% of those infected will wonder how they got "hacked" and probably the same percentage won't change their behavior or implement any protective process. Next time they'll pay or loose data and still be just as clueless.
Is 20/20 but, they've already let the cat out of the bag.
"We don't need more jagoffs from the Bay Area"
Without them you'd be in the same condition as Chicago.
Stupid is as stupid does.
"Three city council staffers have been sharing a single clunky personal laptop brought in after cyber extortionists"
And no one sees this as an issue? Only in government could people exceed to this level of incompetence and still know they have jobs.
I would imagine that they will be "enticing" or migrating all desktop users to their cloud with the goal of eventually eliminating air-gapped desktop functionality and executable / product delivery. Then, once again they'll have free reign to rape and pillage. Service fees for everything, storage, CPU access time, and various "value added services" (like anything more than notebook).
One would think that their user base would wake up after all the bloated, invasive, insecure and underperforming product they've been using or "upgraded" to, but possibly they're just used to it.
Truly Evil Corp
"Communists also do not believe in God"
And neither do a good proportion of intelligent, educated people in all other economic systems.
The only difference is politicians who seem to always acknowledge existence of a deity to ingratiate themselves to masses. It's incredible how for we've be able to progress with the acknowledgment and acceptance of such prevalent ignorance.
Wrong. If they work, they're felons. If they entered without permission, they're felons. If they let their visa expire and did nothing about it, felons.
Even if they're just trying to survive.